Sunday, November 22, 2009

For My Pal

This piece from Wintery Knight is a sample of the direction Barry is taking this country. It is intended for the edification of a close friend lost in the hell known today as liberalism and those like him. Read carefully and be enlightened. It is typical of the man some strangely call brilliant.

9 comments:

winteryknight said...

Thanks for the link, Marshall! I added you to my blogroll.

Jim said...

From Wikipedia:

"Hamilton held that the First Amendment did not prevent the city of Indianapolis from requiring parental consent for children to have access to video games containing explicit sexual content or extreme violence."

You mean his decision supported the will of the people against explicit sexual content in video games? How could a liberal do that?

"In 2006, the Seventh Circuit upheld Hamilton's decision to sentence a child pornographer to one hundred years in prison."

He's tough on child pornographers? Can't be a liberal.

President Bush nominated dozens of judges with histories of extreme judicial writings and decisions, decisions which favored government (executive power) over citizen's rights, and corporate rights over those of consumers.

Elections have consequences and among them is that the winners pick the judges.

We all know your definition of "activist judge". That's one whose judicial philosophy differs from yours. You'd like people to think that it means that activist means thwarting the will of the people through their elected representatives.

But if that were true, Clarence Thomas is the most activist justice on the Supreme Court since he has voted to overturn more legislation than any other sitting justice.

Just sayin'.

Marshall Art said...

OK Jim,

I'll give him a big pat on the back for doing the right thing now and then. But it's the wrong things that hurt us as a nation. More importantly, this shows the trend of Obama's selections to various posts. Most are radical in their views to a large enough extent that they are poor choices.

As to Bush's choices "favoring" go'vt over citizens or big business over consumers, you would have to point out how the decisions were radical or illogical considering the law and common sense. I know that, I believe it was Alito (either him or Roberts, but I believe Alito) was said to have favored big business, but the examples used didn't show that at all, but that he was following the law as written. That makes him not a radical or activist, but one who does his job as Justice of the SC. You would also need to show what you mean in reference to Thomas. It isn't a matter of overturning legislation that makes one radical, it's a matter of overturning legislation in a manner contrary to the Constitution and the mandate of Justices in accordance with it. For example, Roe v Wade was overturning the Constitution where the right to life is protected for all. To then overturn Roe would be aligning that issue with the Consitution, whether it overturns th will of the people or not. In the same manner, homo marriage is not contrary to the Constitution as it isn't covered by it, thus the will of the people has more weight, and decisions that are said to be based on the Constitution are fallacious. It's all very simple.

Jim said...

"the Constitution where the right to life is protected for all."

Doesn't say anything in the Constitution about the "rights" of the unborn. The Constitution was not "overturned" by Roe v. Wade. You can't overturn the Constitution (except Bush v. Gore 2000). Roe v. Wade was about the ability of states to restrict the rights of women. Nothing in it about "rights" of the unborn.

And as you know, Scalia himself has stated that a fetus is not a person.

Jim said...

Your presumption is that if a justice rules against legislation you favor, then the justice has not used precedent and sound legal reasoning to reach that decision but rather personal bias.

But if the justice rules in your favor, that can only be because they have followed the Constitution as if there is no debate in any case (why do we have judges at all in that case?).

Marshall Art said...

"Doesn't say anything in the Constitution about the "rights" of the unborn."

Well it is our Declaration of Independence that established that we are all endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right to life. Is this not the ultimate right of each individual protected by the Constitution? All rights begin there. Are you really going to make the inane suggestion that each of us is so endowed at some subjective point after conception? Especially in light of the available science that proves the manner in which we come into existence? I could forgive an 18th century politician from being unaware, but not now. And since science DOES prove that human life begins at conception, that only sharpens the focus of when our rights are so endowed. Thus, Roe removed rights it had no right to remove, as we are all endowed by our Creator with that right to life. Roe ranks among the most egregious unAmerican decisions by the Supreme Court to ever take place in our history. Whether one is born or about to be, one is endowed with the unalienable right to life.

Scalia did not state that a fetus is not a person. He speculated as to whether or not it was so considered by the founders. But he did so with no support whatsoever. It was his personal speculation. However, where he erred is in the notion that anyone would naturally consider the unborn specifically when speaking of the rights of man. As a matter of course no one would. One would naturally think only of grown men (and/or women). It isn't even likely that children would be considered at first. But the right to life certainly applies to children as well as to grown men.

So the right to life is indeed Constitutionally protected and that right extends to all people at every stage of their natural lives.

Regarding your last, Jim, I make no such presumption. But just like in debates regarding Scripture, that's a charge leveled without support. Since I think in terms of Constitutional rights and the founders and what they had in mind, it stands to reason that if SCOTUS rules in my favor, it is because their decision was based on the Constitution. My personal bias is simple to understand. Follow the Constitution. It so happens that my ideology and religious faith aligns well with the Constitution so that I need not fear when a Justice is abiding the Constitution. I have no issue with debate amongst the Justices. I have only issues when the result of that debate finds a majority in conflict with the Constitution.

And if precedent is set and followed based upon bad SCOTUS decisions, then I expect that precedent to be ignored in favor of a more Constitutionally correct alternative by better justices.

Jim said...

"So the right to life is indeed Constitutionally protected and that right extends to all people at every stage of their natural lives."

I'd love to read any writings from the time of the founders by the founders or anyone influencing them that would lead anyone to believe that they had anyone but breathing, post-birth individuals in mind when they talked about, wrote about, or signed onto any document about the rights of anyone. This would inform us to "original intent", right? Please provide such sources.

The Constitution itself doesn't grant any individual rights per se. Rights, as I'm sure you know, are granted by the Bill of Rights. There's a lot of stuff in there about free speech, assembly, bearing arms, unreasonable searches, having trials, not having soldiers in your home, punishment, etc., but there doesn't seem to be anything in there about any right given to anyone not yet born.

"It so happens that my ideology and religious faith aligns well with the Constitution so that I need not fear when a Justice is abiding the Constitution. I have no issue with debate amongst the Justices. I have only issues when the result of that debate finds a majority in conflict with the Constitution."

Interesting that with over 200 years of jurisprudence, judicial thought and study, case law, and decisions at every jurisdiction, it really all boils down to whether or not the law conforms to the "Constitution" as defined by the most learned "justice" Marshall.

Sine die

Marshall Art said...

"I'd love to read any writings from the time of the founders..etc..."

That was my point. It is natural to assume that they ONLY had adult males in mind, perhaps adult females, but to think they considered ALL human beings, that is, consciously had ALL human beings in the forefront of their minds isn't reasonable. As I say, they likely were only thinking in terms of adult males when they spoke of rights for anyone. Look at it again. Do they speak of children or teens or even women? No. They don't. Does that mean that no one but adult males are endowed with the right to life? They spoke of all MEN being created equal. What about kids and women? So to say they were only talking about "born" men only makes sense if you say the WEREN'T talking about anyone BUT men.

"...it really all boils down to whether or not the law conforms to the "Constitution" as defined by the most learned "justice" Marshall."

That's the thing about being a free-born American: I'm free to have my own opinions about anything, including the decisions of the Supreme Court. I can read. I can reason. I can understand the the Kelo decision was crap and I can see that Roe was even worse. And here's the best part, Jim: you're equally free to abdicate all understanding of right and wrong, common sense and foolishness and let others make such decisions for you. I'll fight and speak out against bad SCOTUS decisions. You can continue to roll over and let other people TELL you what to believe.

Jim said...

OK.