Saw this on another Board today.....now if we are not living in a near-Police State, then what is it?

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/static/storie...2004071346.html

NJ

That is absurd!....maybe some of Bush's "heavies" who are busy arresting innocent Americans need to familiarize themselves with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, which Shrub and his inept cronies have been so adamently trying to amend....you would think they would have read it or at least be REMOTELY familiar with the contents and the rights and privileges that it provides to all law-abiding citizens.

Perhaps they've been too busy fighting the "war on terrah" and searching for Bin Laden to concern themselves with such mundane tasks as abiding by the guidelines of these sacred documents that these "compassionate conservatives" cherish so dearly.

~Joe

[ July 15, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

why would the Bushies worry about a little thing like the constitution?

I agree. After all, left-wing federal judges don't.

Maybe those activist judges can interpret the law that says you cant arrest people for merely existing.

Charges against the couple were dropped today.

Some of the comments from the mayor are completely bogus--e.g., the police were worried about the couple's safety.

I hope the couple sues for violation of their 1st Amendment rights. Imagine the uproar if this were 1996 and the two were wearing anti-Clinton shirts.

What about you right-wing federal judges?

Maybe so, but the female half of the duo, who had been working on assignment for FEMA out of Texas, was removed from her position as a result of their arrest. Do you think she will ever get another assignment?

(edited to correct a spelling error.)

[ July 15, 2004, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

What about them?

The bench needs not left-wing or right-wing judges, only those who follow the Constitution and if something is not covered by it, the people via the states should handle it.

The 9th and 10th Amendments don't seem to exist anymore.

Danny Jones, the mayor of Charleston, WV is nothing more than a red-neck running a red-neck town. His comment about following the orders of the Secret service was crap, and then he followed that up with, "We shoulda let them (SS) do with them what they wanted." That would have been nothing! Under shrub, with the influence of right wing zealots, we definately are moving more towards a police state.

Eventhough the judiciary is the least political of the branches of government, it is still a political entity. What the bench gets is the people the political process put there. Ultimately, the judges will do what the people who put them there want, and they will be put there because the people nominating and confirming them think they are who the people electing them want to see on the bench. What makes great governance is when the presidents and senators and judges realize that what is right is what is unpopular and follow their conscience. It is right that black children go to school with white children. It is right that women have a say in their own preganancies. And it is right that queer citizens enjoy the rights and responsibilities of their heterosexual counterparts. Of course, history is littered with brave choices that turned out to be simply foolish.

MIB, the conservative argument against activist judges just doesn't hold water. You claim that judges should "...follow the Constitution...." What does this mean? As a former clerk to a federal judge (a Southern, conservative one at that!) I can assure you that one of the responsibilities of the federal judiciary is to apply constitutional principles to the issue(s) before the court, and that often requires interpretation on the part of the Judge. Without such interpretation we would not have intergrated schools, prohibitions against racial prejudice in public accomodation, and people of different races would still be prohibitedd from marrying in many juridictions.
It's cliched, but the COnstitution IS a living document that must be interpreted based upon modern, changing circumstances, and for the Conservative right to attack judges for applying constitutional ideals to issues before them, in ways that they think uphold the principles of that document, is, I believe, anti-constitutional and wrongheaded.

NO IT ISN'T!!! That is an excuse for federal judges to apply their personal biases and rule one way or another. Our Founding Fathers knew full well that the Constitution wouldn't--couldn't--address every issue, so they designed a way to do this--through the people! The people--not some activist federal judge--via the amendment process or via their elected representatives are the ones to change the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot, must not, be interpreted according to some social whims that change with the times. To do so destroys any credibility this document has. What good is it if one year it "says" "A" then 20 years later it "says" "B"??? How could this even happen unless some damn judge applies his own personal beliefs and prejudices?

You want the Constitution to reflect the times? Then amend it! That is the ONLY way it should change.

but MIB, if it were only left up to the "people", we'd still have segregation (the People were fine with the Plessy v. Ferguson decision and the principle of Separate but Equal), our Miranda rights would never have been established (the People would probably be fine with forcing confessions out of "guilty" defendants,) and , at the time of the Court's decision, the majority of Americans were in favor of prohibiting interracial marriage. Without the judiciary applying the principles of the Constitution to the issues (and sometimes overruling the generally accepted attitudes of society, as misguided they may have been at the time) our nation would not have some of the rights and privileges we too often take for granted.

[quote]MIB:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by judemorrison:
The Constitution cannot, must not, be interpreted according to some social whims that change with the times. [/quote]Then once a decision is made, the Supreme Court should never be able to revisit it. Bowers v Hardwick stated that sodomy laws were constitutional. Why argue that case all over again? Roe v Wade is the law of the land, but strict constructionalists like yourself wish to see it overturned. Why? The decision has been made. We cannot change the way the Constitution is interpreted. The relationship of the nation to the Constitution changes. The interpretation of the Constitution changes. Certainly, it should change slowly and over time, with great deliberation and as minutely as possible. But there are great inequities in our land that the founding fathers could not have forseen or understood. Those inequities must be addressed by the courts if the legislature does not have the courage to do so.

judgem, the People through the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments reversed what even a civil war alone didn't reverse. Recall that the Dred Scott decision was never overturned by the same Court system you believe should be the final arbiter on our rights. It took three amendments AND the Civil War to put some finality in this. Why? Because the People knew the courts couldn't be trusted with their often warped view of the Constitution.

jqueer, a decision wrongly decided remains wrongly decided 20, 30, 50, or 100 years later. Roe was a horrible constitutional decision, ranking with Dred Scott as two of the worst decisions the Court has ever made. Even many pro-choice intellectuals admit this (see John Hart Ely's excellent analysis of this).

Here's something to ponder: Let's say the Supreme Court gets a case regarding gay marriage and rules that gays must be allowed to marry. They cite the changing times and climate. Fifty years from now, America becomes more "old-fashioned," and opinions change (again). Gay sex is even frowned upon. AIDS cases somehow skyrocket, and gays are blamed for this (unfortunately and unfairly). The country's attitude toward gays becomes less tolerant. More and more anti-gay politicians are elected, including in many of the formerly liberal states. Should the Court then recognize this and uphold laws banning gay marriage, gay sex, etc.?

I'm using this as an example, so don't say it'll never happen. None of us knows what will happen after we're dead, but this is entirely possible if one believes the Constitution should bend to the times. My example above may seem farfetched, but it is quite possible, and quite defensible if, like is argued here, the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted in light of the then current times.

Only an amendment, like the 13th-15th ones, will prevent this.

I certainly don't want to question a "federal judge," but that very "bending to the times" is exactly what has happened in judicial decisions over at least this century, if not the entire life of our country. We have refined and improved our understanding of the world, and judicial decisions have followed.

Look at the history of gay rights in this country. It took Supreme, federal and state court decisions to guarantee gays 1)the right to publish and send through the mail non-obscene information regarding homosexuality, 2) the right to assembly, 3) the right to be served alcohol, 4) the right to have sex and 5) now the right to marry in three different states (Hawaii of course overturned that decision with a state constitutional amendment).

The courts would never have decided those cases if the understanding of homosexuality and homosexuals had not evolved in society. When homosexuality became a condition, albeit a mental illness, the courts had to treat it differently then when it was considered a "behavior" to be controlled. Now we are very close to being considered normal humans in society at large, and the courts are using that evolving understanding in their decisions.

I don't see how we can evolve as a society if the courts don't do this - sometimes they make mistakes - Dred Scott , Plessy v. Ferguson , Bowers v. Hardwick - but overall I think the court's record has been pretty good.

MIB, identify one instance where The Supreme Court, interpreting the Constitution to an issue before it, extended constitutional protections to a group that, before that time, did not have such protection, but then took those rights away because society changed its opinion of the group. It hasn't happened. That's because one of the federal judiciary's jobs is to insure that the Constitution's protections are afforded to individuals, even though the general populace might not agree. Your example re: gay rights does not work.

Just so this doesn't pass without comment: "gay sex" is not the cause of AIDS; UNSAFE sex is. The vast majority of people who contract AIDS across the globe do so through "heterosexual" or "straight" or whatever-you-want-to-call sex between people of the opposite sex. Not gay sex, by which I suppose you mean sex between people of the same sex. And AIDS cases are "skyrocketing," in China, India and other parts of the world other than the USA. One can only hope that 50 years from now, no matter how conservative society is or isn't, there'll either be a vaccine, a cure, or even more effective treatment for HIV and AIDS for everyone--not just Americans.