Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

[davetlv]

And, did you know scientists consider homosexuality a way to control populations from nature? Maybe we're already too many on this planet...

Sorry Dave, that's not a really nice thing to say eh? This would qualify gay people as modifications created by nature to control a population (humans). But I did see it somewhere on TV, long time ago...

We're definetly too many on this planet while our collective governments do squat in ensuring that every man woman and child on this planet has three decent meals a day, a roof over their heads, suitable employment and education. . . .but i digress!

Maybe homosexuality is mother natures way of population control; haven't really thought of it that way. If it is. . . thank you mother nature

[cosmo]

Toasty, are you serious? You know of nothing that radical judges have tried, or have accomplished in regards to imposing their beliefs on the masses? Didn't the Supreme Court impose and create law on abortion, and 'womens rights'? Affirmative Action?

And now for some humor:

[toasty]

Toasty, are you serious? You know of nothing that radical judges have tried, or have accomplished in regards to imposing their beliefs on the masses? Didn't the Supreme Court impose and create law on abortion, and 'womens rights'? Affirmative Action?

I'm just trying to get a handle on what you consider "judicial tyranny." Does any decision which which you disagree fall into that category, for example?

Further, assuming arguendo that judges do allow their personal feelings and beliefs to color their decisions, how is that different from allowing other branches of government to do the same? Bush absolutely lets his personal feelings and morals affect the way that he governs and the agenda that he pushes. Legislators on both sides of the aisle do the same. This should not be news to anyone. Why is that acceptable?

I suspect your response is that it is b/c they are elected. Judges are either elected/retained by the people, or they are appointed and confirmed by those who are elected by the people. They are, at a minimum, a byproduct of the democratic process, and the suggestion that there is just a random bunch of people picking off laws that they don't like at their whim is preposterous. If you don't like the judges, you need to look at the people you are electing that are appointing them.

Llamas humping

[cosmo]

Judges are either elected/retained by the people, or they are appointed and confirmed by those who are elected by the people. Bush absolutely lets his personal feelings and morals affect the way that he governs and the agenda that he pushes. Legislators on both sides of the aisle do the same. This should not be news to anyone. Why is that acceptable?

Bush and other politicians are elected by the people, of course. Judges are nominated by the sitting president, and are approved by a committee. Judges are supposed to uphold the law though, not create policy and write new law, such as the policies mentioned earlier.

Personally, I do not think it's right to have unelected judges legislating from the bench. That can have disasterous consequences.

[cosmo]

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands.. may justly be pronounced the very same definition of tyranny."

James Madison, The Federalist Papers



"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal... knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, it's members would become despots."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Jarvis 1820

[toasty]

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands.. may justly be pronounced the very same definition of tyranny."

James Madison, The Federalist Papers

No shit. As I look forward to four years of a republican-held presidency, a republican-controlled congress, and the possibility of 3 or maybe even 4 Supreme Court justices being filled by fresh republicans, Mr. Madison's observation seems spot on -- particularly since the folks in control of the party right now are the hard liners as opposed the moderate conservatives with whom I used to align myself.

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal... knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, it's members would become despots."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Jarvis 1820

Can we agree on one thing? Someone has to serve as the arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation, right? It wouldn't make a lot of sense to have the same folks that are drafting and signing laws also declaring that there is no problem with them, right?

Don't forget that the other branches of government, and ultimately the people, have a check on the judicial branch. If the Court rules something unconstitutional and the masses disagree, a constitutional amendment can bring the text of the constitution in line with the will of the people.

[cosmo]

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

No shit. As I look forward to four years of a republican-held presidency, a republican-controlled congress, and the possibility of 3 or maybe even 4 Supreme Court justices being filled by fresh republicans, Mr. Madison's observation seems spot on -- particularly since the folks in control of the party right now are the hard liners as opposed the moderate conservatives with whom I used to align myself.

Which judges do you consider to be hardliners? And why? Scalia and Thomas are obstructionists who uphold the law without imposing their own personal views while making decisions.

Can we agree on one thing? Someone has to serve as the arbiter of the constitutionality of legislation, right? It wouldn't make a lot of sense to have the same folks that are drafting and signing laws also declaring that there is no problem with them, right?

Don't forget that the other branches of government, and ultimately the people, have a check on the judicial branch. If the Court rules something unconstitutional and the masses disagree, a constitutional amendment can bring the text of the constitution in line with the will of the people.

Do you know how hard it is to pass an amendment? It takes a several years. Judges passed roe v wade and it still hasn't been overturned by the will of the people.

[toasty]

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

Which judges do you consider to be hardliners? And why? Scalia and Thomas are obstructionists who uphold the law without imposing their own personal views while making decisions.

I'm speaking more of hardliners in the other branches of government, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Delay, and Bush. Amongst the judges, though, I would consider Rehnquist, Thomas & Scalia to be reliably conservative, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think they fall into the "hardliner" category (although I'd be hard-pressed to think of Scalia as anything but). I do find it ironic that you would refer to Scalia and Thomas as "obstructionists" -- if it was a Fruedian slip, it was a great one. If you find value in someone being obstructionist, it's pretty clear to me why we are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on this point.

Do you know how hard it is to pass an amendment? It takes a several years. Judges passed roe v wade and it still hasn't been overturned by the will of the people.

Roe v Wade hasn't been overturned by the will of YOUR people. The will of THE people, i.e., the majority view of the public, still leans slightly in favor of upholding roe v wade as far as I'm aware. Constitutional amendments are hard to pass by design, and I'm OK with that. If we as a country feel so passionately about something that we're willing to write it into the constitution itself, we all ought to be pretty damn sure about it.

[cosmo]

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

I'm speaking more of hardliners in the other branches of government, including Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Delay, and Bush. Amongst the judges, though, I would consider Rehnquist, Thomas & Scalia to be reliably conservative, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think they fall into the "hardliner" category (although I'd be hard-pressed to think of Scalia as anything but). I do find it ironic that you would refer to Scalia and Thomas as "obstructionists" -- if it was a Fruedian slip, it was a great one. If you find value in someone being obstructionist, it's pretty clear to me why we are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on this point.

Ooops, They're constructionists, sorry for the mistake. :wink:

Roe v Wade hasn't been overturned by the will of YOUR people. The will of THE people, i.e., the majority view of the public, still leans slightly in favor of upholding roe v wade as far as I'm aware. Constitutional amendments are hard to pass by design, and I'm OK with that. If we as a country feel so passionately about something that we're willing to write it into the constitution itself, we all ought to be pretty damn sure about it.

Will of my people? No, the will of THE people. Being that the majority of the people here in America are against abortion. That's why the advocates for abortion have to spice up the 'vocabulary' regarding the topic because it's a hard topic to talk about.

For example. Instead of killing an unborn child, it's called the right to choose. The right to choose? I love the cliche's that are used for this subject.

[toasty]

Re: Gay Marriage Legal now in Canada

Will of my people? No, the will of THE people. Being that the majority of the people here in America are against abortion.

Whether people are against abortion is a different question than whether they are pro-life or pro-choice. A great number of people are personally against abortion and would not do it themselves, but nevertheless support Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.

A recent AP poll showed 59% of people wanted to see appointees to the USSC that would uphold Roe v. Wade:

Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Nov. 19-21, 2004. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ? 3.

"As you may know, President Bush may have the opportunity to appoint several new justices to the U.S. Supreme Court during his second term. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling called Roe v. Wade made abortion in the first three months of pregnancy legal. Do you think President Bush should nominate Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Roe v. Wade decision, or nominate justices who would overturn the Roe v. Wade decision?"

Uphold 59%
Overturn 31%
Unsure 10%

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

[cosmo]

AP Poll misleads respondents:

http://ifrl.org/IFRLDailyNews/041203/5/

Somehow I knew you would track down that poll.

[cosmo]

It's all about how you load the poll question. I wonder what the net result would be if the question was:


Are you in favor of doctors making an incision inside a 6-9 month old baby's head, sucking the brains out, collapsing the skull, and pulling the dead baby out of the mothers womb?

Yes
No

[toasty]

And, of course, I knew you would find one of the numerous "news stories" from pro-life sites attempting to discredit the poll results.

It's all about how you load the poll question.

No question poll results can be skewed by the way a question is asked. The article you cited, however, is critical of the poll because the question does not explain the holding of Roe v Wade to the writer's satisfaction, not because it doesn't describe the abortion process in grisly detail. The article (and the others like it) do not understand the ruling in Roe v. Wade, asserting that it gives women carte blanche to have an abortion whenever the mood should so strike them.

When ruling on a statute, a court has two choices: it can uphold it, or it can strike it down. Either way, the entire package has to stay or go. A court cannot invalidate part of a statute and leave the rest, nor can it change the language of the statute to suit its taste. In this respect, the power of judicial review is quite limited.

In the context of Roe v Wade, there existed statutes at the time that barred abortion outright. To the extent that those statutes are inconsistent with the Court's holding that a woman has an absolute right to have an abortion in the first three months, they were struck down in their entirety, including any provisions that addressed abortions after that time. The court left it up to the states to determine what limits they wanted to place on abortion in the second and third trimester, and provided guidance as to what types of limits would be acceptable and when. States wanting to regulate abortion post-Roe then had the option of reenacting an abortion statute that was consistent with the Court's ruling. Most have done just that.

[cosmo]

That was the first result that was found when I did a search, but was cited in several news outlets that it was indeed misleading.

So yes, just about every outfit that wants a certain result loads their poll a specific way in order to acheive their goal.

The poll is indeed flawed because it states that it is during the first three months, when it is actually legalized during all 9 months of gestation, was my point.

[toasty]

The poll is indeed flawed because it states that it is during the first three months, when it is actually legalized during all 9 months of gestation, was my point.

To say that it legalized it during all 9 months, while technically correct at the time the decision was handed down, is not accurate from a real world standpoint and is misleading -- many states have gone ahead and put limitations upon abortion, including outlawing it outright during the third trimester (with caveats), as specifically authorized by the Court in Roe v Wade. The poll question is an accurate reflection of the law as it stands right now, meshing the Roe decision and the various statutes that have been promulgated in its wake.

That was my point.

I defy you to find many people on the street that can actually explain to you in any detail whatsoever what Roe v. Wade says. In fact, if you ask most people, they will probably tell you that Roe v Wade authorizes abortion, and are not aware that it gives states safe harbors for restrictions upon the practice that they can legally enact.

Regardless, do you really think that most people would pay attention to or even grasp that type of hair-splitting legal minutiae in a poll question? If you were to phrase the question as you did above, I'm sure you would get a different response; if you were to change the question from the AP poll to indicate that it reflected not just the Roe decision, but also other statutes since that decision, I'm not sure that people would change their answer. The heart of the poll question is whether people think the government ought to tell someone they cannot have an abortion within the first three months -- the source of that right is probably irrelevant.