- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
The problem is they do abuse their power and make laws.
Yes they do tossing people in jail for minor drug offenses for years at a time.
The problem is they do abuse their power and make laws.
The problem is they do abuse their power and make laws.
Civics 101 tells us that judges don't make law, they interpret law and establish prescedent.
I'm just saying that there have been enough decisions of either variety that a quick Google search will answer your question for you.
Yes they do tossing people in jail for minor drug offenses for years at a time.
If you are going to make an argument, make it. Telling people to google the answer isn't an argument.
American is the one who made it. Completely without support, as well. (And, he's wrong - Google it :mrgreen: )
You missed my point entirely. In NJ, with gay civil unions, gay couples have the same benefits, I believe as straight married couples. My point is, that if GM gets defeated in NJ, the only loss is the loss of a word.
Because apparently I need to repeat myself...
If you want to go toe for toe comparing liberal activist decisions to conservative activist decisions just say so and I'll be happy to bury you.
I don't. However, American apparently does. And he claimed to have never heard of conservative judicial activism. That's a knowledge gap that's easily rectified. And, since he's the one making the argument, onus is on him.
How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?
How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?
That isn't what he said.
He never said it never happens. He questioned how often it happens.
He should answer the question. I inferred that he'd never heard of any instances. I'd be interested to hear American's argument. He should actually you know, make it.
Truthfully, to me this is irrelevant. NJ already has civil unions which affords gay couples rights for adoptions, benefits, and other things that married couples have. Though my overall position is that the term "marriage" should be used only for religious purposes and all governmental unions should be "civil unions"... gay or straight, the way that NJ handles it currently, is fine by me. I'm not sure why this is a big deal.
How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?
Answer what question?
The one he posited.
He didn't infer that at all. You inferred that.
As I said, just say the word and I will be happy to compare how often the two sides use the court system to get what they want.
Exactly so. I inferred his meaning, b/c he made no argument. He should google the rest of his argument. Like TED said. :twisted:
Most people have no problem with civil unions with equal rights but are strongly against allowing gays to marriage and every place it has went to the vote by the people it has been strongly defeated...........
Sorry, he challenged the other person to list the conservative activism obviously setting them up for a serious fall. That was the plan :2wave:
How many times have you seen judges making conservative laws from the bench? Hmmm?
What's the matter, different rules for different ideolgies? Is American not able to you know, MAKE the argument. Should you not be telling AMERICAN to google the rest of his argument, rather than TED?
I detect double standards here.
What is the problem with the legal codification of civil unions for heterosexual couples just like it would be for homosexual couples?
And just leave the word marriage up to various private institutions.
Its called baiting. The very fact you refused my challenge on the same terms shows you really aren't interested in the facts of the subject
Maybe you should reevaluate your views. Society moves forward. You stay in the same place.
Maybe you should reevaluate your views. Society moves forward. You stay in the same place.