Redstate

to corroborate those numbers?

non-activist, solid legal minds to the court.  How does this differ specifically from pro-life, pro-family judges?

I'm not even sure what a pro-family justice would be.  If you side with invariably side with corporations against workers, is that pro-family?  If you generally side with corporations against community health, is that pro-family?  If you side with HMO's against the insured, is that pro-family?

I'm just curious.  Or is being pro-family only about banning gay marriage?  I always get confused by these labels.

Note:  I post around the various Internet sites quite a bit and I'm not known anywhere for being snarky (although I am a moderate Democrat).  I'm sincerely curious about terms like pro-family and family values.  What do they really mean to those who label themselves as such.  It's intellectual curiosity and I hope that I can understand all sides of the issues better.

Activism in favor of a conservative position is no better than activism in favor of a liberal position.  Politics should be left to the legislatures.

He said he'd point constructionists, not activists.

That the judge views the family as the basic building block of society.  This means that whatever power the states and federal government have, derives from the power given to families; not the other way around.  Policy implications in today's society relative to the Supreme Court do not mean much because of the political climate of the day; but here is what pro-family really means (outside of politics):

1.  The right of a child to have a mother and a father who love that child and provide a solid family for the child to live in.
   
2.  The right of a man and a woman to takes whatever actions -- that do not hurt others and are needed -- to raise and educate their children so that the child may grow up to be a happy, healthy adult.

That is it.  Pretty simple.  Now, this is how it is applied to the modern political situation:

1.  The right of the parents to home-school their child or send their child to private school if that is what is needed for their child to get a good education.
   
2.  The right to actually parent their children, this includes reasonable family leave and other rights of workers relating to hours of work (with exceptions for high-level executives, military, etc).
   
3.  The right to financially support that child.  This includes the right to work at a job that pays the bills.
   
4.  The right of a man and a woman to not be discouraged from marriage or hurt for trying to provide a healthy home envivornment.  This includes the right to fair taxes; the right of welfare and other systems that do not discrimate against families, etc.
   
5.  The right to have their marriage contract upheld.  This includes the right of protection from divorce and other actions that break the contract that married people agree to.  Libral divorce laws are just one example of violating the rights of married people.
   
6.  The right of parents to have government reasonable aid them in their efforts.  This includes reasonable police protection, and protection (such as Megan's law) from child molestors.
   
7.  The rights of children to live in a society that values them, and their right to be loved by both a mother and a father.  Children who grow up with homosexual parents have additional troubles.  It is not fair to children have them raised by same-sex couples when normal couples have large waiting lists.
   
8.  The right to have children for people who are able to afford, carefor, and love them.  Government activities which allow for abortion or birthcontroll without full concent by both parties in the marriage are anti-family.  People have the right to have children; and forced steralizations are wrong.
   
9.  The right ensure the emotional, physical, spirital health of their child, --including the right to know about any problems associated with their child.  This includes the right to be involved in any abortion decisions, pill perscriptions, etc.

that is just a short list.

the kind of power you want to hand your government all in the name of defining marriage?  Sure, this week it's all about banning gay marriage.  But what about next week when someone wants to define marriage as a union between a white man and a white woman, or the supreme court decides that only Christians can marry Christians, and so on.

Abortion is an issue for women and their doctors.  Marriage is about two people and whoever they feel has the authority to validate their union.  The supreme court should stay in the business of choosing Presidents.

me and it probably doesn't worry you either, truth be known.

It was informative to read the details behind the "pro-family" label. By and large, I concur with most of those items, however, a constitutionally conservative justice is not going to to be much help on many of these.  For instance, reasonable family leave is probably no where near an originalists constitutional right and, depending upon legislative details, might not pass muster with a Thomas or Scalia.  If such issues are left to entirely to the states -- many would have no such thing.  Frankly, I'd be surprised if most Republican legislatures would even consider such acts.  Business tends to frown on this sort of interference.

Let me say this -- I am very sympathetic to states rights arguments.  In my mind, from a strict constitutional perspective, I believe that a long list of issues should be fought out in the state legislatures.  

My heart, however, tells me that the detrimental impact on real human beings of such a patchwork of variously articulated rights and restrictions upon those basic human behaviors that comprise our daily lives is hard to imagine.

It's an emotional conundrum for those in all places in the political spectrum.  Except for a diehard minority of intellectual and constitutional purists, most of us probably want some "activism" in the judiciary.  We just disagree on how we want them to act.

Again, thank you.

I think you and I have different opinions about activism.

I view the following judges as non-activist:  Scalia, Breyer, Kennedy

I view the following judges as more activist:  Thomas, Rehnquist.

A non-activist is one who gives the states and the feds more room in their actions.  Thomas is big-time activist.  He reads the Consitution and acts based on what he thinks it says.

Scalia, on the other hand, gives states and feds much more leway to interpret the law themselves.  So does Breyer (moreso than Scalia).

Strict v liberal constructionism is different from activist/nonactivist and that is different from conservative/liberal.

A strict constructionist believes that the fed can only do what the constitution says it can do.  I liberal constructionist sees more leway.

Thus, a nonactivist/strict constructionst may see something the feds do as beyond what the constitution allows, but still may allow it to continue if it has been accepted for a number of years.  For example, Kennedy allowed abortion to continue as a right--even though he didn't see it as a right.  That is a perfect example of a nonactivist/strict construtionist.

Thomas, as the activist strict constructionist sees much as beyond the scope of the constitution, and acivily votes against it--even if it would greatly change society.

This is why you see Scalia and Thomas differ on things sometimes.  Scalia would allow something not in the constitution if it has been done for a long time (he thinks it would be activist to change it).  Thomas would strike it down, as not allowed.

The situation of the liberal constructionist/activist is the most dangerious because they see new rights into the constitution and act to implement them.  While, a nonactivisit liberal constructionist would see those new rights, but only work slowly to change precident at the fringes.

Seems like everyone has his own opinion on this.

I've always undersood a constructionist to be someone who refrains from injecting his own views or the prevailing opinions of the time into the laws and texts at issue.  He understands the Constitution to be an enduring one.

An activist, though, is someone interprets broadly, liberally, and in any way necessary to get the outcome he wants to get.  Frequently, this means expanding the power of the court beyond its bare Constitutional powers, but always it means a belief in a Living Constitution.

If President Bush appoints judges who will invent ways to give the feds the power to ban abortion, or otherwise takes away from the states the power to regulate it (or not), then that's activism just as bad as that of the left.

I do not think, and never did, that the government is the one who determines what marriages are valid and not.  I openly make it clear that my belief is that all one gets from going to a court house for the government marriage paperwork is a piece of paper that changes his tax status.

Marriage is a religious issue, and should not be delt with by the federal government.  However, I do want to say that my constitutional right to free speech and democratic representation should allow me to not hire these perverts, not give them healthcare, not allow them in my house, pass laws in my homeowners association baring people from selling their house to them, and to pass laws in my state outlawing that perverse behavior.  There is no constitutional right for someone to sodomize another.

Let two people same-sex perverts 'get married' if their own religion lets them; but let me throw them in jail.  That is fair and reasonable and worked for 200 years.  There is no constitutional right to spread around aids.

Taxes, however, are not a religious issue (in the same way).  Government rightly limits the tax-status of people based on whatever factors government wants to.  I personally, think same-sex couples should not get 'marrage' tax status, because they can't have children.

When you pay someone to kill your unborn child you exchange money.  This should be covered by the commerce claws, and the feds should be able to outlaw abortion.  Likewise, so should the states.  They should be able to regulate it, just like they regulate other financial transactions.

Further, states should be allowed to outlaw killing.

abortion should be free as well as legal.

That doctors who provide abortions should be required to pay for it themselves.  And that the doctors should also have to pay the cost of the abortion for others--namely-- the reduced demand for certain products and weakening of social security.

Finally, doctors will start paying about $1-3 million that each abortion costs our economy!

You may not like their beliefs or whatever, but as long do not have to share them why do you care?

Since you didn't include a link, I will

"If one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retired, would you want the new Supreme Court justice to be someone who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- the decision that legalized abortion -- or vote to uphold it?"

6/24-26/05

Vote To Overturn 29%

Vote To Uphold 65%

Unsure   6%

Link

There are many polls on that page.  A majority of Americans are pro-choice, believe abortion should be legal a majority of times, should be the choice of the doctor and mother (as opposed to the government) and that the Democratic party shares their views on abortion more closely.

It may be your honestly held belief that Roe should be overturned and that may be the correct position.  But thats not the public's.

But if he takes the illegal drugs, he still goes to jail.

You can say whatever you want about sodomy; but I have a constitutional right to vote for people who will enfore the law passed by the people in my state to throw them in jail.

Our founding fathers never listed sodomy as a right, and it is no constitutional right.  Just like prostitution is illegal and fornication is illegal in my state, so is sodomy.

I want a judge that will let my state decide if we want to throw those people in jail or not.

You know, when aids is killing million of people, a person must be very cold-hearted to not fight the very sodomy that passes aids along.

The founding fathers never wanted us to be governed by polls.  We vote for candidates.  Most people don't even know what Roe is or means.

What matters is that for the people who actually got off their buts and voted --- the decisive margin in Bush's victory is from his promise to appoint strict constructionists.  This means people who don't see rights in the Constitution beyond what is written there (and thus no right to abortion).

This is what he ran on; he was elected.  Kerry ran on the very point of protecting Roe.  Kerry said that if Bush was elected Roe could be overturned.

People knew what was at stake, and all things people equal voted for who they wanted.

Why are there so many liberals here?  Is this bluestate.org?

You know, when aids is killing million of people, a person must be very cold-hearted to not fight the very sodomy that passes aids along.

I don't know where you live, but in the city closest to where I live, which just to give you a hint, is one of the cities where a Live8 concert was held, heterosexual sex surpassed homosexual sex as the number one AIDS cause.  AIDS is not a "gay" disease, it's a "stupid" disease, in that people who generally get AIDS are being "stupid" by not protecting themselves.

How cold hearted does a person have to let those damn homosexuals have consensual sex in the privacy of their own home?  

You've got to be a Moby.

I listed fornication also as something that is illegal in my state (Virginia) and lumped that with sodomy of things that my state has banned for 200 years without it being a problem and should be allowed to continue to ban.

Look, STDs are a problem in this country.  It is silly that we can't take reasonable steps to fight that problem.  

"protection" is the biggest lie out there.  People get STDs if they use a condom or if they use the pill, or whatever.  Some condoms make it less likely to get the STD, but the risk is still very significantlly there.

Let's use common sense.  If a condom makes it only 80% likely that someone gets pregnant; do you not think that the smaller STD can get through part of the time?

I'm saying that each state should have a right to determine if it wants to outlaw these things or not.  Not only is there no consitutional limitation, but further, there is an importaint public good gained by limiting them --namely public health.

I have to agree with others that this takes the proverbial cake.

Yes, women do not have a constitutional "right" to an abortion.

Yes, individuals do not have the constitutional "right" to have a same-sex or polygamous union endorsed by the state.

But there are some constitutional rights out there.  Rights that the majority can't take away.

Like the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech.

And there is an Equal Protection Clause, which, IMO, does contain some inherent, unspoken rights.  For example, it certainly invalidates the disgusting racism that once pervaded our nation's system of laws.  

And it and other clauses probably invalidate other things too.  I, for one, think laws against consensual sex acts between adults (with the exception of prostitution), if not unconstitutional, come darn near close.

Why any state keeps these on the books is beyond me.

Please do not use profanity.  Also, I never said anything bad about homosexuals on this post, other than that their actions are perverse.

Perverse means that they take what is a good thing (sex) and use it wrong (for sodomy).

I never refered to them as d... homosexuals; and don't think that is appropriate.  They are people and deserve to be treated with respect.

I happen to be concerned that they are getting STDs and have other concerns about their lifestyle, that does not mean that I do not respect them and wish the best for them.

no.  It is not time for Bush to present a pro-life judiciary.  It is time for Bush to present a formalist, legal-centered, judiciary.  Were G. W. Bush to select based upon Pro-Life or Marriage-related stances, he would be precisely guilty of selecting "Activist Judges" just as republicans have accused the 1st and 9th circuit courts of containing.

Negate the Legal Realism that inserts itself in the courts and place the duty of pro-life legislation where it belongs: On the legislature.

the right to marry and bear children is also not an enumerated right in the constitution or bill of rights.  Presumably a state could outlaw heterosexual marriage and/or procreation and a "strict constructionist" could probably rule that constitutional.  At some point, common sense has to play some bearing.  We would obviously disagree on where that line should be drawn.

"Let's use common sense.  If a condom makes it only 80% likely that someone gets pregnant; do you not think that the smaller STD can get through part of the time?"

This is one of the silliest myths I've heard consistently propogated by the anti-condom religious right.  Considering that a water molecule is made of of three lowly atoms (two of which are hydrogen) and a single ribosome in an AID virus has at least 20 atoms, what makes you think the AIDs virus is small enough to "get through"?  Try filling a condom up with water and see if any molecules leak through -- hopefully that will answer your question.

Condoms, when used effectively, are over 98% effective.  Poor use and human error can lower that to 87%.

"It's silly that we can't take reasonable steps to fight that problem."

I really can't believe that you think this success rate to be so poor, that you would advocate locking up any unmarried consenting adult who wants to have sex as a reasonable step.  Constitutionality aside, I'm not sure there are many who'd agree with you even here-- unless, as I suspect you realize, the laws are not even-handedly enforced in regards to homsexuals vs. heterosexuals.  Which is why they were struck down in the first place-- equal protection under the law is in fact in the Constitution.

And really, regardless of the constitutionality (I myself think there are limitations to equal protection), the last sentence of your original post gives the impression that since all gay people have AIDs, it's OK and even desirable to lock them up.  And when you make statements that give that impression (and pretty explicitly I think) you do all conservatives a disservice by making it easier to brand them ignorant and intolerant.

Which was why I suspected you were a Moby.

That's why the Bill of Rights contains an amendment saying that the listing of those rights should not be read to deny or disparage other rights held by the people.

I've been a cable junkie for the past few weeks, which can make me forget sometimes that the "d" word is still considered profanity.  My bad.

I do find it odd though that you feel it would be rude to curse at gays, because "they deserve to be treated with respect"-- but you see nothing wrong with the government barging into their homes and arresting them for having consexual sex behind closed doors.

but I will ask here as well.

If Roe is overturned would you be OK with GOP politicans NOT voting to ban abortion or voting to make abortion legal at the state level?

In other words do you see overturning Roe as an edn in itself or simply as a step,towards a bigger more important goal (banning abortion)?

these other rights held by the people?  

Presumably, those permitted by individual state laws.  If marriage would then be outlawed by a state, wouldn't it no longer be such a right and thus a strict constructionist would uphold the constitutionality of that law?

This is a very slippery slope is my only point.  If a state (MA for example) legislates rights for gays to have sex and/or to marry, would you uphold that as a constitutional right under this provision?

Some people just seem to hate liberty with a burning passion.

pass laws in my homeowners association baring people from selling their house to them

Who would approve who gets to buy a house and who doesn't?  You would pass a law telling me I can't sell my house to a homosexual?  And what means would then be legal for me to determine what their sexul preference is?  Can I barge into their current residence and demand proof of the heterosexual deeds?

not give them healthcare

I'm sure that's what jesus would do, right?

and to pass laws in my state outlawing that perverse behavior

Once again, how do you intend this be enforced?

Let two people same-sex perverts 'get married' if their own religion lets them; but let me throw them in jail.

No point in further discussion.

I was going to mention the same thing but you already did so.

Lots of rights are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Who gets to pick and choose which ones are implied?  

It is certainly a slippery slop.  The right to privacy may be a good imlied right but Lochner's right to contract turned out pretty bad.  

Conservative Activist = Liberal Activist in everything but policy outcome.

Doesn't much matter what flavor of solon was ruling us; the fact that they do is what is troubling.

-TS

I will be observing the selection very carefully.  The President has stated that he seeks to preserve Constructionist attitudes (related to formalist ones), and I want to see if his selections will actually reflect this attitude, or will reflect an intentional judicial activism indicative of legal realism of a conservative bent.

the poster demands homosexuals should not be allowed to have homes.  That pretty much destroys your arguement I guess.

All sad jokes aside, I call bull on all of it.  Many "facts" and numbers, no sources to back any of it up.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/25/grossman.oldlaws/

FWIW.

Federalism in action.

Sort of :)

the numbers are bunk.

It seems individuals have less rights than families in your ideal country.  The rest of us have to subordinate our rights to those of people who choose to marry and procreate.  I just don't see the need.  There's no shortage of people in the world.

also

The right to have their marriage contract upheld.  This includes the right of protection from divorce and other actions that break the contract that married people agree to.  Libral divorce laws are just one example of violating the rights of married people.

The "right" of protection from divorce?  Is that just a backhanded way of saying ban divorce?  I've never seen divorce chase down a happy couple and split them up....

You've got your signs backwards.  Rights are things you are free to do without state interference, not things the state bans to keep you from doing.  Strange use of language.

The right to have children for people who are able to afford, carefor, and love them.  Government activities which allow for abortion or birthcontroll without full concent by both parties in the marriage are anti-family.  People have the right to have children; and forced steralizations are wrong.

Where are there forced sterilizations in the USA?  And where in the US does the state limit your right to have children (other than a handful of cases where deadbeats keep having kids and dumping them on the state to feed/cloth)?

those assumptions are whacked.

There is no shortage of people in this country.  No shortage of consumerism and no shortage of people paying into Social Security.  The real problem with the ratio of payers to collectors in SS is that people used to die off by 70 leaving very few sucking money out.  Now people regularly make 85-90 (assuming they reach 65 in the first place to start drawing.)

The police entered the house because of a call for a domestic issue.  If there is a threat that two roomates may be fighting and their lives at-risk, it should be ok for the police to enter.

When there, the police saw the illegal activity.

If someone is driving above the speedlimit and a police officer gives that person a ticket, it is not wrong.  Why is it wrong to inforce the anti-sodomy laws?  What says, for example, that prostitution is not a consitutional right, but sodomy is?

The Bunk continues below, and in most of this posters comments throughout the site.

This poster is a genius at arbitrary fabrication of capricious facts and numbers.

I wasn't even sure I wanted to dignify his comment with a response.  

If someone was engaging in sodomy in the middle of a public highway, I would be 100% in favor of locking them up.  I'm not sure how your speeding ticket analogy really adds up when applied to people in the privacy of their own home.  I do know that if a police officer sees you speeding on your own private property, he is not allowed to write you a speeding ticket.

Prostitution is commerce-- legal tender is exchanging hands, and the second that happens the government gains the power to set up laws regulating it in whatever way elected state officials decide.  While I personally believe in legalizing and regulating prostitution, the Illinois government is still within its bounds by choosing to make it illegal-- homosexual prostitution included.

sounds like the billion dollar question. If it goes to the States, given the immense popularity of Roe cited upthread, it seems like most states would uphold at least a limited right to abortion. Not only that, but it would likely be political suicide for all but a few to run on anti-abortion platforms. The "I'm not running for SCOTUS" line would be off the table. The chips would be down. It'd be wild.

Is based on the Massachusetts Constitution, not the Federal one.  The Civil Rights afforded in that constitution is more broad.  (Generally, this is a good thing but IMO it had unfortunate side effects in the case of gay marriage).  It had nothing to do with federal rights.

Madison wrote about what would become the 9th Amendment during the debates regarding the BoR.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment].

The 9th Amendment does not simply cede the rights not afforded to the federal government or protected by rights to the state.  This is accomplished by the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Instead, the 9th Amendment is intended to protect those rights that exist in nature, but not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

HIV does not have it's own ribosomes, it uses ours.  And a ribosome is WAY bigger than 20 atoms.  A single ribonucleotide is bigger than 20 atoms, maybe that is what you meant.

The rest of it I'm with you on though.

But this probably crosses the line, friend:

There is no constitutional right to spread around aids.

Watch it, please.