• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstitutional

Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Republic Now! said:
It's not an improper term necessarily, though it is often misused, like many which require complex consideration. It's absurd to say a judge can't make a decision on personal opinion as opposed to the law, thought it's also absurd to say any ruling which does not fit your beliefs is judicial activism.
Click to expand...

Any tendency of a judge to use personal opinion vs law would be negated by the appeals process which uses panels of judges in the higher courts. What impressed me about 'conservatives' is when a decision goes against their beliefs it is a vast tyrannical plot which includes out of control, unelected Supremes shredding the Constitution..... yada yada yada.....

The appeals courts smacks down restricting soda size the 'liberals' mostly just shrug and continue on with life. No diva rants about the end of the Republic, vast liberal take-over, the Takers have won, the courts need to be overthrown! Oh and when a 'conservative' state/governmental body appeals it is to right a wrong- costs be damned, when a 'liberal' group does it is a waste of taxpayer money :doh
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

head of joaquin said:
No, just the vapid reasoning of conservatives as it relates to constitutional interpretations. The term "activist judges" -- invented by conservatives (and used by Turtle by his own admission above) -- is intellectually dishonest. It's another reason why conservatism is bankrupt.
Click to expand...

The earliest reference to judicial activism I can find is Schlesinger in 1947, who was a New Deal advocate, a speech writer for JFK, and an active participant in Ted Kennedy's presidential bid. Of course, the first American historical reference to the idea was Jefferson's criticism of "Judicial Despotism," but he didn't use the literal term so we'll set it aside.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

notquiteright said:
Any tendency of a judge to use personal opinion vs law would be negated by the appeals process which uses panels of judges in the higher courts. What impressed me about 'conservatives' is when a decision goes against their beliefs it is a vast tyrannical plot which includes out of control, unelected Supremes shredding the Constitution..... yada yada yada.....

The appeals courts smacks down restricting soda size the 'liberals' mostly just shrug and continue on with life. No diva rants about the end of the Republic, vast liberal take-over, the Takers have won, the courts need to be overthrown! Oh and when a 'conservative' state/governmental body appeals it is to right a wrong- costs be damned, when a 'liberal' group does it is a waste of taxpayer money :doh
Click to expand...

Well, it's not really a conservative phenomenon, considering the responses Citizens United and Gore V Bush generated.

As I acknowledged earlier, people tend to imply judicial activism in decisions they don't like.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Republic Now! said:
The earliest reference to judicial activism I can find is Schlesinger in 1947, who was a New Deal advocate, a speech writer for JFK, and an active participant in Ted Kennedy's presidential bid. Of course, the first American historical reference to the idea was Jefferson's criticism of "Judicial Despotism," but he didn't use the literal term so we'll set it aside.
Click to expand...

what about this one ..Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

ernst barkmann said:
what about this one ..Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Click to expand...

Well, I mean someone using the phrase, not exactly cases that could be considered judicial activism.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Republic Now! said:
Well, I mean someone using the phrase, not exactly cases that could be considered judicial activism.
Click to expand...

i will understand how they ruled against Roscoe Filburn.....the court knew he grew the wheat for consumption by his cattle.... and not for sell on the market.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Republic Now! said:
Well, it's not really a conservative phenomenon, considering the responses Citizens United and Gore V Bush generated.

As I acknowledged earlier, people tend to imply judicial activism in decisions they don't like.
Click to expand...

I don't recall the same hue and cry over Citizens United as there was over the 'corrupt' Supreme Court ruling on Doma and the prop 8 business from California. I don't recall the 'liberals' making a bunch of almost threats to overthrow/start a revolution/secede over Citizens United. Did I miss something?

Gore v BushII was a presidential election that went on to have Gore winning the popular vote. But there was no wild rants about blood of tyrants and all that rot.

I don't believe I said ONLY the 'conservatives' bad mouth the courts- do think they make it an artform, like the rants in congress of Terry Shivo and wanting the courts to interfere with Florida law over a patient in a hospital but quite smug when the courts upheld Florida's cut-off for recounts in Gore V BushII.

People tend to imply- ok, I get that- but 'conservatives' make the false idol of unelected activist judges a high totem at every convention, PAC meeting and national election.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

ernst barkmann said:
how do you know, he could have meant in the real world and not on this forum.
Click to expand...

HOJ is almost always wrong when it comes to his interpretation of rational thinking peoples' posts
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

TurtleDude said:
HOJ is almost always wrong when it comes to his interpretation of rational thinking peoples' posts
Click to expand...

Looks like more rightwing boomsticklover noise machine meme.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

American said:
Looks like more rightwing boomsticklover noise machine meme.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a need to say something even if its completely wrong as usual
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

notquiteright said:
I don't recall the same hue and cry over Citizens United as there was over the 'corrupt' Supreme Court ruling on Doma and the prop 8 business from California. I don't recall the 'liberals' making a bunch of almost threats to overthrow/start a revolution/secede over Citizens United. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

It seems so.


Gore v BushII was a presidential election that went on to have Gore winning the popular vote. But there was no wild rants about blood of tyrants and all that rot.
Click to expand...

I'm referencing the court decision, not the election.

You don't remember the controversy of that decision?

I don't believe I said ONLY the 'conservatives' bad mouth the courts- do think they make it an artform, like the rants in congress of Terry Shivo and wanting the courts to interfere with Florida law over a patient in a hospital but quite smug when the courts upheld Florida's cut-off for recounts in Gore V BushII.
Click to expand...

Well, your position was liberals don't engage in rhetoric about judicial activism because they didn't about this case. Personally, I don't think many liberals agree with the soda ban in the first place. Issues they do disagree with, such as Gore V Bush and Citizens United are another matter...

People tend to imply- ok, I get that- but 'conservatives' make the false idol of unelected activist judges a high totem at every convention, PAC meeting and national election.
Click to expand...

Do they? A vast majority of the time, unless someone is engaging in the behavior of denouncing a decision they disagree with, I don't hear anything about th it except for people who sarcastically reference it every time a decision is made.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

head of joaquin said:
It's the total intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism. Look at turtle's post -- I was quoting him!
Click to expand...

Educated people know how to use quotation marks, and proper coding on the Internet. You on the other hand did not, so you did not quote Turtle, nor properly attribute it to him in your post. Do try to keep up, something more than your usual leftwing noise machine meme.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

windowdressing said:
While I think it's a good idea to limit how much of that crap you drink, and while it and other crap we consume, contributes to obesity and illnesses that costs all of us a lot of money, a mayor shouldn't be telling how much of something people can have. He's not a parent. So we agree.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to pick up the tab for every bad decision people make and it won't cost us near as much money.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Republic Now! said:
It seems so.

(So do show me, enlighten me.... have some proof.)



I'm referencing the court decision, not the election. (the court decision that ended the recount of a national election where Gore won the popular vote- let's try and use context. Controversy yes- the extreme rants like the radical right- no)

You don't remember the controversy of that decision? (I remember some, but again that wasn't a brain dead patient in a florida hospital which got GOP congressman fuming infront of cameras over 'activist judges' when the supreme court said the florida laws on legal guardianship are constitutional, everyone to include BushII tried to get involved to take the legal system over to suit themselves. No sir the gore v bushII was for the leader of the free world seat. It was for the presidency. Even at that the calls for overthrowning the government and blood of tyrants seemed lacking)

Well, your position was liberals don't engage in rhetoric about judicial activism because they didn't about this case. Personally, I don't think many liberals agree with the soda ban in the first place. Issues they do disagree with, such as Gore V Bush and Citizens United are another matter...

(No Sir, you are spinning the discussion... I never said Liberals never voice dislike over an opinion, I do say the radical right wing of the GOP makes 'activist judges' a red meat, incite the masses chant. Everytime a right wing law gets struck down from making landlords confirm the citizen status of everyone who rents from them to prop 8 of late the radical right wing in here comes unglued. You try and make disagreement the equal to the blood of tyrants rants.)


Do they? A vast majority of the time, unless someone is engaging in the behavior of denouncing a decision they disagree with, I don't hear anything about th it except for people who sarcastically reference it every time a decision is made.
Click to expand...

(I'd say you suffer a bit of the don't notice people I agree with doing stuff- will hunt to try and make any disagreement seem the equal to the wild eyed rants done in here, in front of cameras, at TP/GOP political rallies, and national GOP presidential primaries. the TP/GOP has elevated 'activist' rants to a high and ugly artform)

No sir, try and make the two sides equal on this all you want... but that dog just won't hunt.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

notquiteright said:
(I'd say you suffer a bit of the don't notice people I agree with doing stuff- will hunt to try and make any disagreement seem the equal to the wild eyed rants done in here, in front of cameras, at TP/GOP political rallies, and national GOP presidential primaries. the TP/GOP has elevated 'activist' rants to a high and ugly artform)

No sir, try and make the two sides equal on this all you want... but that dog just won't hunt.
Click to expand...

Then show me.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

but its fine to tell women what they can do with their wombs. Odd country.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Higgins86 said:
but its fine to tell women what they can do with their wombs. Odd country.
Click to expand...

Odd comparison and even odder since Roe v. Wade still stands.

Still, I would love to know how a ban on certain size drinks where someone is just enjoying a drink of their own choosing has anything to with abortion that involves two parties where the one party takes part in an action that ends the life of the other party. Feel free to share how your logic works.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

I noted that Mayor Doubtfire said he was going to appeal the decision to the state's highest appeals court. Hopefully, he's going to fully refund the city for the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars he's wasting on both the inplimentation of this nonsense and the idiotic vanity appeals he's ordering.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

MaggieD said:
And the city is appealing the decision. They should be ashamed of themselves wasting taxpayer money on such foolishness.
Click to expand...

Oh, but you're looking at it the wrong way. They're not wasting money. They're "investing" resources in the hopes they'll get a favorable verdict, then once that hurdle is cleared, just think of all the further legislation they'll pass to improve our lives.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Henrin said:
Odd comparison and even odder since Roe v. Wade still stands.

Still, I would love to know how a ban on certain size drinks where someone is just enjoying a drink of their own choosing has anything to with abortion that involves two parties where the one party takes part in an action that ends the life of the other party. Feel free to share how your logic works.
Click to expand...


its more the fact American conservatives are up in arms about this but have no problem with the government trying to step in and ban abortions etc seems they hate big government and protect peoples rights when it suits them . I also dont see how banning large soft drinks is any different from making a person wear a seatbelt, helmet etc. Seems like a big distraction to me!
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Higgins86 said:
its more the fact American conservatives are up in arms about this but have no problem with the government trying to step in and ban abortions etc seems they hate big government and protect peoples rights when it suits them . I also dont see how banning large soft drinks is any different from making a person wear a seatbelt, helmet etc. Seems like a big distraction to me!
Click to expand...

To me, abortion is a distraction. I almost think it is intentionally a distraction, and that way too many people fall for it.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Higgins86 said:
its more the fact American conservatives are up in arms about this but have no problem with the government trying to step in and ban abortions etc seems they hate big government and protect peoples rights when it suits them. I also dont see how banning large soft drinks is any different from making a person wear a seatbelt, helmet etc. Seems like a big distraction to me!
Click to expand...

Laws against homicide are not big government. They're simply a way for the state to hold people accountable for killing others. Seat belt laws and helmet laws is the government compelling behavior in citizens to make them behave in a certain way for their own safety. The government banning a certain product from the market is the government attempting to eliminate a choice the people can take part in. The motivations behind all of these examples of laws are different.
 
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Henrin said:
Laws against homicide are not big government. They're simply a way for the state to hold people accountable for killing others. Seat belt laws and helmet laws is the government compelling behavior in citizens to make them behave in a certain way for their own safety. The government banning a certain product from the market is the government attempting to eliminate a choice the people can take part in. The motivations behind all of these examples of laws are different.
Click to expand...

so you dont think that the government making you wear a seatbelt in your own car and banning fatty potentially dangerous products are essentially the same thing?
 
Last edited:
Re: Appeals judges say NYC's ban on big, sugary drinks at restaurants is unconstituti

Higgins86 said:
so you dont think that the government making you wear a seatbelt in your own car and banning fatty potentially dangerous products are essentially the same thing?
Click to expand...

No. Seat belt requirements don't restrict you from driving a high-powered sports car. You still have the right to drive said sports car as much as you want, even though it's probably more dangerous than a plain Honda Accord.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom