Home » xyzzy » Dungeon » Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism.
Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism. [message #57329] Fri, 11 November 2005 05:35 Go to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Ann Coulter:

If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.

But liberals have recently taken to pretending judicial activism is — as The New York Times has said repeatedly — voting "to invalidate laws passed by Congress." Invalidating laws has absolutely nothing to do with "judicial activism." It depends on whether the law is unconstitutional or not. That's really the key point.

That's why we have a judicial branch, Mr. Sulzberger, publisher of The New York Times. It's not a make-work program for the black robe industry. It's a third branch of our government. You'll learn more about this concept next year when you're in the seventh grade, Pinch.

If Congress passed a law prohibiting speech criticizing Bush, or banning blacks from owning property, or giving foreigners the right to run for president — all those laws could be properly struck down by the Supreme Court. That's not "judicial activism," it's "judicial."

Invalidating a law that prohibits killing unborn children on the preposterous grounds that the Constitution contains an extra-double-secret right to abortion no one had noticed for 200 years — that's judicial activism. When conservative judges strike down laws, it's because of what's in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it's because of what's in The New York Times.

The left's redefinition of judicial activism to mean something it's not allows liberals to claim they oppose judicial activism and to launch spirited denunciations of conservative judges as the real "judicial activists." This is the Democrats' new approach to winning arguments: Change the definition of words in mid-argument without telling the guy you're arguing with. Chairman Mao would approve.

Thus, The New York Times prissily informed its readers: "There is a misconception that so-called activist judges who 'legislate from the bench' are invariably liberal. In fact, conservative judges can be even more eager to overrule decisions made by elected officials."

That statement has as much intellectual content as saying: "There is a misconception that so-called activist judges who 'legislate from the bench' are invariably liberal. In fact, conservative judges can be even more eager to play tennis."

The very act of redefining "judicial activism" to mean invalidating any law passed by elected officials is precisely the sort of Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense we're talking about. Liberal judges redefine the Constitution's silence on abortion to mean "abortion is a precious constitutional right." Liberal flacks in the media redefine judicial activism to mean "striking down laws."

The Times' definition isn't even coherent. If it were "judicial activism" to strike down laws — any laws, ever — there would be no point to having a Supreme Court. We could just have some idiot functionary, like Joe Wilson, rubber-stamping whatever the other parts of government do.

Liberals can't win on abortion, gay marriage and bans on the Pledge of Allegiance by allowing Americans to vote. That's why they need the courts to keep inventing rights to abortion, gay marriage and bans on the Pledge of Allegiance.

Normal liberals know that, which is why they duck honest argument. But the crazy liberals don't. That's why Bush needs to concentrate on luring them out of their cages. It takes so little to provoke them! Just let us know before Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown to the Supreme Court so we can arrange for live TV coverage of George Soros' head exploding, OK?

Re: Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism. [message #57331 is a reply to message #57329] Fri, 11 November 2005 06:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Damir is currently offline  Damir
Messages: 1005
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)

Yes, yes, yes...!!!


Re: Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism. [message #57332 is a reply to message #57329] Fri, 11 November 2005 07:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Say What??? What did she just say?? Other than the constant conceptual shifts, what exactly was the content of this diatribe? Same old Ann.
Can you tell me when exactly is a fetus a child? No one else seems to know. Maybe she is omniscient.
Tell her to let us know if it is o'kay to invoke the privacy right written in the Constitution; if thats o'kay with her.

She has a sharp tongue thats for sure;

"I have no other but a womans reason,
I think it so, because I think it so."

William Shakespeare

I realize she uses big words.... [message #57333 is a reply to message #57332] Fri, 11 November 2005 07:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
Earlier you posted that you wanted a definition of term "legislating from the bench". She gives a very clear, concise definition:

"Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution."

You may also want to note another of her intelligent and concise comments from the above commentary:

"This is the Democrats' new approach to winning arguments: Change the definition of words in mid-argument without telling the guy you're arguing with. Chairman Mao would approve."

This is exactly what you have been engaging in whenever we debate a subject such as - the US getting very little oil from Iraq or the rich paying almost all taxes collected. Go back and read those threads. Point is that liberals have a finite amount of talking points on any given subject. Once they run out of them they end the discussion or act like the discussion was actually about something else.



Re:And those are facts? According to whom [message #57334 is a reply to message #57333] Fri, 11 November 2005 07:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Hey; I hope you guys aren't actually buying these books? Please tell me you're not; they don't say anything.

Re: Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism. [message #57335 is a reply to message #57331] Fri, 11 November 2005 08:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
Accurate; very accurate.
Say you know Nico has just released a new album; have you heard it?

See your doing it right now.... [message #57336 is a reply to message #57334] Fri, 11 November 2005 08:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mr Vinyl is currently offline  Mr Vinyl
Messages: 407
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (1st Degree)
It's a definition of "judicial activism". Should be very clear. Of course you wouldn't accept a definition of judicial activism unless it was something like "When Republican judges rule against democrats"

How do you know Ann Coulter's books "don't say anything" if you haven't read any?

Re: Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism. [message #57338 is a reply to message #57335] Fri, 11 November 2005 09:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Damir is currently offline  Damir
Messages: 1005
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (2nd Degree)
Hey, Nico was something, and yes - I bought "Camera Obscura", about 20 years ago...

"I was crazy when that actually meant something - today they are all crazy." - Ch. Manson


Re: See your doing it right now.... [message #57340 is a reply to message #57336] Fri, 11 November 2005 11:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
I'm sorry; I am not being facetious here; I see no definition whatsoever; only an opinion of what she feels constitutes judicial activism. She's entitled to her opinion but you should offer a explanation deeper than "I think so".

Re: Just for you Manual. Ann Coulter on the definition of Judicial Activism. [message #57341 is a reply to message #57329] Fri, 11 November 2005 11:58 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Manualblock is currently offline  Manualblock
Messages: 4973
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (13th Degree)
AK; what was the point of repeatring that.
Lets see:
Liberals are lying about it. About what?
The New York Times is "Prissy". Excuse me? What the hell does that mean?
Chairman Mao would approve. Of What exactly?
Extra-double-secret-right to abortion? Whaaa??? Does she mean the Privacy Right in The Constittution?
I'm sorry there is not one concrete statement in the whole article; it's all conjecture/opinion/slander/insults/inauthentic and unable to corroberate hearsay. Thats all I see there. Show me one statement of substance that has meaning outside of her opinion.

Previous Topic: Still waiting for the COHERENT explanation of legislating from the bench
Next Topic: Manual - here's a little tid bit on Bob Grant you might be interested in.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Dec 09 00:27:15 CST 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Miller Audio
Miller Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest