Letters to the Editor
-
The highest-er court is - - the Dowd court
Apparently, decisions by the SCOTUS are law - - unless Mr. Dowd says they're not.
Keep that in mind, the next time you think you've exhausted your appeals!
-
@ Scientician
That the 2000 election was stolen is beyond reasonable doubt, and that theft was aided and abetted by the biggest Judicial activists of them all: Conservative Republican supreme court nominees.
Oh brother. Do you want to explain to us how you can reconcile your handle, to the belief that mindreading ballots is valid? Even some liberal jurists recognize how lame that is. It's why the halt got a 7-2 vote.
Past that, is there some reason the media consortium that did recounts is invalid, when finding for Bush in the most likely recount scenario? Or would you prefer to just establish the position that any court finding for Republicans is by definition judicial activism? Heh.
-
Heh
If Shooter is the Goebbels of the right, Justin Raimondo is the Ernst Röhm. I call him Dennis. That's his real name.
-
Paul Dirks
Your objecting in principle to something that was decided in a particular. The NJ court ruled as it did becuase the state's constitution had a rather broad equal-protection clause. It wasn't the court imposing their preference on a situation and it was unrelated to the nature of gayness, they simply read the law and the Constitution and insisted that they be taken at face value. This is quite unrelated to whether anyone thinks that's a good idea or not. The political process (Ratifying the NJ Constitution) had already spoken on the matter.
Admittedly I have no particular knowledge of the NJ decision and of the "same sex marriage" decisions it may not be the best example activism and if your characterization of it is correct- then it isn't at all. But I think there exist better examples of the misuse of the term "judicial activism" on the part of the right than the "same sex marriage" issue- which abounds with text book activism.
-
Heh
The Good German is on. Never seen it. I think I'll watch it.
Think I'm kidding about Raimondo and the SA?
One DC-based libertarian--who asked not to be named because he "would like to avoid getting endless 2 am calls from nuts yelling at me for not agreeing with the gold standard"--told me he thinks Rockwell is "one of the most loathsome people ever to set foot on this continent."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/hayes
-
Magisterial reasoning
My subjective view on homosexuality is not the issue. -- Chris Dowd
To the extent that it enables you to beg the question, it's precisely the issue. If, as I assert, the creation, interpretation and repeal of laws is a matter of social and intellectual evolution expressed as both a political and legal process, then an appeal to some Platonic conception of the law is simply a way of keeping that process from working its changes on what you hold dear.
As for what will or won't alienate conservatives, I'm past caring, at least as far as this issue is concerned. They can make their own case.
-
This is probably true
But I think there exist better examples of the misuse of the term "judicial activism" on the part of the right than the "same sex marriage" issue- which abounds with text book activism.
But I can't help but note with irony, that the point of the article is that people are quick to pass judgment on court decisions without bothering to educate themselves to the details.
-
Chris Dowd
He refuses to be primarily identified by how he sexually gratifies himself.
-- Chris Dowd
That's a whole lot of 'whatever'. My point in asking was one is either homosexual or they are not. With a few exceptions, I suppose. Nevermind bi-sexual or whatever. That's another issue. Point to my question was that if Raimondo objects to word descriptions he doesn't like, that doesn't change that he is simply homosexual. I wasn't asking how he 'gratifies himself' or how down on describing how he 'gratifies himself'. I also wasn't asking how he "primarily" identifies himself. I find it hard to believe that he would bother with all of that explanation about himself. That kind of on and on would seem to have the opposite effect of not making an issue out of it. I don't why he'd bother going into such obnoxious detail about his being homosexual if he thinks it should be a minimal matter
-
Re: Chris Dowd
The specific case GG referred to was the NJ Supreme Court ruling concerning civil unions. The ruling was based on the NJ constitution and the decision left it up to the state legislature to decide whether these unions should be called marriages, civil unions, or whatever. I cannot find the ruling, but in part it relied on the fact that the NJ legislature had afforded many, but not all, of the same benefits and rights that married people enjoyed. Thus, the court found that gays, (and this would also apply non-married committed couples), were denied equal protection under the law as per the guarantee under the NJ constitution. So, in this case it was not judicial activism, but merely interpretation of existing law and whether said existing law violated the constitution of NJ.
-
Don't forget Judge Jones
Another example of the same ugly pattern is the conservative treatment of Judge John E. Jones when he ruled against the school board in Dover PA. Despite his conservative bona fides and the clear legal precedents that make the pursuit of religious purposes with public funds in public schools illegal, his decision was decried as judicial activism. Worse, this chorus of 'me too' criticism (in complete disregard of the scientific and legal evidence) led some of the more unhinged on the religious right to threaten Judge Jones and his family.
-
Kitt
I don't remember the exact circumstances under which he discussed this topic but it had something to do with right wing critics consistently bringing up his personal life, and specifically his preffered sexual provlivities to impugne his character and dismiss his opinions (and their hypocrisy in keeping company with "gays" who agreed with them on certain issues - Andrew Sullivan at the time for example).
I read the man's website for a couple of years knowing nothing of him personally and I still know little of him as he rarely discusses himself personally.