Why is there so much fuss about "activist judges"?

I'm thinking it was close to 100 years, which means the people who were fighting for it so hard couldn't even see the benefits of it in their lifetime.

Very, very sad.

It's easy to shrug it off when you weren't the one affected by the discriminatory laws, but the fact is that in no way should these people who were fighting for civil rights and equality have had to struggle the way they did. Black people should not have had a sheriff in Alabama sending dogs after them and turning firehoses on them because they dared to stick up for the right to eat in the same restaurants as white people. Women should not have had to stay in marriages with abusive husbands without having a way out.

 

Yes, but you keep forgetting, that was not the norm, no matter how many times this characterization keeps getting co-opted..

For example, there was no offical policy of segregation in Illinois, as in most of the Northern states.

I'm not going to be so bold as to say that racist attitudes did not exsist, but you had nothing like what you are illustrating.

That was not the result of any specific court order, but people gradually accepting one and another..

Women recieved the right to vote in Illinois(except for Presidential elections, which was thought to be "federal.") in 1891, a full 20+ years before the actual 19th Amendment.

Not to mention that Illinois was the first state to actually ratify the 19th.

Again, this was not the result of any specific court ruling, but through an understanding of the people.

Its hard to claim minority rights, when 3/4 of the state supports something.

That's why America is built on those principles.

 

But in my home state of North Carolina, things were quite different.

I would have to look up some of the actual laws and court cases, etc., that took place here, but the sit-in that started all sit-ins at a Woolworth's lunch counter took place in Greensboro, about an hour and a half from me.

My mother remembers wanting to invite her maid's daughter, who she was friends with, to go to the country club with her and was not able to do so--she didn't understand why; to her, this girl was just another of her friends. She didn't notice her skin being a different color until that day.

Neither of my parents went to school with any African-Americans. Both of them remember smart black adults being called "boy" and being pushed around by whites. Even today, there are small towns in North Carolina where it is not considered acceptable to "mix", including the one I grew up in. I thank God my parents are much more accepting of interracial relationships than most of their peers.

 

Yes, and I recognize that..But that's kind of my point..

Not everyone thought the way that you just illustrated, so when changed was occuring, it wasn't so cut and dried.

and I think the most sucessful paradigm shifts occured when they were accompanied by social support.

 

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." - Thomas Jefferson


anakin_girl:

It's easy to shrug it off when you weren't the one affected by the discriminatory laws, but the fact is that in no way should these people who were fighting for civil rights and equality have had to struggle the way they did.

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."

This cannot be emphasized enough.

If you support the idea that humanity should govern itself, you must actually let us govern.

Sometimes, we won't move to improve things as quickly as you'd like. Sometimes, we'll actually move in a direction that is contrary to what you'd like. But that's the price you pay for letting mankind control its own destiny.

I think it's a fair price for political freedom.

You say that the struggle for minority causes should "in no way" be as hard as it is, but I don't think the loss of genuine political freedom is worth it.

I don't think we should sacrifice self-governance for an elite body moving to quickly reform society. For one thing, I value self-governance too much for that.

But more than that, we won't get what we pay for.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."

In this case, we're arguing the security of quick reform, and I'm not going to argue about what a group willing to give up liberty for security deserves: regardless of whethere they deserve neither, they end up with neither.

The "benevolent dictator" is a hypothetical situation, a fiction, and a pipedream.

Government, like the universe, is subject to its own entropy. In government's case, entropy doesn't lead to chaos: it leads to oppression.

There has never been, in all of human history, an authoritarian government that has been good for individual freedom in the long run. The occasional good king always dies and is eventually replaced with a tyrant. And, since tyranny is easier to maintain than liberty, it becomes the status quo.


"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."

Giving the right to rule to the small elite is an extraordinarily dangerous idea.



And, on the question of support, Mr44 is quite right: "the most sucessful paradigm shifts occured when they were accompanied by social support."

Not to bring this entire debate back to gay marriage, but consider these two facts. I've cited this before, but it's worth re-citing:

It is July 2002. The Legislature has before it a proposed amendment to the state constitution, properly drafted in language approved by the attorney general, enshrining the traditional definition of marriage: one man, one woman. The amendment is supported by the certified signatures of more than 130,000 registered voters on official petitions -- far more than the number needed to qualify for legislative action.

The lawmakers know the rules. Under Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution, they are required -- not authorized, *required* -- to vote on the proposed amendment. If 25 percent of the 200-member Legislature votes yes in two consecutive legislative terms, the amendment goes to the voters in November. In other words, legislators cannot kill an amendment proposed by citizen initiative unless more than 150 of them -- 75 percent -- vote no.

But the amendment's opponents don't have 150 votes. So they decide to kill the amendment through an underhanded maneuver. After the presiding officer, Senate President Thomas Birmingham, opens the joint session, he immediately recognizes Brian Lees, the Senate minority leader. Lees moves to adjourn the constitutional convention. Birmingham puts the motion to a vote. They need only a simple majori

 

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite."

You mean like a small group of conservative judges on the Supreme Court? Despite your claims to the contrary, Gore did in fact with the recounts in Florida, and under Florida law, did in fact earn the Florida electoral vote. I have posted proof of this on this thread, which you have ignored.

 

Dubya got more votes than Al Gore, so Gore (being a liberal) demanded a recount how many times? With every recounting, the margin got larger: Dubya got more votes than Gore, and all of the other "smaller" candidates endorsed Dubya and gave him their votes. In other words, you just want to rewrite history and make conservatism seem like a conspiracy: go away.

 

no kidding. Read the facts people. Bush won the election no matter how you look at it. The recounts all showed that he won. The judges were only involved because Gore kepy whining about it.

 

The links I posted ARE the facts. Read them. Bush and his supporters are the ones rewriting history, and here you're doing it to make it appear that judicial activism is only on the liberal side. Gore got the votes, and the recounts show that he won. That's why the recounts were stopped, and Scalia's own words prove this. I've read the facts and provided them here.

 

You are conducting a petty childish name-calling session.

The issue to be resolved by the United States Supreme Court was both simple and narrow: whether the recounts ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause, because different counting standards were to be applied in different electoral districts. Seven justices, in fact, agreed that it did; the infamous 5-4 split was only on the remedy for that violation.

The Supreme Court clearly carried out its assigned duty: to apply and uphold the Federal Constitution. It made no ruling on the actual result of the ballot, or the appointment of Florida's electors accordingly. You have entered into a discussion about matters that fall clearly outside the Supreme Court's remit. The Equal Protection Clause was its sole concern, there being no right of suffrage in presidential elections under federal law.

The federal judiciary doing its assigned duty by ruling on a case and controversy according to the law, does not place the United States under the absolute rule of nine judges. Only the 'living constitution', under which they cease to apply the law objectively, does that.

Obi-Ewan, I assume you refer to Scalia's reference to "irreparable harm" to Bush if the recounts in question went ahead, and went in Gore's favour. But you are taking his words completely out of their legal context. That statement by Scalia was concerned only with the decision whether to grant a stay, pending the actual determination of the case. The criterion for a stay is a risk of "irreparable harm"; Scalia said that one existed, so voted in favour of a stay.

This is what happens when you apply politics to law. You are treating Supreme Court justices like politicians, but unlike politicians, they are obliged to follow logic and principle, and to apply predefined tests in taking decisions. Even highly politicised decisions like that in Bush v. Gore.

 

It's interesting leftists mention disenfranchised voters, yet fail to bring up the overseas ballots that........disappeared.

Curious.

 

It's interesting leftists mention disenfranchised voters, yet fail to bring up the overseas ballots that........disappeared.

Curious.

Military votes that were submitted after election day, and therefore, not legal votes.

States, under the Constitution, are allowed to set their own standards for election processes, including presidential elections. The supreme court ruled that the state of Florida's standard, which was clear intent of the voter, was unconstitutional, but held the Florida Supreme Court accountable, telling them that they (the court, not the legislature) should have prescribed a different standard. Essentially, they said that the Florida Court was in the wrong for not engaging in judicial activism. The Florida Supreme Court was following Florida's election law, and under the constitution, that right is delegated to Florida, so the question is whether the election followed Florida's Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that it did not, but then essentially punished Florida's Supreme Court for not adopting new standards--even though that's not the court's job. The only judicial activism that the Florida Supreme Court engaged in was using the Dec 12 deadline--at which point Congress cannot contest the results--as a deadline by which recounts must be finished. The USSC made a complete mockery of Florida law by upholding that deadline, even though Florida law does not require it.

 

Guys, there's a 2000 election thread where we can discuss what happened in Florida.

 

Obi-Ewan, the Supreme Court was not concerned with Florida law; indeed, it has no jurisdiction over matters of state law on certiorari to a state supreme court. What it did have is jurisdiction to apply the federal constitution, and that's what it did, ruling that the state supreme court's order for recounts violated the Equal Protection Clause. What to do about that was a matter for the Florida courts. The Florida Supreme Court may have been in an impossible position, stuck between state law and the federal constitution, but that's not the Supreme Court's problem.

The Florida Supreme Court was following Florida's election law, and under the constitution, that right is delegated to Florida, so the question is whether the election followed Florida's Constitution.

This is clearly wrong. The right to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors is delegated to the state legislature, but only subject to the other provisions of the federal constitution. Do you think that the granting of "all legislative powers" to Congress by Article I nullifies the Bill of Rights? It does not; it delegates legislative power to Congress subject to the rest of the constitution.

The Supreme Court's ruling was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the federal--not Florida--constitution.

 

branthoris, the justices were interpreting the law as it was written in the constitution.

You may disagree, but that doesn't automatically mean that they were wrong. Roe has withstood thirty years of challenges and legal scrutiny; it has to have a logical basis somewhere.

Peace,

V-03

 

Roe has withstood thirty years of challenges and legal scrutiny; it has to have a logical basis somewhere.


That reasoning is not all that logical. If there is a logical basis, we would know where it was.

 

Vezner: "Go away" is a flame.

I don't see your name anywhere as Dictator Supreme of This Thread. You have no business telling anyone where they can post.

As far as the 2000 election results--we're also forgetting the idiotic "butterfly ballots" that caused old Jews to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan. (Like that would ever happen.) We're also forgetting the number of African-Americans that got pulled on the way to the voting booths to be "checked out".

 

Dictator Supreme

This is kind of off topic, but I would like to see one of those at Taco Bell.


About Florida, all I can say is that it is a mess.

If I were given the opportunity to fix the system, I would say that all elections for national leaders (U.S. Congress and President) would have to procede by federally mandated rules. I would also make it so that those elections all used scantron ballots and looked exactly the same no matter where you lived. If the states wanted something different, than they could do so with their elections for Governor or State Rep or what not.

 

I agree with you there, Jediflyer.

I don't exactly live in the richest state in the Union, but we have electronic ballots. There was no need for Florida to be using butterfly ballots.

All states, especially in federal elections, should have uniform ballots.

On the "other side" so to speak: my father, who is a big Bush fan, pointed something out to me right after this happened. The same thing happened in 1960 after the Nixon/Kennedy election. But Nixon, instead of calling for a recount, didn't want to put the country through that and conceded the election. The idea of Nixon caring about the country is somewhat laughable to me but it was a good point. Then again, Gore isn't my favorite person either, he was just a safer alternative to Bush IMHO.

 

I don't exactly live in the richest state in the Union, but we have electronic ballots. There was no need for Florida to be using butterfly ballots.

Parts of Florida were using electronic ballots. They didn't help, as there are some fundamental issues with the systems used. One precinct of 600 voters reported total of -16022 votes for Gore. Why? It turns out that there was a flipped bit in one of the memory cards used for the election machines.

In Virginia, they recently switched to electonic ballots from older mechanical systems. It turns out that the new machines use wireless networking to transfer the results before transmitting them to the central election server. They have minimal security on those systems' connections. Additionally, there is no paper trail that can be used to verify the votes after the election.

Electronic ballots won't solve anything, except to make votes easier to manipulate.

However, those are all issues for the 2000 Elections thread, not this one, as they have nothing to do with activist judges.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Whats wrong with Scantron.

Come on now, even the SAT and the ACT use them.