Kralizec, I always get a kick outta your comments, but “my cruel delight in pointing out your inferiority” is one of your best! Keep up the good work.

Tony737 on November 10, 2006 at 6:04 AM

Thanks, Tony737, and I’m glad to know you’re reading.

Throughout the history of our country courts and judges, not elected officials, have been at the forefront of civil rights laws, so like it or not, it should not come as a suprise that they are today.

BTW, JaHerer22, what branches of government were responsible for women’s suffrage and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The Founding Fathers designed the Supreme Court and gave it as much power as the elected branches of government because they realized that the ‘masses’ neededed to be checked and balanced as well. Throughout the history of our country courts and judges, not elected officials, have been at the forefront of civil rights laws, so like it or not, it should not come as a suprise that they are today. I’m sure 60 years ago there were many people complaining about the ‘activist judges’ who would dare make a decision as crazy as Brown v. BOE. And 60 years from now our kids will be reading in the history books about the ‘activist judges’ and the oppostion the faced when gay marriage was legalized.

The Founders left it to the Judiciary to interpret laws, including those enshrined in the Constitution, but never, ever to create them. The Legislative branch enacts law, the executive implemtens and enforces law and the judiciary intereprets law, all of which must remain within Constitutional parameters.

Brown vs. BOE was not judicial activism, as the court invented nothing, but simply executed it’s duty to apply the Constitution faithfully.

Gay marriage as a right is as valid as a man’s right to bear children. Doesn’t matter how much you’d like it to be, it can’t.

“I don’t know if he’s gay. But Al Gore Bill Maher — total fag.”

-Ann Coulter

And,.. um…gross lush too

Created to stand the test of time. A government created by genuises to be run by idiots (the first “idiot proof” product, so to speak).

Unfortunately, they didn’t see today coming as it has – they believed in the innate good of the collective people to oversee and participate in their affairs.

They would not believe how their intent has been so perverted by all sides if they were here now.

Perhaps it is a good thing that they are not so that they do not have to suffer the indignity of seeing their work flushed down the toilet.

The conservative judges overturned more federal laws and more judical precedents than the liberal judges did; the liberal judges overturned more state laws. This is fact, you can look it up. I have absolutely no delusions that you will consider this before making your “activist judges are all liberal” lament, but there you are.

honora on November 10, 2006 at 9:44 AM

That’s some pretty sloppy reasoning there, h. Did you miss law school/civics class or were you deliberately dumbing this down to address foxforce? (of course, you assume that all we Conservatives are morons…)
Conservative Justices–to wit, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts (formerly Rehnquist and sometimes O’Connor) would overturn a case because they are by their nature strict constructionists of the Constitution and could tell that the cases from lower level courts, be they state or federal, were making it up as they went along to suit their Liberal agenda, like abortion, gay marriage, or seizure of private property.
Whereas the Libs (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souder and Stevens: Boo! Hiss!) believe the Constitution to be a “living, breathing document” that must be jolted to life with the paddles of Socialism, no Liberalism, make that Transnational Progressivism and that the Law must be interpreted “loosely” to fit modern living conditions. The Founding Fathers couldn’t possibly want abortion of a child up to its 9th fetal month to be illegal, so they must have implied a right to privacy that makes that procedure possible and legal.

The Huffingtonpost? That one made me actually LOL.

I’ll never understand the preoccupation with sexual orientation that so many seem to have. What kind of moron defines himself or herself by their sexuality? What happened to people being American? Sad. Even sadder that someone actually thought there was something to see here.

See? I knew one of you would bring this up and relate it to gay marriage and here’s why it doesn’t apply:
Brown vs. BOE was based on the 14th Amendement and completely Constitutional. Children were not getting an equal education due to segregation. So under the Equal Protection Clause (14th amendement) the courts rightfully interpreted the Constitution’s 14 amendment to allow black children the same educational standards as white children.

Gay marriage does not apply to the Equal Protection Clause because gays already have the same marriage rights as everyone else – they can marry the same people I can. So if you give gays legally recognized marriage would you include other same sex couples: mother/daughter, brother/brother, father/son? Because if you didn’t then that would be giving special rights to gays – not equal protection – for all same sex couples. You would be saying, “only these particular same-sex couples can marry.” Legal marriage isn’t based on love, it’s based on a partnership between a man and a woman because of the potential for biological offspring and their legal entitlements.

I can’t post anymore. I have to go to work.

-Ann Coulter

But I have a HUGE problem with allowing my Democracy to be undermined by judges who think they know better than me. The whole point of a Democracy (this is for you Grebrook) is that the people decide their own laws,

Unfortunately for you, the United States is not a direct democracy but rather a Republic with three seperate but equal branches of government designed with checks and balances to limit power. The Founding Fathers designed the Supreme Court and gave it as much power as the elected branches of government because they realized that the ‘masses’ neededed to be checked and balanced as well. Throughout the history of our country courts and judges, not elected officials, have been at the forefront of civil rights laws, so like it or not, it should not come as a suprise that they are today. I’m sure 60 years ago there were many people complaining about the ‘activist judges’ who would dare make a decision as crazy as Brown v. BOE. And 60 years from now our kids will be reading in the history books about the ‘activist judges’ and the oppostion the faced when gay marriage was legalized.

And what does Ken Mehlman’s sexuality have anything to do with governing? I was raised (by conservative catholics) to believe we’re all equal, and not to “judge a book by its cover”. Anybody see the South Park when Chef pulls the race card?

Does Bill Maher expect Republicans to use their homosexual members as tokens, and in effect, promise and pursue legislation that will undoubtedly be defeated? Sorry, Bill, that’s for the Democrats.

Conservatism is an epidemic to liberals like Maher. Look at Arthur Brooks’ recent string of editorials in the WSJ!

Conservatism? We should just re-name it Common Sense-ism!

The whole point of a Democracy (this is for you Grebrook) is that the people decide their own laws

Why I bother I don’t know: the Supreme Court decisions under Renquiest (sp?) have been analyzed–looked at the same 9 judges over several years. The conservative judges overturned more federal laws and more judical precedents than the liberal judges did; the liberal judges overturned more state laws. This is fact, you can look it up. I have absolutely no delusions that you will consider this before making your “activist judges are all liberal” lament, but there you are.

Why is Bill Maher worried about other men’s cocks?

He doesn’t have one of his own?

On a more serious note, does anyone really care if Mehlman is gay? More idiocy from the humanoids who prefer to be recognized for the color of their skin, anti-religious beliefs and/or sexual preference in order to deflect scrutiny of their competence. Or lack of.

Let’s be honest here, by boldly declaring that “your” strategy, as a Democrat, is to viciously attack homosexuals in order to win elections you are being essentially dishonest, but I think wrong, too.

By reducing the choice in an election pitting an incumbent Republican who is homosexual vs. a Democrat, who is — I guess you are saying — homosexual by default, due to “so many years of (our) demonizing homosexuals”, our “stupid and backward” voters either accept the unacceptable (gay Republican), the demon (Democrat) or don’t show up.

Good theory, except that it does not appear that this happened. It appears that the “stupid, backward” voters voted for (demonic homosexual) Democrats.

Heh.

On the bright side, though, and in keeping with years of demonization, I can picture you and your swashbuckling friends dressed up in pirate and cowboy outfits, sipping sherry and laughing over your trolling of the (not too) conservative web site for party fun.

I believe that your intellectual level might best be found nearer Mr. Aravosis’s skirt.

Pablo, you’re fairly stupid if you think that most homosexuals don’t naturally wish for the right to marry their partners.

Naturally wish to get married? Men? Ha!

So you think those who disprove your theory must be hypocrites?

Let’s see: “Any gay person who doesn’t think X, must be Y.”

You’re a dunce and a homophobe. Get lost. Back to DU with you, troll.

Unlike some of the gentlemen MKH and I met last night, some of us have to go to work today. Here are a few links to check out this morning:MO Dems’ GOTV topped GOP effort? È possibile.
“We can see Clairely now…”
MO Dems credit Rush Limbaugh……

I happen to have a friend who is both lesbian AND married … to a GAY man. See? Everybody has the right to marry, it just has to be male/female.

Ya want civil unions? Fine. Just don’t call it ‘marriage’.

Kralizec, I always get a kick outta your comments, but “my cruel delight in pointing out your inferiority” is one of your best! Keep up he good work.

I’m sorry most are just too “uppity” for you, and bitch about that whole “we have rights” things. I mean, damn, can the faggots just get over their second-class status? I mean, REALLY?

Let’s be honest here….

Grebrook on November 10, 2006 at 3:21 AM

In order to condescend properly, Grebrook, you have to start from an elevated position. “Let’s be honest here” is a cliche, but worse, it signals your uncritical regard for honesty as a virtue. I’m “honest” or blunt enough to admit my cruel delight in pointing out your inferiority in both style and profundity, and to openly question the worth of honesty, “the youngest virtue.” Feel the pathos of distance, Grebrook.