Originally Posted By mrkthompsn <I call it Judicial Activism when the court changes the interpretation of the requirements set forth by the Constitution, and attempts to "read between the lines" of supposed requirements that are not written.> Requirements for the operation of the United States are written in the form of words, phrases and sentences in the Constitution and its amendments. Each of these words, phrases and sentences expressing meaning. When judges interpret the words, phrases and sentences other than their meanings, they act upon their own will - and therefore become activists.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Post 19- good post. You have much more patience than I have at this juncture as I would also assume he knows the answer and the question is meant merely to obfuscate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obfuscate" target="_blank">http://www.merriam-webster.com...bfuscate</a> Douglas has long been the master obfuscator around here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Your view is stuck in the 18th century.> SPP - Shedding more heat than light, as usual.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Brown v Board of Education was the landmark ruling in the 1950's that ruled that the notion of "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, especially with respect to public education.> Yes, I'm well aware of that. I've walked the halls of Monroe Elementary School in Topeka. What I'd like to know is how, "if you apply the criteria listed in #1 to Brown, you come up with "b" for every question"? I mean, if the segregated Kansas schools really were "seperate but equal" than you'd have a case that it was judicial activism. But they weren't, were they?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas has long been the master obfuscator around here.> I'd say the obfuscator is the guy that asks questions he admits had nothing to do with what had been said on a thread, or who makes personal comments rather than respond to honest questions.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "<Your view is stuck in the 18th century.> SPP - Shedding more heat than light, as usual." It's got nothing to do with that. That's truly how I see you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I see you as far worse. So what? Why don't you try discussing the topic honestly?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I am. I see you stuck with an interpretation of the Constitution that has no applicable use in the 21st century. I see this test of yours as a self-serving way of proving points you've tried to make before about "judicial activism", ergo I see this "test" as inherently dishonest.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Already got 'em. I'm legally blind in my left eye, and my right eye is 20/60. I have a condition called strabismus. I don't see in 3-D, and have no depth perception. I can't judge distances. Been this way since birth. Anything else?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Oh, and I forgot. Two eye surgeries as well. One when I was two to correct my eyes from being crossed and another at age 10 to work on a muscle imbalance. Somewhere there's a film of the second one that was used in medical schools afterwards.
Originally Posted By Elderp I am not reporting this but you need to really knock it off. This is so beneath you. I know you can do better than this, go for another angle.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I've asked him nicely to address the topic. He won't. Maybe you should report it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< What I'd like to know is how, "if you apply the criteria listed in #1 to Brown, you come up with "b" for every question"? I mean, if the segregated Kansas schools really were "seperate but equal" than you'd have a case that it was judicial activism. But they weren't, were they? >>> Well, let's go through your criteria one by one: <<< a. merely overturn relatively new law and therefore return conditions to what they were before the law was enacted? b. Necessitate the creation of new laws or include guidelines in order to execute the decision? >>> Clearly, Brown is a "b" here. If you've been to Topeka, certainly you're aware of the broader problems and strife caused by school integration, both in the South and elsewhere. The whole way of doing things had to be changed as a result of Brown, in some cases at gunpoint. <<< a. rely on the writings of the Founding Fathers to explain what they meant in the Constitution? b. rely on an evolving sense of what the phrase means to society? >>> Well, since Brown was decided primarily on 14th Amendment grounds, it's not really the Founding Fathers in this case, but the leaders of the country during the post-Civil War 1860's that wrote it that would be the applicable standard. I guess we really don't know how exactly they would have treated school segregation/integration in the context of equal protection, but we do know the status quo at the time was segregation even in the newly "free" South and specifically that the notion of segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine was affirmed by SCOTUS in 1896 (see below). It was only as the "evolving understanding" that there's no such thing as "separate but equal" that came in the Brown decision that things changed. So, this one's a "b" as well. <<< a. Rely on precedent? b. Overturn precedent? >>> The notion of "separate but equal" was long accepted as being the status quo and compatible with the law of the land. In fact, in another landmark case, Plessy v Ferguson, in 1896, SCOTUS specifically said that "separate but equal" was possible, compatible with the 14th Amendment, and could be carried out to accomplish some public purpose (as specified by the legislature). So, Brown most definitely overturned precedent with regard to the notion of "separate but equal" being possible, and whether such a notion was compatible with the 14th Amendment. Again, a "b". <<< a. Affirm a recognized, enumerated right? b. Discover a new right that has never been recognized before? >>> The right to have integrated public accommodations, or put another way, the right not to be segregated in public accommodation based on race, did not exist prior to Brown. Most definitely a "b". So, I think the b's have it.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I've asked him nicely to address the topic. He won't. Maybe you should report it." I've addressed it in posts 4, 6, 12, 18, 30 and 32. I don't know how many times I can say it. You're the one who responded with the slams. I even answered seriously in 34 and 35 to your flippant post 36. That you mock the fact I'm really half blind is absolutely pathetic.
