Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The next federal judge may very well become the deciding vote on issues that affect your freedoms, your opportunities and your fundamental rights. Even one judge can shift the entire balance of power, as we've seen in landmark cases like Bush v Gore. What does the appointment of a federal judge mean for you and, more importantly, for the future of America?
If we place the wrong man in power, we will get judges that may attempt to re-define what the founding fathers said with a liberal bias. We get a sneak preview that Obama criticizes the Civil Rights movement, because it didn't go far enough. Obviously, Obama wants to add amendments to the constitution, and will seek judges who will enforce the most liberal interpretation of liberal amendments. I expect amendments which limit rights, increase restrictions and increase the role of government in our lives. These new amendments and liberal supreme court interpretations could mean that the school will begin to program our children with a national belief system. Censorship of the media, restrictions on expressions of faith, "educational reform", "economic justice", retributional redistributive economic policy and Marxist leanings. I think an Obama presidency will mark the end of this nation as we know it, and the courts will lean as left as our leader.
- TexasMom
October 30, 2008 7:49PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Why do you think Obama wants to add amendments to the Constitution? (Actually, it's the Republicans who have talked about adding one to enforce a federal definition of marriage on all the states, despite claiming to honor states' rights.) What amendments do you imagine he would add? Also, do you realize that's not the kind of thing a president can just decide to do, but that there's actually a long and difficult process? Congress has to pass it as a proposal with a 2/3 majority, then 38 state legislatures have to ratify it. The president is actually entirely uninvolved.
I'm concerned that you would mock issues of educational reform and economic justice with scare-quotes. I'm also concerned that you think Obama wants to restrict people's First Amendment rights. Where did you get that? Your accusations sound like conspiracy theories and rumors that you heard from people who are irrationally scared of Obama, rather than informed opinions based on actually researching his platform.
An "activist judge" isn't just a judge who makes a decision you disagree with or a decision that goes against societal or religious norms. An "activist judge" is someone who doesn't defer to what the Constitution says and means, and what established court precedent says and means, and instead imposes their views about what is best for society. Conservative judges (by that I mean, judges appointed by conservative politicians) are at least as likely, if not more so, to make activist decisions than liberals. Even more troubling, conservatives do it while calling their actions "strict interpretation."
- thoughtcounts Z October 31, 2008 11:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
They can have anything they want, amendments similar to what Obama called the failings of our constitutions. He stated that our constitution only limits what government can do to us, and doesn't state what government should be required to do for us. Hence the charges of socialism. And Biden will lead the senate. They will have enough votes.
Of course Obama wants to curtail free speech. He may even find that those "who cling to their guns and Bibles" are too closed minded for his comfort. Our children would be re-educated according to Obama's educational proposals (getting paid to join service camps). Obama kicked the media that supported McCain off his media group. Free speech is already being stifled.
strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Only the most liberal activism can interprete that life doesn't begin until, and unless it is wanted. Liberal is subjective by definition. The founding fathers were wise to only limit government. Obama wants to grow government, to raise taxes, "as a matter of principal, fairness". It is Obama that is fighting against capitalism and initiating fear and anger among the lower-income people by making them angry at those who provide jobs. I can't help but see the similarity to Marx. And yes, I read about the issues. I heard the tapes. I have listened to Obama. That is what he is saying.
- TexasMom October 31, 2008 11:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Here is the quotation from Obama about his thoughts on the Constitution, in context. It took me about five seconds to find it using Google. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xNyrzB0xI He doesn't think the Constitution is 100% perfect ... but do you?
It's true that the Constitution only limits what the government can do to us, and doesn't promise what the government should do for us. That's just a true fact about the Constitution. Pointing that out doesn't mean you want to amend the Constitution so it does promise that. But clearly, the government does have some obligations to its citizens. Maybe you think these obligations are minimal -- simply maintaining a military and offering law enforcement -- or you think these obligations could be broader -- like offering public education and a welfare system for the impoverished -- but unless you live in a fantasy world, you have to acknowledge that there are some things the government should do for its citizens, and we can have a debate on what those things should be.
Biden will not "lead" the Senate. That's what Sarah Palin wants to do, because she doesn't understand that the job of the VP in Congress is simply to break ties in the Senate. If you believe everything Palin says, even when she blatantly contradicts what we were all taught since elementary school about the way the government works, it's probably not worth anyone's time to try to convince you otherwise.
You haven't cited any good evidence that Obama wants to stifle free speech. In particular, you distort what he said about people clinging to guns and religion. The full quote is as follows:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
It's perfectly fine to advocate against gun control legislation, to be devoutly religious, to believe the US should limit immigration levels, or to shun trade agreements. But do you deny that there are any people who are overly antagonistic in their defense of some of these viewpoints? Obama was making the (very reasonable!) point that some people turn to these issues in the same way people look for scapegoats. Their lives are difficult, so they assume it must be the fault of [people with different religions, or people with different skin tones, or people who speak different languages, or people who don't want us to own grenade launchers].
Lots of high schools already require students to do some community service before graduation. It's certainly a requirement to be in the National Honor Society. Do you really have a problem with that? Obama and Biden don't propose a mandate to perform community service, just benefits for those who do. What's so bad about that?
The words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" actually DO NOT appear in the Bill of Rights. It turns out there are lots of other things said in the Bill of Rights and in the Constitution as a whole. You might want to read it sometime. It actually doesn't take a stance on whether life begins at conception, so there is no "liberal" or "conservative" interpretation of the Constitution that would lead anyone to one conclusion or another. The idea that life begins at conception is coming from Christian theology, and the fact that you think conservative judges are needed to protect that is just further proof that conservatives are just as activist, if not more so, than liberals.
- thoughtcounts Z November 1, 2008 9:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
According to Wikipedia, "...As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber..."
If Christians are activists, it is out of self-defense. I once had someone tell me that if I raised my children to believe in Jesus Christ- the Way, the Truth and the Life- then society had an obligation to teach them that there are lots of ways at school. I was bewildered. I said that I respect others' right to choose, but I have the right to believe that Jesus alone is the way to eternal life. She stated that my very belief that I was right and others were wrong was not tolerable. I must not only respect their beliefs, but believe that their beliefs are as truthful as my own. That is not what the founding fathers envisioned. The separation of church and state was designed to protect church FROM state. It was written to a Baptist minister by Thomas Jefferson, assuring him that the government will never interfere with church. Now, churches can loose tax-exempt status by preaching the truth, schools do all they can to teach atheism, and you want us to send our kids to Obama's re-education camps.
I cling to my God because I know Him- not because I am frail, scared, prejudiced, or otherwise weaker than the all-wise Obama. EVERY Christian clings to Christ. We belong to Him, He owns us. Obama appears to not understand this. Why is it a surprise that we don't think he is Christian?
Forgive me, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " are in the United States Declaration of Independence. Are you implying that these rights are therefore, unconstitutional? Heaven help us!
- TexasMom November 1, 2008 10:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You cling to your god because in his infinite flexibility, you can use him to justify whatever notions suit you best. The best use of religion ever found is in the justification of bigotry.
Now, if you like being "owned" as you put it, more power to you, but I have to think that by choosing to put your allegiance in God, you have pretty much given away any right to try and influence political thinking in this country. Indeed, the case has been made many times that a Christian gives up any right to even think.
Why would a Christian have any need for activism? You know that what you believe only affects you. Or is it your intent that everyone should be as "owned" as you are? The separation of church and state was designed as much to protect me from you as anything else.
Newsflash, we straightened out that whole slavery thing some time ago. Just where do you find the nerve to quote the Constitution in the midst of that mess of illogic?
By the way, since you clearly missed your shot at learning atheism in school, I'd happily teach you. Don't be too quick to reject my offer, because you know, "The Truth will set you free".
- Lazareus January 16, 2009 3:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Conservative judges (by that I mean, judges appointed by conservative politicians) are at least as likely, if not more so, to make activist decisions than liberals. Even more troubling, conservatives do it while calling their actions "strict interpretation."
A conservative would say the same thing about the Earl Warren & Warren Burger era's. The facts are both ideologies have their loons. You could apply your rational to the current SCOTUS with the (so called) liberal judges in the Kelo Decision.
In reality, how does a judge (they're human) keep their beliefs and ideologies out of the decision making process? I don't know that they can. Sure, some judges go off half cocked (from both ideologies) and pulls a decision out of that void space between their ears. But other decisions could go either way.
I agree judges should adhere to the Constitution as it was when it was written and ratified. If something needs changing then change the thing, either through Congress or via a Constitutional Convention.
- John Q Citizen February 21, 2009 10:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I believe my initial version of that sentence just read, "at least as likely," and I added "if not more so" to reflect the fact that I think the judges currently most "activist" on the court are conservative ones. You're absolutely right to bring up historical examples where it was the other way. My point was really that derisively referring to activist liberal judges is conflating two different political/jurisprudential spectra.
(Lately, conservative judges have been labeling their conservative rulings as "strict interpretation" even though sometimes they believe states' rights take the highest priority and sometimes they conveniently forget about the issue, etc. etc. I think these sorts of semantic games are pretty dangerous because they spark ultimately-irrelevant political controversies like this one. They confuse the public, as well as many legislators, convincing them that having conservative politics is the same as believing in a textual interpretation of the Constitution.)
I hope that clears up what I meant. I haven't been to this site in a while, but came back because I was notified of your reply... and I'm really happy to see such a thoughtful, reasoned post. How *can* any human keep all of their deeply held beliefs out of something as important as a Supreme Court ruling? It's a lot to ask of anyone, and I suppose that's why the Senate ought to be very careful who they confirm.
- thoughtcounts Z March 1, 2009 12:24PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I for one believe in states rights. That is how our government was set up. However, the states cannot usurp our individual liberties as has been done on occasions in the past. On the other hand, the US Congress doesn’t get a free hand to regulate us to no end under the Commerce Clause either. It is really a fine line.
I believe the system is its own problem. To me, its like a chess match. Each side on any given issue just sits and bides there time until an instance arises that supports their beliefs. For example the Heller Decision (DC gun ban). It took 32 years to get the right case (if you support the outcome) with all the arguments to get it struck down. The same could be said about others. It would seem to me that when there is a case that involves the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights there is a copious amount of info out there of the original arguments (likes & dislikes) to come to a conclusion what the meaning/definition is at the time it was ratified. In the end, the challenge is how does the Constitution apply to any give scenario before the court. But when a decision such as Kelo or the McCain/Feingold Bill is upheld, I’m astonished.
I don’t see either Kelo or Heller decisions as a “liberal vs. conservative” but I do see the Kelo decision as judicial activism because it allows the government to seize personal property and turn it over to private developers. It might go down a little easier “if” the “state” would “justly” compensate the people who’s property is being seized, but they don’t (and it wouldn’t make it any more legal). Regarding judicial activism I’m sure that if each side were polled their list would be about the same size.
Regarding the current SCOTUS, IMO, it’s a divided court with a slight favor to the right side as it has been the past several years but it wasn’t always that way. All ideology groups need to be mindful when one side is running the whole show because you may get more than you bargained for. IIRC, of the nine justices, all but two came from Republican presidents (Ginsburg & Breyer) so that’s not a crap shoot either, not to mention that ones ideologies may change with time.
Nice chat and I appreciate the kind words. I’m relatively new here but I see that its real easy to “step into something” on these type of sites. Also, I’ve always tried to remember that when I read what others write on blogs/forums that unless its glaringly obvious (and sometimes it is) I try to remove any prejudices I may have of the topic and stay open minded.
Cheers!
- John Q Citizen March 1, 2009 6:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
How Do Federal Judges Shape America's Future?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This isn't about bias
Clearly a "biased" Supreme Court sounds really bad, but it's also clear that we can construct sentences in which we want a court that's "biased" in a particular direction. (Is it wrong to be biased in favor of goodness, or biased against badness?) Nobody wants a court that's "anti-family," or a court that's "anti-individuals." Both Focus on the Family and Lambda Legal are arguing that the courts make a big difference as far as the rights of families and individuals are concerned. Both argue that your vote matters in determining what the courts will do. Focus on the Family worries about bias against the "pro-family" agenda, meaning the family they define to be the only acceptable one. Surely they are biased against anyone who defines family differently. Lambda Legal, on the other hand, worries about anti-LGBT bias. Of course they can be said to be biased against people who think non-mainstream sexuality is sinful and evil. The question is clearly not about whether bias does exist on the Supreme Court, or even whether it should. It's about which biases (or perhaps "perspectives") are good for judges to have, and which are inappropriate.
- thoughtcounts Z
October 29, 2008 10:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Judges should be neutral
The constitution should be adhered to as strictly as possible according to a strict reading of what is written, not interpreted according to the whims and beliefs of the judges. If something needs to be changed it should be done so only through amendments. If we are going to use broad interpretation we might just as well throw the whole thing out because what good is it?
- tbcass
December 5, 2008 8:59AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How Do Federal Judges Shape America's Future.
Their lack of common sense, compassion empathy, reasoning, and wisdom
has for decades given way to injustice, as shown in the U.S. today.
For example: if a human did a horrible crime on another living being,I
would have to look at their background, and most likely incarcerate
them in an institution where they could not harm any living being again
but could work, learn, etc. but just live inside, and maybe one day
they could be rehabilitated away from the horrors they went thru as a
child. Precious, loving kind animals have been treated so unfairly it
just breaks my heart to know how humans can be so cruel, when they
truly are our very best friends (all animals).God love all animals and
good humble people.
- darling sapphire
January 1, 2010 2:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.