31 January, 2006

The people have spoken !

The final vote on Judge Alito's confirmation to the United States Supreme Court was 58 to 42.
The people have spoken!
It has been a long time coming. The courts of this nation have taken it upon themselves to morph into the legislature. That change went almost unnoticed by many until the last twenty or so years. It took another ten for people to get involved and elect a Republican majority in the People's House in 1993/94. The Senate was next, and finally the Executive. Our President has delivered on his promises to nominate judges, not legislators to the bench.
We have begun to take back our Constitution from activist judges.

30 Comments:

Blogger DAG said...

http://nfonss.blogspot.com/

Satarical look at Alito

31.1.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

DAG-
I checked out your blog and profile. Satarical looks are good as long as identified as such. I left a comment on your blog. I grew up in Connecticut.

31.1.06  
Anonymous Doug said...

The confirmation of Alito is a great blow for liberty and personal freedom. It is great that we have a Justice who believes in strict construction of the Constitution and judicial restraint.

1.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Thanks for the strong support and agreement. I'm on my way back to your site before watching the President's State of the Union Message. We will have to exchange philosophy foundations sometime soon.

1.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

"Activist" judges don't exist, it's only "activism" when you don't agree with their interpretation of the law and the constitution.

9.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

An activist judge is one who makes laws, taxes people and takes cases that have no plaintifs. One good example was the judge in Boston, MA area who did just that for forty years. He admitted that his experiment with social engineering did not work before he died. You are 20 years old according to your profile, and live in Canada. I remember being that age in College. We were out to change the world and I hope I had a small part of that, influencing over 10,000 young students the meaning of honesty and confronting liars. One girl spoke up in class one day about "O.J.'s" crimes. My reply was, "that is a case in California, I hope that our courts here in SC would allow justice to prevail". She knew the truth, and there were many others who refused to play a game of "I am stupid".

10.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

How does that response make any sense at all?

It's like you just took random facts about me and spliced it with a personal story and something about what I'm assuming to be OJ simpson.

The problem I allways have with the whole "One good example" bs is that it's just that, one example that you may or may not have made up, seeing as you didn't source anything.

Regardless of weather you made it up or not, it's an example of a poor judge, not an "activist" judge. I then return to my initial point, it's only activism if they interpret the law differently than you, and you take issue with it.

10.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

I'll try again. The activist judge was the one who taxed the people, took the place of the previously elected school board, and also acted as the executive, making daily decisions on who, what, when and where the school would operate.
I should have prefaced the exchange in class with the girl with The Truth. These actually happened. Take a look at my post, Eisner Kanal. There is a picture of me at the Hungarian-Austrian Border. This should increase your confidence along with any other readers of my veracity.
The example give was there, in part, to a request that I did not post. Judge Ito, in my opinion was not an activist judge. The example I gave in class was one used to show how truthful and innocent young people are. What I was saying is that you are young and have a lot of challenges in front of you. Some people bend to the world and "play the game". I don't do that, which is why I created The Truth. My hope is that bloggers in general, and my small part can offer The Truth so that our electorate in the USA will be able to make informed decisions at the polls. The people have spoken, and will again in 2006.

10.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

Well that's all fine and good, but we believe in two differetn "truths" don't we?

This is something I perceive to be a great problem with modern blogs, the information gets around so quickly, no one bothers to digest it or verify it anymore. Many blogs have become nothing more than extreme right or left echo chambers, or forums infested with knee jerk reactionaries.(I'm looking at you LGF and freepers).

This immediacy seems to be something of a double edged sword. I'm glad, however that the redership of this blog (or at least it's leader) hasn't let this site turn into one where honest debate becomes impossible, that is why I stopped commenting at Andrightlyso.

11.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

Also, I continue to not be clear on this example of activist judges. A link would be nice.

Hint. Hint.

11.2.06  
Blogger T.L. Stanley said...

We have a new Supreme Court. The people have spoken. Roberts and Alito have probably tilted the court to be less liberal. The court will be more mainstream now. However, for those that expect the Supreme Court to be a bastion conservative thought will be disappointed. Conservatives seem to believe that the Supreme Court will now return American justice to a 1950's mind-set. This court will not become a citadel against the changing times. More than likely, the Supreme Court will now move to the middle.

What will this mean? Well, it appears that middle American ideas about justice will be taken into consideration. And, conservatives will now have a voice, which will be reflected in court ruling. This being said, it appears that this voice will not be an overwhelming endorsement of a conservative agenda. And, one can still make a good argument that the Supreme Court as an institutions is too powerful.

From another perspective, I can understand why liberal Democrats do not want conservatives on the Supreme Court. Conservatives have a different world-view than liberals. Even though liberal Democrats have some good ideas, the liberal leanings of the Supreme Court over the last 20 years have extended the government's power over Americans. This trend has impacted the personal lives of many. And, workplace regulations have made it difficult for businesses to compete.

Good post. Take care.

11.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Timmah-- Please read T.L.'s comment above for a well-formed summary as well as his full post on his site for an even better statement. I will try to link some examples.
T.L.-- I agree. I do consider myself to be mostly conservative, but do not want a one sided court either. The US Supreme court should just do their job, not legislate from the bench. Ever since the 1803 Marbury vs. Madison when the Supreme court established for itself the idea of judicial review and declared a federal law unconstitutional, they have taken more power than I believe that the framers intended. Of course, the people by 2/3rds in the congress and then 3/4ths of the states can overturn a Supreme court ruling.
I would like a middle of the road court. No illegal (in my opinion and yours) "affirmative action" which is really illegal discrimination against a group of people. Certainly no taking of property, a violation of the 4th amendment (kelo vs. New London). The Truth: I grew up in and around that area, ate a local restaurant and I wouldn't call that area a slum any more than and other area a mile or two around.

11.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

I wasn't looking for an obvious summary of what's happened with the confirmation, I asked you to provide examples of what you speak, so I'll be waiting for that.

As an aside, the judicial branch was meant to be a check on the other branches, in my opinion they do not often overstep their bounds, and their rulings (even the courts that lean conservative) tend to be very common sense and productive.

11.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Timmah--T. L. has not just summarized the implications and changes for the now current bench, but does have some pretty good links. I will post more details later, probably on Monday. The Judicial branch in the US was not in place as I recall, and its make-up has changed over the years. FDR tried to "pack" the court from 9 to 15 to get his NRA and other socialistic programs through. He failed.
I disagree. Lately, in the last 40 years, they have completely overstepped their bounds. I must ask: Are you an American Citizen? I want to say again, thanks for your civil replies, questions and discussion. See you Monday.

11.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

No, actually if you check my profile, I'm currently in British Columbia, Canada. I am, however, an avid follower of both Canadian and (sometimes especially) American politics.

You wouldn't want out supreme courts, they have allready (correctly in my opinion) legalized gay marraige and, just recently swingers clubs... Canada is certainly becoming more hedonistic, now if only we had the warm beaches, we could really get the tourism going.

(Especially considering BC's main illegal export, sticky green, basically decriminalized now in small amounts)

12.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Timmah-
I would say counterproductive. I have referenced the late Judge Garrity's 40+ year failed social experiment that he admitted failed.
http://www.unipedia.info/Busing.html and now again in Kansas: http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20050609-092934-8069r an activist judge telling the legislature how much money they need to spend!
More recently in Vermont: http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605
To maintain family values, history and traditions in the world: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040517-2.html
So now when some lawyers realize that our US Constitution actually does have some boundaries and methods to amend it, but "the people have spoken"--however, "they" think "they" are more intelligent, elite :: the people must be stupid and so:
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/religiousfreedom/internationallaw.aspx "they" need to expland the argument and include international "laws" into the USA.
No way -- these are activist judges spurred on by activist lawyers many times paid for with taxpayer dollars. It is past time we stopped this foolishness.

13.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

Here too, my comment's mising.

18.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Here and there, the people have spoken holds, the majority rules in a democracy. Now, on a personal. US voter level, as well as a moral level, I will be glad to continue this debate. Again, for parity, are you a US citizen living or in university in BC?

18.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Timmah 420 -- Your first half of a recent post:
No the "people" haven't spoken clearly at all on the issue.

Regardless of what yodi-va might read on newsmax or whatever, sexual harassment and innuendo aren't turning workplaces into crazyhouses. I've worked in offices, construction sites and everything else inbetween, in a country that can easily be called more socially progressive than America, and where gay marraige is legal, and these phantom issues just never come up. The only times I've seen any sexual harassment on the workplace were the age old cases of the seedy man (rarely woman) in a position of authority, using that position as a tool to coerce or harass his subordinates. The reason you didn't hear much about it years ago was because women kept their mouths shut about that sort of stuff because there weren't any protections for them. I don't want to go back to that.

As far as the gay issues go, define "keeping it out of the streets". If it's anything like you make it sound, the idea would be as ludacrous as telling all heterosexuals to "keep it out of the streets" or for priests to keep their asexuality "out of the streets", that's just nonsense. Sexual orientation is a huge part of a person's personality, and no one is going to avoid holding hands or kissing their partner in public just because you get the creepy crawlies when you see two men doing it.

21.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Timmah 420 -- Some personal time was required this weekend with family members, so I broke up your post in two parts.

Yes, the people have and will continue to speak -- vote on these and more public conduct issues. Here in SC we will vote on the definition of marriage--again. My point. Because of activist judges in Massachusetts that could influence our laws in SC, we are spending more time and money with yet another vote. The next one could be a US Constitutional amendment which can not be overridden by any activist judge.

Public behavior whether it be prostitutes, gang behaviors, homosexual activity such as described previously, or even uttering certain fighting words can be banned from public streets.

I agree, sexual orientation is a part of a person's personality. So is drug use, illegal orientation, other anti-social activities. Most of these can and are controlled and when necessary punished by laws.

Most people here (by historical votes and mores) do not want to explain un natural behaviors to their children. In some cases, this can be charged as contributing to the deliquency of a minor. If you may have recalled, a certain "movie star", "pee-wee" was charged and convicted I believe of performing a lewid act in a movie theater. Here in SC, a similar act was changed to an individual at a baseball park behind the dugout. There were boys at the park. This type behavior contributes to the moral decay of society and rightly should be kept off the streets. Keep it in your own home. Watch this next election in November, 2006. The lines have been clearly drawn. I invite more defining so that the results will speak loud and clear.

21.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

My point about the people not having spoken clearly on it it simple, there are laws and motions passed every day regarding homosexual activity, some pro-equality, some against, therefore it isn't as cut and dry as you make it sound.

You trying to equate homosexuality with gang activity and "illegal orientations" whatever that is supposed to mean, is just plain silly. Even someone as prejudiced against gays as you can see the major difference between gang violence and butt sex. I mean, really, why not outlaw everything we find distasteful or don't want to explain to our children.

Your children are eventually going to have to learn what a prostitute is, likewise with a gang member and a homosexual. These professions and orientations have been with man since his first societies, and you are doing your children a disservice if you simply ignore what you percieve to be unnatural or immoral behaviour.

22.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Timmah,
OK, I will narrow the statement for this post. The people have voted on state constitutional issues that marriage is between one man and one woman. SC will have a similar vote this November.
I didn't type "illegal orientations". Not sure what you mean by that. This issue is an antisocial and obviously un natural one. Keep it in private.
I also disagree with your use of the word prejudice in your paragraph. Pre judging what? The people can and have spoken for and against certain behaviors. They can encourage and discourage them at will by voting. More examples:
Driving certain cars, noise ordinances, billboards, smoking ads on TV, encouraging and being involved in gambling, jaywalking, zoning ordinances, land use and taking (an activist judge's opinion), prostitution, massage parlors, marathon running on the city streets, buses (or not). One way streets (SC-Myrtle Beach), underage drinking, nude beaches (or not), and diverse social activities.

Now, when a child hears a bad work, the parent should address it. Either they will encourage it (or do it themselves) or not. Yes, children may eventually encounter immoral, nasty and illegal behaviors. It is a parent's obligation to prevent the child from exterminating itself. Some of the behaviors are difficult to explain at an early age, hence -- contributing to the deliquency of a minor charge. Those with an agenda, homosexuals, for example NAMBLA for an extreme have an agenda to "turn" young children into homosexuals. This is both immoral, and by law here, illegal.
I don't know how clear to make this: In a democracy, the people have the right and the moral voice if the vote is a majority to set laws, ordinances and make a safe environment for themselves.
AS a voter, I will vote for the traditional definition of marriage this November. I will not encourage the law to go looking for illegal or immoral activities, but when it is out in the open like the two men soliciting homosexual sex from minors, I will not hesitate to call 911, take pictures (in public), report and testify to get these degenerates off the streets.

22.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

You are using a powerful variety of strawmen for your argument. I'll have to take this point by point.

First off. Yes you did type "illegal orientation", here is the direct quote you apperently didn't notice when you wrote it or failed to reread it: "I agree, sexual orientation is a part of a person's personality. So is drug use,illegal orientation, other anti-social activities.

Second, you then tear into a baseless moral judgement with this: "This issue is an antisocial and obviously un natural one. Keep it in private."

You are simply making a personal moral judgement here, based on a prejudice that exists within your own mind, allow me to explain. You make a judgement that homosexuality is inherently immoral (or antisocial) and unnatural, and should be kept out of the public eye. The first judgement "immoral" is your own personal view, morality is not a black and white, two demensional subject and lawmakers should not be in the business of legislating sexual morality between two consenting adults. That is not how a democracy is supposed to operate and there is something to be said for those kind of laws infringing on basic human rights.

The second judgement you make (unnatural) is patently false and misleading. By definition, anything that occurs within nature and the animal world can be defined as "natural".Even if animals did not engage in homosexual acts, which they do, any judgement as to weather or not this is "natural" involves the concept of tradition and custom, and amounts to nothing more than a personal moral judgement. In the other sense the word has no meaning other than to describe something that is man-made, like synthetic chemicals.

Your further attempt to equate the laws that attempt to ban or minimize homosexual activity with other laws such as noise ordinances and one way streets is laughable and makes absolutely no sense, as the issues at hand counldn't possibly be more different. It's more akin to laws that would target things like bondage and S&M clubs and gatherings, masturbation workshops, etc.

In fact, the only point you made of any logical value as far as I'm concerned is your point about a man attempting to engage in sex acts with a minor boy, this is obviously against the law for good reason, and I assume you would do the same thing (call the police) if a heterosexual man attempted to engage in sex acts with an underage girl, obviously.

23.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Analogies are sometimes useful, but I do not intentionally deceive with the strawman argument.

The term illegal orientation was used by the JAG at a briefing. I thought I made that clear, but maybe not.

This issue of homosexual activism is antisocial, just as other generations have done in the past to BC. Un natural is correct. I did study the overcrowding of rats during social psychology classes and they do engage in homosexual behavior when confined un-naturally, and it is un-natural for them to engage in this type behavior. The same for human beings.
This is not just personal moral judgements, but the expressed mores of the community as evidenced by votes recently.
A democracy is supposed to operate correctly when the people vote and make laws by majority vote. A non-democracy like communism or facism or theocracy makes laws from a few or one individual. Morality is black and white. Murder is wrong.
Killing is authorized during self-defense, execution can happen on the battlefield--- see recent post.
Well the examples may have been minimal, but I can maximize them it that would help. Infecting a person with AIDS would, in my opinion qualify for murder if intentional. That activity is illegal and has been tried here in SC. Convicted.
Yes, I would call 911 on either.
Why is it obviously against the law? What age is the age of concent in your jurisdiction? 18? 21? 16? Glad you do not endorse NAMBLA. The voters can change the ages as was done here in the USA for voting in the early 1970s.
I am for lowering the age of responsibility, mandatory school attendance and consent to 15 personally. How about you?

23.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

From your last comment "I didn't type "illegal orientations". Not sure what you mean by that." Yeah, gee can't see how I was confused about that, considering how clear you made it.

Actually, I agree with the lowering of age of consent for some things but not others. It's madness that someone could enter into a contract, vote, join the army and yet not be able to drink alcohol.

As for your point about rats, so what that's rats, you might as well study butterflies. Take a look at our closest evolutionary ancestors, various species of monkeys and apes have been observed (outside of any captivity mind you, just in the jungle) engaging in homosexual acts, sometimes habitually, therefore this occurs in nature.

And again, yes it is a personal moral judgement. At one time in America's history, the majority of voters thought slavery of fellow human beings was acceptable. Does that make it a moral stance?

Voters in a democracy are indeed the ones who dictate the laws, but there are certain human rights "givens" when you live in a free society, and equality of all people, regardless of their gender, race, or sexual orientation is one of them. If America voted to outlaw Islam tomorrow, they still couldn't follow through with the law because it violates a basic human right, I don't see how sexual orintation is any different. Even if you "choose" to be gay (jury's out there), you also "choose" your church and religion, and you have the right to be on equal footing with anyone else who chose something different.

23.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

Illegal orientation was mentioned by the JAG. I didn't attribute it to myself, but to the official US Army UCMJ position.

Now now, if we go with an age like 15 for example, it has to be for everything. Contracts, jail, executions, freedom, working at any job, quitting school, consensual sex, etc.
No perfumed princes. A prince is a person with all the priviledges but no responsibilities.

Let's not attempt to bring in the theoy of evolution here. I used the rat example as just that--an example of un-natural acts that happen when some or some law forces them into a confined area. That would be communism, socialism or their own choice to live in a confined area. Just because an act occurrs does not make it natural.

A majority of voters? When did citizens vote on slavery?
It was indirectly included in the US Constitution for computing representation (the 3/5ths compromise). The US Supreme Court made a decsion -- Dread Scott about slavery. The Kansas-Nebraska Acts in our congreess declared that slavery would not be allowed to expand. I do not recall any votes by the populace. Trying to equate todays laws with those hundreds of years ago and then somehow trying to project that into a moral decision is quite a stretch. Let's keep to what you and I have control over. I can vote this November. Are you registered? Where?

We agree on #5. Voters make laws directly or indirectly.
This sounds like our Declaration of Independence: the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I don't see gender (that amendment was not ratified in the 1970s even after another 7 year extension) nor sexual orientation. A person's slave status and/or race was addressed after the War Between the States from 1860-1865. Note, a War, not votes.

America and other countries have outlawed by votes or fiat in the case of communist countries like China, certain, and any religions as you should be painfully aware. The USSR did this for 75 years. The Churches came back quickly from their underground existence. Muslim countries kill Christians openly, frequently and apparently legally. Where are the killing and torture pictures? Cowardly journalists. Scared to be real journalists, then cower and publish and re-publish some isolated pictures of 20 something reservists engaged in what appears to be --- I won't say it because it would be speculation and not The Truth.

We agree #6. A choice to engage in homosexual behavior. Yes, a person chooses to join a Church, attend a college and marry a person, or not to.
Point being, these choices are legal. Do you contend that these are unalienable rights? I would agree that a person can choose to engage in almost any sexual activity, in private, out of sight of those under 18 (now).
What is your stance on the California law allowing sex with dead people and the Washington State laws allowing sex with and by animals?

24.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

You really do have a striking habit of coming out of left field with some very odd questions. One might question your mental attitudes about homosexuality when you liken it to everything from necrophilia to public noise ordinances.

At any rate, I would think that necrophilia would be more of a health issue than an ethical one, I mean, honestly you can't have people having sex with rotting corpses all over the place, and were it to be legalized I doubt there would be any great surge in the practice.

The question of beastiality is an intriguing one, as the idea of consent cannot apply, and I'm unfamiliar with the kind of health issues (if any) that would come up.

I suppose my best stab at an idea for how a law like that should work, is that the guilty party should only be charged if the act was preformed in such a way (it it was such an animal) that it was cruelly injurious to the animal, although that may just be some sort of extended animal cruelty law.

I hardly think that issues like this are as pressing and widespread as the topic of our original discussion.

24.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

timmah, I could make the same comment on your reply. I will try. The question about other deviant behaviors? These are actual news reports in the last month! Haven't you heard? The one from Washington State should be close to where you now say you live. Another reason to mention them is to show my clinical thoughts on diverse sexual practises, homosexuality included.

OK, in California, the law is being "rethought" by the Democrat controlled house. They must decide to approve or disapprove of it. A similar question you brought up like "keeping it in private". Maybe if he used a condom.... ! Should I have taught that, since a small % like the 2% of male homosexuals. In the horse issue, believe it or not, some animal activists alledged that the horse could be pshchologically harmed, even though the man was killed by the large penetration. What can I say, the "west" coast is near California. PETA, ETA or whatever that terrorist organization is.

The post is related to the two above, because the legislatures will address the issues and decide by democratic votes what the penalites will be. The same for our US Supreme court Justice being confirmed, 58 to 42 in our US Senate.

25.2.06  
Blogger Timmah420 said...

Well, considering it would be perfectly legal to slaughter and eat the animal, I'm not too sure psychological damage is a big factor.

25.2.06  
Blogger Chief RZ said...

I am not sure that processing kept animals can be slaughtered in Washington State. Maybe you can look into this. There are some who might want a judge to hear the case. One convicted mass murderer's lawyer claims it would be inhumain to execute him because he is retarded.

25.2.06  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home