Hate crime bill passes House

[OldRegular]

Now before someone mentions I voted for Obama, I need to remind you that 7 of the current 9 justices were put in the court by Republican's and Roe v Wade still stands... Voting GOP doesn't mean you did anything for ending abortion anymore than going to Church means someone is saved...

obama has already indicated that he is not looking for someone who will judge the constitutionality of laws of appeals on the basis of the Constitution but will consider the race, ethnicity, economic status, sexual perversion/orientation, etc., etc., of the appellants.

 

[rbell]

It is constitutional for congress to amend the constitution and so my statement stands.

To repeat another...amendment ratification is started by Congress, but ultimately is a states matter.

Furthermore...it is not the job of the Congress to take away constitutionally guaranteed rights. Hate crime legislation has that potential.

 

[Andy T.]

You miss one key point, the constitution can be amended by congress...

Perhaps I was awake in civics and you were the one sleep...

Nope. You continue to embarrass yourself. Congress does not amend the constitution; the states do. Congress proposes the change, but that's it.

 

[Andy T.]

When one man is free to murder another man with no repercussion then what we have is not the freedom or liberty intended in the constitution or justice presented in scripture.

If a court and jury abdicates its responsibility to convict a murderer (where no reasonable doubt exists), that does not mean we need another law. We already have laws against murder. That is a failure in the system, not the law itself.

 

[Andy T.]

Good point... However, here the problem I see. Why is it most supreme court decisions are split 4 to 5? I mean if the laws or constitutionality of something is that black and white like you all pretend, why would great legal scholars such as these be split on their decision?

Because some judges are better than others. Judges are not perfect. And some are downright bad.

In that light, is it really possible to eliminate judicial activism from he court?

Not completely, because we live in a fallen world. It can be minimized, however, by having better judges.

Here is another point that I hope can be received in the light intended, many us here are waiting for the court to change so to over turn Roe v Wade. This means we are looking for a judge whose legislative view is pro-life. Doesn't this mean we are equally looking for a judicial activist?

It is not judicial activism to overturn a previously bad decision. Roe v. Wade was a bad decision by the Court and needs to be overturned.

Now before someone mentions I voted for Obama, I need to remind you that 7 of the current 9 justices were put in the court by Republican's and Roe v Wade still stands... Voting GOP doesn't mean you did anything for ending abortion anymore than going to Church means someone is saved...

The makeup up the court right now makes the overturning of Roe v. Wade close to becoming a reality. Obama as President will not advance that one bit, and it may regress (depending on who else leaves the court). If there had been no Reagen, Bush I or Bush II, we wouldn't have the four solid justices in Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. If Democrats had their way, we would have 9 liberals and 0 conservatives on the Court. As it stands, we at least have some semblance of justice on the Court. Yes, the Republicans have not been perfect in their appointments, but they have been far, far better than the Democrats. Voting GOP may not mean you did anything to stop abortion, but voting Democrat means you really did something to keep abortion going.