Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Coming from a guy who really doesn't argue with substance, your comment describes yourself.<< Woody here is citing the famous court case "Rubber v. Glue" in which the SCOTUS ruled that everything said to Rubber by Glue bounces off and sticks back on Glue.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Man you guys are unreal! What did you get your degrees in? A lot of the stuff is beyond me. Keep it going> It's an education in itself.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan lol -- don't quote me on the Rubber v. Glue thing. I may have made that up.
Originally Posted By mele <<Woody here is citing the famous court case "Rubber v. Glue" in which the SCOTUS ruled that everything said to Rubber by Glue bounces off and sticks back on Glue.>> LOL!
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I usually don't believe things that aren't supported by the evidence that I choose to believe.>> (Tom): <There, fixed that for you.> LOL, Tom!! Obviously, there's just as much evidence that conservatives like to redefine language and history - in fact, I provided a couple of examples, which is more than Doug did. Not that he couldn't. They both do it. But I think the right has been far more successful at it lately - no surprise, being in power.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By woody Dabob2: Getting back to what you said "If that's the bulk of what you read, it's no surprise that your "common definitions" of things might not be as common as you think." This argument presumes whether the definition fits the audience's understanding of the word, which makes the argument more effective, but it really doesn't matter. There are many words that have two or more definitions. You determine the meaning through context. Also, since the word, judicial activist, is a politically charged word, it does help to understand the political philosophy of the person. Therefore, when you make a snide comment like "A bit of a Freudian slip on your part, but absolutely correct. If they overrule a legislative decision via (what you deem as) liberal interpretation, they're "activist." If they overrule a decision via (capital c) Conservative interpretation, they're not. Thanks for admitting it." (Post 250), it reveals an superior attitude that doesn't ensure proper understanding of the arguments and stalls the debate. You're a Liberal hack. I know that you agree with the Liberal definition of judicial activism. That's not in doubt. Yet when a Conservative argues with their definition of judicial activism, you should take it from there. What should be the "common consensus"? Perhaps clarity of argument.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Obviously, there's just as much evidence that conservatives like to redefine language and history - in fact, I provided a couple of examples, which is more than Doug did.> Your examples were laughable. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts didn't overrule a legislative decision; they changed the meaning of a Constitution that had been in effect for over 200 hundred years. That's activism.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Dabob2: Getting back to what you said "If that's the bulk of what you read, it's no surprise that your "common definitions" of things might not be as common as you think.">> <This argument presumes whether the definition fits the audience's understanding of the word, which makes the argument more effective, but it really doesn't matter.> That has nothing to do with my point. My point was that if a person (not an entire audience) reads primarily one type of source, their take on things may come to seem more common than it actually is. <There are many words that have two or more definitions. You determine the meaning through context. Also, since the word, judicial activist, is a politically charged word, it does help to understand the political philosophy of the person.> Sure - one man's meat is another's poison, etc. <Therefore, when you make a snide comment like "A bit of a Freudian slip on your part, but absolutely correct. If they overrule a legislative decision via (what you deem as) liberal interpretation, they're "activist." If they overrule a decision via (capital c) Conservative interpretation, they're not. Thanks for admitting it." (Post 250), it reveals an superior attitude that doesn't ensure proper understanding of the arguments and stalls the debate.> No, it just means I took HIM at his word - he views activism as being only from the liberal side. <You're a Liberal hack. I know that you agree with the Liberal definition of judicial activism. That's not in doubt.> And what is the "liberal definition?" I didn't provide one. What do YOU think it is? And should I accept your definition just on your say-so? <Yet when a Conservative argues with their definition of judicial activism, you should take it from there.> I did. <What should be the "common consensus"? Perhaps clarity of argument.> That's always helpful, and I usually get it from Doug, anyway.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Obviously, there's just as much evidence that conservatives like to redefine language and history - in fact, I provided a couple of examples, which is more than Doug did.>> <Your examples were laughable.> My examples were good ones - not of judicial activism, but of right-wing attempts to mold language in its own image, which was one of the things we were talking about. Another one: Partial birth abortion. That's not a medical term. It's a term anti-abortion people came up with on their own, and doctors will tell you it's a misnomer. But it adds an emotional component that's useful to their side. Another one: the "death tax." Called the "estate tax" for decades, the right decided that "death tax" would play better. They focus-grouped it, and once they decided on it, stayed on message to call it that and only that ad infinitum. Note I'm not talking about the relative merits of that tax - one of the areas I agree with some moderate Republicans on - but on the use of language. As I said, liberals do the same thing when they can, but certainly the GOP has been far more disciplined and effective in recent years in the "language wars." <The Supreme Court of Massachusetts didn't overrule a legislative decision; they changed the meaning of a Constitution that had been in effect for over 200 hundred years. That's activism.> Actually, after taking a case of people with standing, they found that a class of people was not being treated equally UNDER that constitution, and they told the legislature to give them a compelling reason why gay people should not be treated equally. Were the courts who decided similarly on interracial marriage (and I'm talking about state courts here prior to Loving v. Virginia) "activist?"
Originally Posted By woody "And what is the "liberal definition?" I didn't provide one. What do YOU think it is? And should I accept your definition just on your say-so?" This is amazing. YOU POSTED THE LIBERAL DEFINITION (POST 244). I get it that you're well read, but you always seem to have a few gaps.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <My examples were good ones - not of judicial activism, but of right-wing attempts to mold language in its own image, which was one of the things we were talking about.> Coming up with a new term to describe a concept more accurately is not redefining the language. <Were the courts who decided similarly on interracial marriage (and I'm talking about state courts here prior to Loving v. Virginia) "activist?"> The Supreme Court was ruling on a relatively recent law, and applying an Constitutional Amendment rather than reinterpreting the original language.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"And what is the "liberal definition?" I didn't provide one. What do YOU think it is? And should I accept your definition just on your say-so?">> <This is amazing. YOU POSTED THE LIBERAL DEFINITION (POST 244).> Sigh. That is not "the liberal definition of judicial activism." It is one study that showed the recent voting patterns of ONE court (the Supreme Court) based on ONE criterion, overturning legislative decisions. The report itself (if you bothered to read it) noted that this is just one criterion, and many others can be looked at. I posted it because many people simply assume that the liberal SCOTUS justices are more apt to overturn legislative decisions than the conservatives, and this is not true. But this is just one way to look at things, as the report itself said, and neither they nor I defined it as "the liberal definition." You did that all on your own. <I get it that you're well read, but you always seem to have a few gaps.> I don't think they're my gaps.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<My examples were good ones - not of judicial activism, but of right-wing attempts to mold language in its own image, which was one of the things we were talking about.>> <Coming up with a new term to describe a concept more accurately is not redefining the language.> Oh the unintended irony. Surely even you must know that one man's "Coming up with a new term to describe a concept more accurately" IS another man's "redefining the language." Not to mention a pretty Orwellian definition all in itself. Why is "death tax" more "accurate" than "estate tax?" It isn't. The tax is in fact a tax on estates, not the death of the person. Calling it a death tax also makes it sound like it's something everyone will be subject to - after all, everyone dies. Instead, relatively few people with large estates are subject to it. Note again, I'm not talking about the relative merits of that tax (my position on it may surprise you), just the way the GOP decided to change the language and thus redefine the way people think - the very thing you accused liberals of doing. <<Were the courts who decided similarly on interracial marriage (and I'm talking about state courts here prior to Loving v. Virginia) "activist?">> <The Supreme Court was ruling on a relatively recent law, and applying an Constitutional Amendment rather than reinterpreting the original language.> You missed the part where I specifically said I was referring not to the SCOTUS decision in Loving, but the state courts that invalidated the ban on interracial marriages before Loving. Were those courts "activist?"
Originally Posted By woody It is the liberal definition as one criterion. I did read the report. It attempts to define the meaning of "judicial activism" because it said it was rarely defined (UNTRUE). Feigned ignorance or just arrogance. They pulled it out of a hat as if they were objective "Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?" Then they presented a review that obviously didn't say anything about hot button issues like abortion, race, immigration, and gender. Out of their grinder comes... Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy are the activists. Sure, there are laws that should not be overtuned if you're a conservative so this poll is at best self-serving and a diversion. This is an example of the end justifies the means. The "end" is trashing conservative justices. The "means" is saying "overtuning Congression Laws is bad", but in actuality, it is fine and dandy to liberals who use the opportunity to create new laws like the right to an abortion. Okay, the real Liberal definition is ruling based on helping people for social justice. Liberal judicial activists rule to help people if they perceive the law to be unjust.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It is the liberal definition as one criterion. I did read the report. It attempts to define the meaning of "judicial activism" because it said it was rarely defined (UNTRUE).> No, true. Conservatives often utter the phrase but do not define it well. In fact, you don't until the end here. <They pulled it out of a hat as if they were objective "Here is the question we asked: How often has each justice voted to strike down a law passed by Congress?"> Since conservatives often complain about judges "legislating from the bench" or "overturning the will of the people's representatives," this seems one perfectly good thing to look at. And they took pains to note it was only ONE way to look at it. <Then they presented a review that obviously didn't say anything about hot button issues like abortion, race, immigration, and gender. Out of their grinder comes... Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy are the activists.> So only hot button issues can inspire activism? That's a definition I've never seen before. <Sure, there are laws that should not be overtuned if you're a conservative so this poll is at best self-serving and a diversion.> That sentence is not clear. <This is an example of the end justifies the means. The "end" is trashing conservative justices. The "means" is saying "overtuning Congression Laws is bad", but in actuality, it is fine and dandy to liberals who use the opportunity to create new laws like the right to an abortion.> You don't get it. First of all, they didn't say overturning laws was good OR bad. They just looked at who on the current court is more likely to do so. You on the other hand, seem to think it IS fine and dandy to do so - unless the law being overturned is one you liked. THEN it's "activism." <Okay, the real Liberal definition is ruling based on helping people for social justice. Liberal judicial activists rule to help people if they perceive the law to be unjust.> That's an interesting definition. Not sure I agree with it, but at least you put it out there.
Originally Posted By woody >>No, true. Conservatives often utter the phrase but do not define it well. In fact, you don't until the end here.<< Since you disagree with Conservatives, you wouldn't be satisfied with their definition. You said you disagreed with my Liberal definition of judicial activist. I'm not surprised. It comes down to who is making the definition. There is nothing objective about calling someone a judicial activist, but that report pretends to be objective. >>You on the other hand, seem to think it IS fine and dandy to do so - unless the law being overturned is one you liked. THEN it's "activism."<< Not really. I think a law should not be overturned if there is no legal basis for it. I think Liberal judges often "create" a legal basis out of nothing especially to ensure social justice. The overtuning of laws is serious business so it should be based on the law or the will of the people rather than judicial fiat. I do think it was a self-serving study that implied Conservatives don't know what going on. The analysis was flawed. It is saying.. "Gee, if you really want a better definition, I'll give it to you." It definitely doesn't serve the Conservative agenda with Roberts and Alito in mind. >>So only hot button issues can inspire activism? That's a definition I've never seen before.<< You parsed my post without context. What's up with that? I was making a case they maybe their distribution had inherent biases. It was probably an incomplete study.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You missed the part where I specifically said I was referring not to the SCOTUS decision in Loving, but the state courts that invalidated the ban on interracial marriages before Loving. Were those courts "activist?"> Yes, I did miss that part. However, the same principle applies. You want a definition of an activist judge? Look no further than Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who recently said that justices can consult six basic criteria in assessing a law: the language of the law, the history of the text, tradition behind the text, precedents, the purpose of the law and the consequences of letting the law stand or striking it down. "I tend to emphasize purpose and consequences," he said Breyer. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060208/ap_on_go_su_co/breyer_chicago" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 60208/ap_on_go_su_co/breyer_chicago</a>
