http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668110/

Don't these judges know that Congress and the Judicial branch are nothing more than figureheads put in place to legitimize the authority of King George? Do they think we live in a democracy or something? Next thing you know they'll consider the judicial branch an equal branch of government.

1/17/2007 2:18:16 PM

Damn, that is fucked up.

1/17/2007 2:45:21 PM

Quote :

"scheduled for delivery at the American Enterprise Institute"

what? i thought FOR SURE he would launch this speech at the Brookings Institution.

nice choice of venue.

1/17/2007 2:47:23 PM

Quote :

"Don't these judges know that Congress and the Judicial branch are nothing more than figureheads put in place to legitimize the authority of King George? Do they think we live in a democracy or something? Next thing you know they'll consider the judicial branch an equal branch of government. "

WtF? Did you actually get all that from the article itself or did you copy and paste from ihateamericastroops.com?.

1/17/2007 2:57:36 PM

Did you read the article?

It is pretty fucked up:

Quote :

"“We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”"

1/17/2007 2:59:39 PM

Quote :

"in making policy judgments,”"

The judiciary IS inferiour to the elected branches when it comes to making policy judgments. That's why the elected branches are elected. This is also common sense, I thought.

1/17/2007 8:46:43 PM

"Making policy decisions" is just another way of saying "judicial activism."

Which is just another way of saying "making decisions I don't agree with."

1/17/2007 8:49:50 PM

It is not. Do you know the difference between law and policy? Explain your understanding of those concepts for us please.

1/17/2007 9:54:29 PM

Policy is a plan of action. Laws implement said plan.

Blocking unconstitutional policy/laws isn't making new policy. It's enforcing old policy/laws.

Furthermore, acknowledging rights that were granted in old laws but not enforced is not making new policy.

[Edited on January 17, 2007 at 10:06 PM. Reason : Anticipating the "omg gays/abortions!"]

1/17/2007 10:04:03 PM

You failed to understand the question. As a basic matter, what is the difference between law (lawyers, courtrooms, judges) and policy?

1/17/2007 10:14:10 PM

law = judges
policy = congress

You failed to understand my response, though.

1/17/2007 10:40:23 PM

You're not picking up what I'm putting down. Maybe I can approach it a different way. What is the difference, in your opinion, between a legal decision and a policy decision?

1/17/2007 10:42:16 PM

creation v. interpretation?

wtf do you want? Or are you going to continue playing the "hahah let's ask ill-phrased, obtuse questions and then feel smart when people don't give you the answer" game?

1/17/2007 10:44:18 PM

Quote :

"Gonzales did not cite any specific activist jurists, or give examples of national security cases, in his prepared text..."

And thus another example of a unqualified Bush Administration Official talking out of his ass.

1/17/2007 10:47:11 PM

Law is when you quote the laws passed by the legislature to defend a decision. Policy is when you quote your own feelings, foreign laws, or yourself to defend a decision.

For example, to get the right to have an abortion the SCOTUS quoted a right to privacy which was not once mentioned in any laws passed by the legislature nor in the constitution. To outlaw the death penalty the SCOTUS pointed out that most other nations and many states had done so. These are examples of judicial activism.

Meanwhile, to find George Bush to be the President of the U.S. in 2000 the SCOTUS relied heavily on the various laws passed by the Florida Legislature and the various written decisions by Florida's elected officials. These are not examples of judicial activism.

1/18/2007 2:46:33 AM

and by calling it judicial activism you imply you have a better opinion than the members of the supreme court. im sure that is true. there is no way they know more about the constitution than you.

1/18/2007 10:08:43 AM

Quote :

"For example, to get the right to have an abortion the SCOTUS quoted a right to privacy which was not once mentioned in any laws passed by the legislature nor in the constitution."

Just because the words "right to privacy" don't appear in the Constitution, doesn't mean that the Constitution doesn't grant us that right. There's this thing called implying. Specifically, here's the text of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

Quote :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

I'll admit I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Justice of SCOTUS but to me

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures = right to privacy

1/18/2007 10:43:53 AM

^^ No, knowledge has nothing to do with it. This is a pure case of a differing of opinion. There are some Supreme Court Justices that agree with me on this issue, many that do not. To imply that I believe what I believe because I have less understanding or knowledge is to imply that the Justices that agree with me are equally ill informed.

The difference is quite subtle. I believe written law trumps unwritten common law. They believe the opposite. And while I believe my way is demonstrably preferrable, it is still just my opinion.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 10:47 AM. Reason : ^]

^ Right, you have a right to privacy when it comes to your "persons, houses, papers, and effects". So, if abortion is illegal, the police cannot search your house, person, papers, or effects to prove it without first getting a search warrant. It does not follow that you cannot make abortion illegal because proving the crime will be difficult (testimony of witnesses can be very convincing).

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 10:50 AM. Reason : ^]

1/18/2007 10:47:33 AM

Quote :

"^ Right, you have a right to privacy when it comes to your "persons, houses, papers, and effects". So, if abortion is illegal, the police cannot search your house, person, papers, or effects to prove it without first getting a search warrant. It does not follow that you cannot make abortion illegal because proving the crime will be difficult (testimony of witnesses can be very convincing). "

You read WAY too much into my statement. You said:

Quote :

"For example, to get the right to have an abortion the SCOTUS quoted a right to privacy which was not once mentioned in any laws passed by the legislature nor in the constitution."

All I did was reply to this statement by pointing out that even though the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention the right to privacy, it does grant us this right implicitly by way of the Fourth Amendment, so the Supreme Court was not being "activist" by citing it. I did not say all that you think I said.

1/18/2007 11:23:11 AM

My response to you was more of a correction of what I said, not a response to you, which demonstrated quite succinctly that what I first said was wrong.

1/18/2007 11:33:30 AM

im sure the justices would have agreed with you that it was "dangerous judicial activism"

1/18/2007 12:31:49 PM

Quote :

"and by calling it judicial activism you imply you have a better opinion than the members of the supreme court. im sure that is true. there is no way they know more about the constitution than you."

And now judges are infallible...

1/18/2007 1:04:23 PM