Does a state have the power

[DKW 86 7,440]

In the Texas Sodomy Law Challenge case of a few years ago, the law was specifically chosen because the broad interpretive nature of the term "sodomy." The law left the term open to any activity that was not of a pro-creative nature (my paraphrase) including oral sex, anal sex, adult toy aided sex etc. Sodomy in TX under the law could be defined as any sex act listed above, even between consenting adults, even between hetero partners, even between man and wife.    The law was rightly challenged that the enforcement was un-Constitutionally aimed at only homosexual males alone.

157269[/snapback]

So what´s the basis for that decision? Are you saying equal protection law apply to gays or that the state can´t outlaw certain private acts?

157318[/snapback]

The social Libertarian in me says it is no one's business.

If two consenting adults, defined in my book as over 18, can break out the rubber chickens, grape jelly, and the weedeater (see Ray Stevens for follow up) for all I care.

Do the states have the right to regulate anything, yes, if it is not delineated by the US Constitution. I think a general right of privacy is really needed in this country. I know it would hurt anti-terrorism some but what you rent at the video store, get on loan from the library, spend your money on, chat with on the internet, etc is really your own business.

I was infuriated at the Filegate mess during the Clinton years, (lets not redo that again please) I just see red that someone would knowingly invade another's privacy for any reason.

Equal Protection should apply to all in matters of privacy. All includes politically active Republicans that do not submit for security clearance to the White ouse during a Democratic administration as well.

[TexasTiger 13,009]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

[Auburn85 432]

the states obviously have the power to not enforce federal law because many states have become sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. California for example...... police cannot arrest a known illegal unless they break a law. How screwed up is this? They're here illegal, they're breaking the law. The police man knows this man is illegal because he's been deported before for being illegal .

[TexasTiger 13,009]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

158863[/snapback]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty. Thoughts?

[Tiger Al 0]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty.  Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

You tricked us!

If Dubya's for it, I'm for it!

That's just liberal media bias!

[TexasTiger 13,009]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty.  Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

You tricked us!

If Dubya's for it, I'm for it!

That's just liberal media bias!

159216[/snapback]

Interesting how they bitch and whine and defend these guys in the abstract, but totally avoid discussion of an actual legal issue.

[Tiger Al 0]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty.  Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

You tricked us!

If Dubya's for it, I'm for it!

That's just liberal media bias!

159216[/snapback]

Interesting how they bitch and whine and defend these guys in the abstract, but totally avoid discussion of an actual legal issue.

159270[/snapback]

Yeah, we hear about them wanting "strict constructionist" judges who yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah...But, I think it'd be very interesting to see what all legislation would be non-existent now because it goes against their "strict" limited view of federal gov't.

My understanding is that if the Constitution doesn't say it, you can't do it. Is that a correct understanding?

[TexasTiger 13,009]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty.  Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

You tricked us!

If Dubya's for it, I'm for it!

That's just liberal media bias!

159216[/snapback]

Interesting how they bitch and whine and defend these guys in the abstract, but totally avoid discussion of an actual legal issue.

159270[/snapback]

Yeah, we hear about them wanting "strict constructionist" judges who yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah...But, I think it'd be very interesting to see what all legislation would be non-existent now because it goes against their "strict" limited view of federal gov't.

My understanding is that if the Constitution doesn't say it, you can't do it. Is that a correct understanding?

159273[/snapback]

Another day without "conservative" comment on an actual substantive issue regarding judicial appointments. Compare that to how many whiny, non-substantive post are made today.

[TexasTiger 13,009]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

158863[/snapback]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty. Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

[Tiger Al 0]

TexasTiger, I think it's become very obvious that they (David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...) don't really know who these extremist judges are or what they're about. It's simply a case of blind adoration. If Bush says so...then I do, too. And they demand that the Senate behave in a Pavlovian manner, also.

[TexasTiger 13,009]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

158863[/snapback]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty. Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

159517[/snapback]

Since we've had another unsubstantiated post crying judicial extremism, here's an example of what it actually looks like and guess who the extremists are?

[Tigermike 3,053]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

158863[/snapback]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty. Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

159517[/snapback]

Since we've had another unsubstantiated post crying judicial extremism, here's an example of what it actually looks like and guess who the extremists are?

159785[/snapback]

Since those were all your post, should we conclude that you are the extremist.

[TexasTiger 13,009]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

158863[/snapback]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty. Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

159517[/snapback]

Since we've had another unsubstantiated post crying judicial extremism, here's an example of what it actually looks like and guess who the extremists are?

159785[/snapback]

Since those were all your post, should we conclude that you are the extremist.

159787[/snapback]

No, you should probably conclude that you and your "conservative" pals have no interest in addressing anything substantive and real, as opposed to bitching and whining about abstract notions that are never really defined in real terms.

[Tigermike 3,053]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

158863[/snapback]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty. Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

159517[/snapback]

Since we've had another unsubstantiated post crying judicial extremism, here's an example of what it actually looks like and guess who the extremists are?

159785[/snapback]

Since those were all your post, should we conclude that you are the extremist.

159787[/snapback]

No, you should probably conclude that you and your "conservative" pals have no interest in addressing anything substantive and real, as opposed to bitching and whining about abstract notions that are never really defined in real terms.

159804[/snapback]

I see your liberal elitist attitude is coming out again.

You say we "no interest in addressing anything substantive and real,". We tried to warn you about the Frenchman John Kerry's war record, but you wouldn't listen. We have always called Ted Kennedy a murdering rich boy whose Daddy's money bought his freedom after Chappaquiddick, but you seem to get your drawers balled up about it.

[TexasTiger 13,009]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

158863[/snapback]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty. Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

159517[/snapback]

Since we've had another unsubstantiated post crying judicial extremism, here's an example of what it actually looks like and guess who the extremists are?

159785[/snapback]

Since those were all your post, should we conclude that you are the extremist.

159787[/snapback]

No, you should probably conclude that you and your "conservative" pals have no interest in addressing anything substantive and real, as opposed to bitching and whining about abstract notions that are never really defined in real terms.

159804[/snapback]

I see your liberal elitist attitude is coming out again.

You say we "no interest in addressing anything substantive and real,". We tried to warn you about the Frenchman John Kerry's war record, but you wouldn't listen. We have always called Ted Kennedy a murdering rich boy whose Daddy's money bought his freedom after Chappaquiddick, but you seem to get your drawers balled up about it.

159838[/snapback]

When you guys have nothing substantive to say, you call John Kerry "french" and bring up Ted Kennedy. I don't know anyone who gives a sh*t about Teddy, but you guys are convinced that all libruls, i.e. anyone not fighting with you to attach their lips to W's @ss, have a poster of him on their living room walls.

[channonc 466]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

158863[/snapback]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty. Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

159517[/snapback]

Since we've had another unsubstantiated post crying judicial extremism, here's an example of what it actually looks like and guess who the extremists are?

159785[/snapback]

Since those were all your post, should we conclude that you are the extremist.

159787[/snapback]

No, you should probably conclude that you and your "conservative" pals have no interest in addressing anything substantive and real, as opposed to bitching and whining about abstract notions that are never really defined in real terms.

159804[/snapback]

I see your liberal elitist attitude is coming out again.

You say we "no interest in addressing anything substantive and real,". We tried to warn you about the Frenchman John Kerry's war record, but you wouldn't listen. We have always called Ted Kennedy a murdering rich boy whose Daddy's money bought his freedom after Chappaquiddick, but you seem to get your drawers balled up about it.

159838[/snapback]

Seeing as neither Kerry nor Kennedy are federal judges, I don't see their relevance to this discussion.

[Tigermike 3,053]

This was not a hypothetical:

.S. Supreme Court

GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

381 U.S. 479

GRISWOLD ET AL. v. CONNECTICUT.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ERRORS OF CONNECTICUT.

No. 496.

Argued March 29-30, 1965.

Decided June 7, 1965.

Appellants, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician, were convicted as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination, prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife's use. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for any person to use any drug or article to prevent conception. Appellants claimed that the accessory statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled this law unconstitutional. They saw it as many people did here. Many "conservative" jurists and academics still disagree with this decision, including Scalia and Thomas, the two justices most loved by "conservatives" and singled out by George W. Bush as the type of justices he would appoint. Unless a right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights, states are seen to have the ultimate power to do almost anything else. So one need not be "drinking the kool-aid" to express the concern raised by Piglet above. His disagreement with this decision was also the primary reason Bork's nomination was defeated, although it is not what the whinefest on the Right will point to.

Many of the appointments held up by Democrats think states should have this power. These are extremist views, even as seen by many on the Far Right on this board.

158863[/snapback]

So David, TigerMike, Raptor and others...

You vigorously support W's choices for judges, but you see this view of the Constitution as extremist and at odds with how you conceive liberty. Thoughts?

159213[/snapback]

159517[/snapback]

Since we've had another unsubstantiated post crying judicial extremism, here's an example of what it actually looks like and guess who the extremists are?

159785[/snapback]

Since those were all your post, should we conclude that you are the extremist.

159787[/snapback]

No, you should probably conclude that you and your "conservative" pals have no interest in addressing anything substantive and real, as opposed to bitching and whining about abstract notions that are never really defined in real terms.

159804[/snapback]

I see your liberal elitist attitude is coming out again.

You say we "no interest in addressing anything substantive and real,". We tried to warn you about the Frenchman John Kerry's war record, but you wouldn't listen. We have always called Ted Kennedy a murdering rich boy whose Daddy's money bought his freedom after Chappaquiddick, but you seem to get your drawers balled up about it.

159838[/snapback]

Seeing as neither Kerry nor Kennedy are federal judges, I don't see their relevance to this discussion.

160144[/snapback]

Seeing as how conversations ebb and flow and take different directions, I don't see why you would want to make that statement.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Ok...ill bite.

You take some ridiculously overbearing ruling from the 60s and say "those were extremist judges"...and try to draw a parrallel to the CURRENT judges up for nomination? And you say WE pull stuff out of our &@)es?

Give me a freaking break. In your mind, not ONE judge that Bush would appoint would satisfy your tastes. Give me some examples of how the current judges' recent rulings are even comparable to your pathetic example.

And please please please dont be SO ignorant to think that liberal judges havent done the SAME thing when it comes to interpreting/making law from the bench. It happens every day. But when we would complain about it...youd say...democrats were in power, dems put em in office, you lost, so shut up.

Now the shoe is on the other foot. And you think its better for america that no judge with Bush's stamp of approval gets nominated. I think your head is in the sand. Or somewhere else.

What about the judge in California who ruled that it was OKAY that a teacher MADE her students get down and pray to allah? (liberal judge btw)

[Auburn85 432]

Thanks to the ACLU, in the state of Alabama, English cannot be considered the official language.

We have to offer 14 different languages in administring the written part of the driving test. Also, driving manuals must be printed in the 14 different languages.

In 1990, Alabama voted overwelmingly to declare Englsih as the official language of the state.

If people can't speak or read english.... how can they read road signs like..Stop, Yeild?

[TexasTiger 13,009]

You take some ridiculously overbearing ruling from the 60s and say "those were extremist judges"...and try to draw a parrallel to the CURRENT judges up for nomination? And you say WE pull stuff out of our &@)es?

You act as if this is some obscure case. It is a landmark piece of jurisprudence included in every constitutional law casebook that Bork, Scalia, Thomas and their wannabes decry as a prime example of an activist judiciary. You think that a judge upholding the Connecticutt law is extreme. Bush's judicial heroes think overruling it was extreme. You are diametrically opposed to their view of the Constitution and the concepts of "liberty" and "state power"! What could be more fundamental? But you've chosen sides without understanding what your "side" reallly believes. You disagree with them. But they're still your guys? You still don't even question? Facts mean nothing? Judicial philosophy means nothing? Just the big R by the President's name?

[BamaGrad03 0]

From what I understand, those opposing are most upset about Owen from Texas. And after reading about her rulings, I dont see why people hate her some much...except that shes a pro life woman republican.

[TexasTiger 13,009]

From what I understand, those opposing are most upset about Owen from Texas. And after reading about her rulings, I dont see why people hate her some much...except that shes a pro life woman republican.

160287[/snapback]

Have any of Bush's 200 or so appointees that sailed through been pro-choice?

In regard to Owen, ask Alberto Gonzales. He once wrote that her dissent on an abortion-related case constituted "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Thanks to the ACLU, in the state of Alabama, English cannot be considered the official language.

We have to offer 14 different languages in administring the written part of the driving test. Also, driving manuals must be printed in the 14 different languages.

In 1990, Alabama voted overwelmingly to declare Englsih as the official language of the state.

If people can't speak or read english.... how can they read road signs like..Stop, Yeild?

160166[/snapback]

I know what you mean to say, but the road sign issue is a bad example -- they're different shapes for a reason (octagon for stop sign; triangle for yield, diamond for warning, etc.) International road signs are symbolic for the same reason.

We have a problem up here in Washington because some of the school systems are going broke trying to provide instruction in multiple languages. I think that premise is all wrong, btw. The language of this country is English, by far.

It's ridiculous to presume the govenment has the responsibility to provide instruction in every conceivable immigrant language.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

From what I understand, those opposing are most upset about Owen from Texas. And after reading about her rulings, I dont see why people hate her some much...except that shes a pro life woman republican.

160287[/snapback]

Have any of Bush's 200 or so appointees that sailed through been pro-choice?

In regard to Owen, ask Alberto Gonzales. He once wrote that her dissent on an abortion-related case constituted "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

160488[/snapback]

All right. One time out of how many dissenting opinions? Hey, nobody's perfect.

This attitude that Owens and Brown are "out of the mainstream" and/or "extremist" doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Owens was elected to the Texas Supreme Court with 84% of the vote. Brown was elected to California's court with 70-something % of the vote. CA is the most populous state and TX isn't that far behind. How is it that these judges are now suddenly so out of the mainstream when they were elected by such overwhelming majorities in the most populous of our states?

[TexasTiger 13,009]

From what I understand, those opposing are most upset about Owen from Texas. And after reading about her rulings, I dont see why people hate her some much...except that shes a pro life woman republican.

160287[/snapback]

Have any of Bush's 200 or so appointees that sailed through been pro-choice?

In regard to Owen, ask Alberto Gonzales. He once wrote that her dissent on an abortion-related case constituted "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

160488[/snapback]

All right. One time out of how many dissenting opinions? Hey, nobody's perfect.

This attitude that Owens and Brown are "out of the mainstream" and/or "extremist" doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Owens was elected to the Texas Supreme Court with 84% of the vote. Brown was elected to California's court with 70-something % of the vote. CA is the most populous state and TX isn't that far behind. How is it that these judges are now suddenly so out of the mainstream when they were elected by such overwhelming majorities in the most populous of our states?

160499[/snapback]

One little problem with your post. It's not true. Brown was never elected to the California Supreme Court. She was appointed.