Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Not me. It doesn't matter if the issue is abortion, euthenasia, or the price of tea in China. A judge should do nothing, absolutely nothing, except interpret the law in accordance with the law and only the law. If the law sucks (and there are quite a few that do), then the judge must still interpret according to that law, whether it sucks or not.Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
When it comes to the issue of abortion, yes.
If Roberts and Miers are pro-choice, I hope it does destroy the Republican Party, 40% of which are "evangelical Christians". Let's abandon this lying, suck-egg Party of hypocrites.Originally posted by ballfan:
The backlash from Christians would come close to destroying the Republican Party at all levels.
I didn't realize that Roe v Wade was pro-life. Please explain.Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
Are there any laws that sanction abortion? Seems to me all the laws are pro-life and are getting ruled unconstitutional because the Constitution's framers gave women the privacy and power over their own fetuses.
How can you possibly say that? Remember when there was talk of Bruce Babbitt being nominated by then-President Clinton? Remember how Rush Limbaugh was criticizing this pick, noting that Babbitt had never been a judge? I do......Originally posted by KenH:
Looks like another great pick to me. Apparently, Ms. Miers believes that the legislature should legislate and the courts should adjudicate.
Don't disagree with you on this, but the jury is out on this pick. My initial reaction was that this is more of the same cronyism we have come to expect from this Administration.No one should know ahead of time how a justice or a judge will rule on a case so that we have an impartial judiciary that looks at the facts and then applies the constitution and the laws to it.
That's my impression as well, thus meeting the criteria for an adequate candidate. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I hear Sean Hannity saying this all the time. Rush Limbaugh does too. Could someone please show me any legislation that has actually been written by the courts?Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by KenH:
Apparently, Ms. Miers believes that the legislature should legislate and the courts should adjudicate.
Again, could you give me some examples where laws were actually created by the Courts?Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
If you actually listen to Rush and Hannity, you would know what they were talking about vis-a-vis legislating from the bench. One example is the recent ruling that governments can sieze private property and give it to another private citizen. That should be decided in the legislature, not the judicial. The correct ruling in that case would have supported private property rights per the constitution, and to throw it back on the states to maintain their own laws which are passed through elected officials.
OK..here you go...Again, could you give me some examples where laws were actually created by the Courts?
Regards,
BiR
Right now, local officials are preparing to condemn the home of Justice Suiter to turn the property over to developers to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel." They can legally do this (i.e. it is LAWful) due to the legal precedent established by the supreme court. The only way that Suiter could stop this, is by persuading his state to write legislation to supercede the law as established by the court decision.If you actually listen to Rush and Hannity, you would know what they were talking about vis-a-vis legislating from the bench. One example is the recent ruling that governments can sieze private property and give it to another private citizen. That should be decided in the legislature, not the judicial. The correct ruling in that case would have supported private property rights per the constitution, and to throw it back on the states to maintain their own laws which are passed through elected officials.
You must have picked up on the DEM talking points that went out...to accuse this pick of mere cronyism. If you want a real lesson in cronyism, look at the Clinton administration when he brought all his Arkansas cronies to Washington.My initial reaction was that this is more of the same cronyism we have come to expect from this Administration.
First of all, I am a Republican.Originally posted by Chick Daniels:
You must have picked up on the DEM talking points that went out...to accuse this pick of mere cronyism. If you want a real lesson in cronyism, look at the Clinton administration when he brought all his Arkansas cronies to Washington.
Interesting.....I agree with you on the point that we will have to wait and see on this pick. I certainly would have been more excited with a pick of a clear conservative judge.
Thank you, Joseph. I really didn't want to get involved in this thread, but if someone didn't give it as an example pretty soon, I was going to start screaming it from the rooftops!!Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Roe V Wade
Hello Joseph:Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Roe V Wade
No law was created from the bench. They simply invalidated legislation because they believed that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment.To quote from the decision:
Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the "particularly careful scrutiny" that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires.
The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. These are legitimate objectives, amply sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions as it does other surgical procedures, and perhaps sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions more stringently or even to prohibit them in the late stages of pregnancy. But such legislation is not before us, and I think the Court today has thoroughly demonstrated that these state interests cannot constitutionally support the broad abridgment of personal [410 U.S. 113, 171] liberty worked by the existing Texas law. Accordingly, I join the Court's opinion holding that that law is invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Rehnquist observed that the decision invalidated "the Texas statute in question." This was interpretation, not legislation.MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.
The Court's opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent.