Legislating from the Bench

The argument I hear over and over again when it comes to civil rights related court decisions that conservatives disagree with is as follows:

"Activist Judges are legislating from the bench! They are going against the will of the majority and using their power to create laws based on their beliefs. Judges should be interpreting the law... not making it."

If you have been guilty of such an argument... let me ask you this: Do you know of a certain political philosophy that the U.S. has adopted known as "systems of checks and balances"?
If not, let me explain-- this system says that if congress passes a law that is unconstitutional then it is up to the judicial system to overturn that law.

This power has been used many times in the past-- and many laws have been overturned by our courts... Do you hate the "activist judges" that made these decisions?

Brown v. Board of Education ended the "separate but equal" justification for segregation.
Gideon v. Wainwright gave people the right to a defense attorney if they can't afford one.
Korematsu v. United States deemed the Japanese war camps unconstitutional.
Loving v. Virginia overturned a law that made interracial marriages illegal.
The following are court decisions that overturned laws that infringed on our first amendment right to free speech: Texas v. Johnson, Gitlow v. NY, Schecter Poultry Corp. v. US, US v. Butler, Yates v. US, Tinker v. Des Moines, Island Trees School District v. Pico, NY Times v. Sullivan

It can be easily argued that "activist judging" is what we owe most of the progress of our country's civil rights to. Had we not had these decisions, America would be a much less free country than it is today. The reason we need these "activist judges" is because congress is made up of a bunch of meatheads that want to pass laws to criminalize sexy dancing, marijuana flavored lollipops and butt-sex... somebody in this country has to interpret the constitution and our congressmen/women are not the people to do it. The members of congress tend to just ignore the constitution when they put forth legislation... to see evidence of this just make a quick read through the Patriot Act.

Perhaps you think that issues like abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and the 10 commandments should be decided by popular vote... I mean we are a democracy aren't we? Shouldn't the laws reflect what the majority wants? ........ do you honestly think that we can rely on common citizens to cast intelligent and well informed votes? The majority of people in the US can't even spell constitution let alone interpret it.

The reason we shouldn't allow civil rights decisions to be made by popular vote is because citizens just tend to vote against things they don't like... with no regard for constitutionality. For a historical example: if the south had voted on whether to keep slavery over 100 years ago, they probably would have voted to keep it... or if the south had been allowed to vote on whether to keep a ban on interracial marriages, they probably would have. Plain and simple... we can't rely on the majority to make responsible decisions, especially for the minority... just look at the 11 states that voted to ban gay marriage (which I've given a constitutional argument on earlier in my web log).

"Activist Judge" is just a ridiculous name given to a judge that makes a decision that you don't agree with. The funny thing is that those who throw around the phrase "activist judge" are most often the biggest hypocrites... Sean Hannity loves labeling judges that he disagrees with as "activist judges"; however, during the Terry Schaivo case he was outraged that the judges in the Florida courts wouldn't go against what the law states and give custody of Terry over to her parents. Hypocrisy? Yes.

The fact of the matter is that we need judges to make sure that laws are constitutional-- if they don't, nobody will... and if nobody does... no more sexy high school cheerleader dances.

Why exactly are we so pissed off??

Both sides, Republicans AND Democrats, have people that are pissed off about Bush's nomination of John Roberts Jr. to the Supreme Court... and their reasons for being pissed off are just really silly.

That's right people-- Conservatives are upset because Bush chose somebody that the Democrats couldn't get pissed off about and the Democrats are upset because they don't know whether or not they have any reason to be pissed off.

I personally think appointing Roberts was a really smart move by George W. Bush-- perhaps one of the first political moves he has made that hasn't drastically increased the division of our country. Yes, I personally think it sucks that a republican is getting to appoint a Supreme Court Justice-- but there is nothing I can do about it-- Republicans won the election... they get to appoint the justices. I'm just happy that Bush didn't appoint somebody ridiculously controversial like Anne Coulter. That's all we need-- more pointless filibusters.

Who would have thought that the controversy would be that there is not any controversy???

It's ridiculous-- I heard Sean Hannity talking today about how he wishes that Bush had picked somebody that everyone knew for sure was pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and pro-ten commandments on public property. From what I know about GW I'm fairly certain that he wouldn't have selected a justice that was pro-choice or pro-gay marriage (why would he?)... but it's much better for America that the left doesn't have anything concrete to be pissed about (other than the shitty campaign run by Kerry). Some Democrats just don't seem to understand that Bush is the person that gets to nominate the judge-- and no matter what they do... no matter how much they complain... Bush is not going to nominate a liberal. So why waste all this energy? I hate blind party politics.

Everyone should be happy!! -- there is nothing to be pissed off about!!

Liberals, if you want a liberal judge-- get a liberal elected president.
Conservatives, If you want a controversial judge to piss off the democrats and further divide the country-- you're an asshole.

AM Radio

The following is a fictional depiction of a typical AM talk radio segment-- inspired by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram:

Host:

Today at the Bay Colony Community College in Spanglebrook, Massachusetts, George Hornswallow a liberal, economics professor spoke to a group of liberal democrats at a young democrats meeting on campus. During his speech he described the Republican party as, and I quote, "a party of white, uber-religious sheep following a mentally retarded shephard on a path of racist destruction-- not unsimilar to the destruction caused by Nazi Germany."

This is a perfect example of liberal America's detachment from the mainstream... liberals are so blinded by their hatred of America and freedom that they will say and do anything. What nerve these democrat hate mongers have-- How can they think that it is ok to relate their fellow Americans to the most hateful and destructive regime in history? For those of you who are wondering why they do this-- it is a ploy... it is a ploy to try to get people to join their conservative hate party. I know a group of people who use similar tactics-- a group that spreads lies about American policy to get people to join their ranks.... the terrorists. Liberals don't listen to reason, they hate the system that has put their republican counterparts in power, and they cannot stand our christian morals-- the morals that our forefathers so clearly wanted to be a part of our government. Terrorists have the same exact philosophy-- they don't listen to reason, they hate our system of freedom and they hate our religion... and just like the liberals these terrorists will say and do anything to disrupt the wants and needs of mainstream America--- just look at how the liberals attempted to block the nomination of judges!

This makes me happy though-- because I know as long as these lunatic liberals keep up what they're doing-- they will never have control of the house, the senate or the presidency ever again...

And as for George Hornswallow-- I believe that we cannot have the people that are in charge of teaching our children saying obviously anti-american and questionably treasonous statements... I am urging you to write to the president of Bay Colony Community College and demand the removal of this lunatic. We have to work together to end the major problem we have with college professors in this country: radical liberalism. I think we can all agree that we need to make sure that this man never teaches another class as long as he lives.


If you think i'm exaggerating... just turn on AM radio during the day and you will hear this kind of crap repeated over and over again... it's on 9 hours a day (not to mention 24 hours a day on a certain cable television news channel). If you don't understand why the above segment is total crap leave an Anon message and I'll explain.

Pro-death v. Pro-obligation

"When does life begin?"

Pro-lifers have very strong evidence showing brain waves, heart beats, fingers, movement early in a fetuses development-- all this evidence points clearly to the existence of a life. They say that to end this life is murder.

Pro-choicers usually ignore this evidence and point to the constitution saying that fetuses aren't citizens of the United States and and aren't protected under the constitution. Or they will say that to ban abortion is to infringe on a woman's right to control her body-- the supreme court in Roe v. Wade made their ruling based on similar reasons by saying that abortion is a woman's right to privacy.

I think both sides have valid points-- some more valid than others-- but when you delve into these arguments you come across conflicting definitions... and the two sides will come to agreement when answer the questions: What is life? What constitutes a person? What constitutes murder? When should a person have legal protection? If we continue to simply place all the importance on the actions, and not the consequences, then both sides will merely talk past eachother.

My argument-- which I hope doesn't talk past anyone:

As I stated in my post "What utility does religion serve?" I hold that what is considered "right" and "wrong" is based on our laws. I stated that we use our own personal moral codes to influence the laws. I stated that I believe that we should label all things that are beneficial to a society as "right" and all things that are not beneficial to a society as "wrong." Therefore, I will argue that legal abortions are beneficial to a society-- and criminalizing abortions would not be beneficial to society.

Advantages of having legal abortions:

-fewer unwanted children
-respect for the personal plans of the mother and father
-less financial strain
-less emotional strain
-less emotional or physical abuse of unwanted children
-fewer children in foster homes
-fewer unwanted marriages
-fewer Illegal/non-clinic abortions
-less injury, disease and death of mothers
-fewer annoying little kids running around

I see very little that is disadvantagous about having legal abortions. All of the possible disadvantages of having an abortion (depression, medical complications... etc.) are all based on a choice made by the mother-- it is not as though any mothers would be forced to abort.

To avoid somebody asking the following questions or making the following statements-- I'll do it for them:
(1) "Thank goodness Adam and Eve weren't pro-choice".
Adam and Eve could have been pro-choice and simply chosen to have children.
(2) "Aren't you glad your parents didn't have an abortion?"
Yes. But I wouldn't have really cared if I had never been born... considering I never would have had the mental faculties to care.
(3) "What if Albert Einstein/Jesus/Gandhi's parents had an abortion?"
Good point-- but what if Pol Pot/Hitler/Bin Laden's parents had an abortion?

I understand the view from people who, due to their religious beliefs, think that abortion is wrong-- but I don't hold your same religious beliefs-- and who is to say that your moral code (based on religion) is more right than mine (based on beneficiality)?

oh yeah... that one guy

Does anyone else remember a guy by the name of Osama bin Laden? He's about 6'6" tall, long gray beard, leader of the group that killed thousands of Americans? Heard of him?

Why the fuck have we not caught him yet?

Why aren't people outraged that we haven't found that bastard?

Why are we devoting all this time, energy and money on Iraq (which has arguably created more terrorists than it has killed) when we haven't even captured the person in charge of the group that has killed Americans and specifically states that its purpose is to kill Americans?

Anybody who argues that the war in Iraq has helped to decrease terror from groups like Al Qaeda is an imbecile. What better way to keep extremist muslims from wanting to kill us than to blow up a country full of muslims without a valid reason? The war in Iraq has hindered the war on terror, not helped it.

If we had not gone to war in Iraq and instead had focused all the same energy, time and money on catching Al Qaeda members-- the rest of the world would still feel sorry for us instead of hating us, American and other allied soldiers would not be dying for an unjustified war, Spanish and English civilians would probably still be alive, tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be alive, we would have probably caught Osama and further dismantled Al Qaeda.