Parents can't easedrop on their kids - even if they might be in danger!!

 
Why is it that conservatives love to throw around that term activist judges? Can someone explain this to me, seriously? Just because a judge interprets a law a certain way makes them an activist?
 
[quote name='bignick']ya, thats bull shit.[/quote]

I sadly, have to agree.

Teens should have privacy, but frankly ehose phone is it? Who pays for it?
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='bignick']ya, thats bull shit.[/quote]

I sadly, have to agree.

Teens should have privacy, but frankly ehose phone is it? Who pays for it?[/quote]

As long as you are under 18 and living in your parents home, its their rules.
 
[quote name='bignick'][quote name='David85'][quote name='bignick']ya, thats bull shit.[/quote]

I sadly, have to agree.

Teens should have privacy, but frankly ehose phone is it? Who pays for it?[/quote]

As long as you are under 18 and living in your parents home, its their rules.[/quote]

I don't think so. Not if you're being tried as an adult.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='bignick'][quote name='David85'][quote name='bignick']ya, thats bull shit.[/quote]

I sadly, have to agree.

Teens should have privacy, but frankly ehose phone is it? Who pays for it?[/quote]

As long as you are under 18 and living in your parents home, its their rules.[/quote]

I don't think so. Not if you're being tried as an adult.[/quote]

but if a kid is selling drugs out of his parents house, the parents can lose the house.
 
I'm sick of this 'activist judge' bullshit. This judge was quite clearly obeying the letter of the law. Its a questionable law, but it IS the law. If the judge made any other decision, THEN he would be an activist judge. But this judge was NOT an activist judge - he simply followed exactly what the law told him to do. If you don't like the law, complain to (state) congress, but don't blame this one on the judicial system.

And Scrubking: I'd recommend thinking for yourself instead of parroting keywords that the most holy Republican party has filled your head with. When you merely parrot things, you invariably make easily-recognizable mistakes like this one.
 
[quote name='Drocket']I'm sick of this 'activist judge' bullshit. This judge was quite clearly obeying the letter of the law. Its a questionable law, but it IS the law. If the judge made any other decision, THEN he would be an activist judge. But this judge was NOT an activist judge - he simply followed exactly what the law told him to do. If you don't like the law, complain to (state) congress, but don't blame this one on the judicial system.

And Scrubking: I'd recommend thinking for yourself instead of parroting keywords that the most holy Republican party has filled your head with. When you merely parrot things, you invariably make easily-recognizable mistakes like this one.[/quote]

I've decided that, after listening to conservative talk radio, activist judges are any judges who disagree with the republican party's issues. Primarily with social issues, obviously this one isn't a social issue but maybe its creeping into other topics as well. I asked about it earlier because I wanted someone who truly believes this judge was an activist to give me a solid reason for their belief in the concept of "activist judges".
 
activist judges are any judges who disagree with the republican party's issues.
Click to expand...

Actually activist judges are those liberals who realize that they are in the minority in the US and try to change the conservative leanings of this county to their own liberal views via the bench.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
activist judges are any judges who disagree with the republican party's issues.
Click to expand...

Actually activist judges are those liberals who realize that they are in the minority in the US and try to change the conservative leanings of this county to their own liberal views via the bench.[/quote]

And if the Supreme Court ended up overturning Roe v Wade, would they be activist judges as well?
 
So you're saying that there's no such thing, by definition, as a conservative activist judge. Even if a judge would specifically violate multiple laws and constitutional rules, as long as he does so with a conservative goal in mind, he would be non-activist?

You realize that's bullshit, right?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='Scrubking']
activist judges are any judges who disagree with the republican party's issues.
Click to expand...

Actually activist judges are those liberals who realize that they are in the minority in the US and try to change the conservative leanings of this county to their own liberal views via the bench.[/quote]

And if the Supreme Court ended up overturning Roe v Wade, would they be activist judges as well?[/quote]

No because they have the power to overturn a ruling they made themselves.

And I am not saying that conservative activist judges don't exist - it's just that It is highly unlikely since they have no reason to change anything since their views are in the majority and widely accepted.
 
Ok, so explain how this judge was an activist judge, since he overturned/changed nothing, instead merely followed the law as created by the state legistature (and being the state legistature, elected by the people, presumably represent the majority view.)
 
[quote name='Drocket']Ok, so explain how this judge was an activist judge, since he overturned/changed nothing, instead merely followed the law as created by the state legistature (and being the state legistature, elected by the people, presumably represent the majority view.)[/quote]

Yeah, he's actually a conservative judge. If he were an activist one he'd have allowed the illegal wiretapping in the face of the law. Why Scrubking infered that this was somehow a liberal conspiracy thing, I'm not sure.
 
Shhh! I was waiting to set him up so I could bash him over the head! :p

Anyway, its a liberal thing because EVERYTHING bad is the liberal's fault. You should know that.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']I never said he was. I made a general statement that you guys jumped on in typical VS board fashion.[/quote]
Ok, so you just made a statement about activist judges in the original post sompletely out of the blue, with it having absolutely no relation to the rest of your post? It was a complete non sequitor that has no point or connection to the article you linked to or anything else you said?
 
[quote name='Drocket']Shhh! I was waiting to set him up so I could bash him over the head! :p

Anyway, its a liberal thing because EVERYTHING bad is the liberal's fault. You should know that.[/quote]

Don't flatter yourself. Consider it a miracle if you ever entrap me. :roll:
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
activist judges are any judges who disagree with the republican party's issues.
Click to expand...

Actually activist judges are those liberals who realize that they are in the minority in the US and try to change the conservative leanings of this county to their own liberal views via the bench.[/quote]

Kind of like what the Supreme Court did in 1967 with Loving vs The State of Virginia?

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it....
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='Drocket']Shhh! I was waiting to set him up so I could bash him over the head! :p

Anyway, its a liberal thing because EVERYTHING bad is the liberal's fault. You should know that.[/quote]

Don't flatter yourself. Consider it a miracle if you ever entrap me. :roll:[/quote]

Please, all it would take would be a parrot or tape recorder saying the current administration sucks and you'd starve to death bickering with it.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='Drocket']Shhh! I was waiting to set him up so I could bash him over the head! :p

Anyway, its a liberal thing because EVERYTHING bad is the liberal's fault. You should know that.[/quote]

Don't flatter yourself. Consider it a miracle if you ever entrap me. :roll:[/quote]

Please, all it would take would be a parrot or tape recorder saying the current administration sucks and you'd starve to death bickering with it.[/quote]

Well, you can take your foot out of your mouth now since 99% of the stuff posted here, including by you, is just that and I hardly waste my time responding to all of it.

I only went all out in one thread, and that was because quack took it too far.
 
Kind of like how you are not responding to me....

Oh wait, that's because we have you trapped, so you might as well just say you are a raciest now.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='jmcc'][quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='Drocket']Shhh! I was waiting to set him up so I could bash him over the head! :p

Anyway, its a liberal thing because EVERYTHING bad is the liberal's fault. You should know that.[/quote]

Don't flatter yourself. Consider it a miracle if you ever entrap me. :roll:[/quote]

Please, all it would take would be a parrot or tape recorder saying the current administration sucks and you'd starve to death bickering with it.[/quote]

Well, you can take your foot out of your mouth now since 99% of the stuff posted here, including by you, is just that and I hardly waste my time responding to all of it.

I only went all out in one thread, and that was because quack took it too far.[/quote]

You really shouldn't represent yourself as a debating mastermind, then. "Don't flatter yourself" indeed. Or maybe that was just another "general statement?"
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
activist judges are any judges who disagree with the republican party's issues.
Click to expand...

Actually activist judges are those liberals who realize that they are in the minority in the US and try to change the conservative leanings of this county to their own liberal views via the bench.[/quote]

Yeah why can't those "activist" judges bow to the pressures of the masses and go conservative! Let's forget that our legal system is based on the fact that judges should interpret and follow the law, not the vagaries of public opinion.

PS Scrubs watch out, I'm using sarcasm! It's a trap!
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
a debating mastermind
Click to expand...

Who me? Thanks.[/quote]

Still haven't gotten an answer for my question and you think you are a master, you are a joke that is all.

Once again I will ask, do you think that in 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States were activists?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='Scrubking']
activist judges are any judges who disagree with the republican party's issues.
Click to expand...

Actually activist judges are those liberals who realize that they are in the minority in the US and try to change the conservative leanings of this county to their own liberal views via the bench.[/quote]

And if the Supreme Court ended up overturning Roe v Wade, would they be activist judges as well?[/quote]

Nope, they would be going back to the letter of the law from an earlier activist judge ruling, ie Roe v Wade, for which there is no basis in constitutional law.
 
I must say, the concept of Judicial "activism" is a crock. it's a name branded on judges who make decisions that conservatives don't agree with. Even in defending it you say so yourself.

"Actually activist judges are those liberals who realize that they are in the minority in the US and try to change the conservative leanings of this county..."

Basically didn't you just repeat that they're judges that make decisions against conservative republican beliefs? Judges make decisions because... hello... they're "judges." Now judges aren't perfect. They can make bad rulings. But to brand them "activists" just because of a disagreement with their ruling is rediculous and unfair.

Look at it this way, every argument for judicial activism can be included with Bush V Gore. Most people who have looked at that say it's a bad decision. That it's bad law. But, because it's the decision that got Bush elected, that's not activism in conservative views.

Judicial activism is a crutch for those who just don't agree with a decision. There is no true definition of judical activism. It's a branding. It's to support a court doctrine where where everyone thinks alike. And that thinking has to be conservative thinking.
 
[quote name='bignick']While we are on the subject, parents shouldnt be allowed to teach their religious values to their kids either.[/quote]

The verdict doen't say parents can't listen in on their kids. It's saying that it's illegal to use what they hear to prosecute the kid, which is how the law reads and has read for quite some time now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top