Prop 8 Protest Information Thread

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I don't deny the fact that there are actual instances of judges legislating from the bench.

With all due respect, Mr. Cricket, you are incorrect. There's no such thing as legislating from the bench. No judge has ever passed a law. Judges interpret the law and even the most evil and depraved rulings are but twisted interpretations of the law.

Some may find those interpretations so twisted they are contrary to the actual law (in their opinion), but they are not new law. Judge's set precedent. It is not law. I admit that may be confusing to the layman.

So please consider yourself informed.



Name me an instance of judge's legislating from the bench. That's a challenge open to Kevy, Cricket, and everyone.


Sorry, but the term makes me ill, it's for retards, and I'm sick of it.


It's so disrespectful of the brilliance of our admittedly imperfect system. Not all justice is really that ... too far from it, I'm afraid. But try to imagine where we'd be without our structure for impartial justice. OMG, how much more fuct our lives would all be.

We certainly wouldn't have been fighting to preserve our marriage rights. We wouldn't have had them.




Sigh. My apologies for the rant. Pet.Peeve.

[Gemini Cricket]

Maybe I'm confused but if every judge thought the way you do, then there should be no disagreements in the Supreme Court. There wouldn't be a concern about who is appointing judges to the Supreme Court if they were all interpreting law correctly. I can't for a second believe that someone like Scalia has never voted without his conservative agenda in mind.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Name me an instance of judge's legislating from the bench. That's a challenge open to Kevy, Cricket, and everyone.

This is a silly challenge. You make a statement about the legal terminology that you are better informed than Cricket or I (and most of the people on LoT).

My statement was a simple observation in response to GC's post:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

If the courts come up with a decision that the religious "right" doesn't like, they automatically throw around the phrase "legislating from the bench".

And my response was not in regards to the specific wording but a comment that neither the right or the left is immune to a critical response if a decision doesn't go the way they want it.

[Morrigoon]

(bolding mine)

Originally Posted by JWBear

It's not "legislating from the bench", it's "fufilling their constitutional duties". Anyone who thinks that judges shouldn't overturn unjust and unconstitutional laws is anti-American.

Dude, you just wrote an awesome sign!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

Maybe I'm confused but if every judge thought the way you do, then there should be no disagreements in the Supreme Court. There wouldn't be a concern about who is appointing judges to the Supreme Court if they were all interpreting law correctly. I can't for a second believe that someone like Scalia has never voted without his conservative agenda in mind.

He's not saying all judges make correct decisions or don't vote according to an agenda. He's saying that the term "legislate from the branch" (and I'd lump "activist judge" in with it) is a deceitful misnomer used to dismiss decisions that conservatives happen to not agree with.

[innerSpaceman]

^ yes, GD says it better than I. Sorry I flew off the handle, but being in the law biz (disclaimer: I'm NOT a lawyer), I find the absurd charge of "Activist" judges and "Legislating from the Bench" so completely offensive.

Otherwise, of course, I agree completely with what Gemini Cricket posted above about what a rightwing catch-phrase it has become. And, in turn, that's why it bugs me so much.

Worse, it's a dangerous slope that promotes intolerance for the rule of law. I'm certainly not one to be in lockstep with the rule of law ... but without a certain measure of respect for our judicial system, we're screwed. But of course, not nearly as much as we'd be screwed without our judicial system ... which is why wholesale disrespect for it really bugs me.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

...a deceitful misnomer used to dismiss decisions that conservatives happen to not agree with.

Couldn't it also apply to a decision that a liberal happens to not agree with as well? Or a moderate?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Couldn't it also apply to a decision that a liberal happens to not agree with as well? Or a moderate?

You'd be hard pressed to find liberals or moderates using either of those terms.They are dismissive phrases used almost exclusively by right wing political hacks attempting to discredit the judicial branch.

You'll find liberals disagreeing with particular rulings, but you will not find them outright dismissing the role of the courts.

[innerSpaceman]

As I already pointed out, there are PLENTY of decisions we progressives disagree with. No progressive I've ever known or heard has ever used those terms of dismissal.

We simply say we disagree, set forth why, and speak like intelligent people - instead of demonizing and using misleading phrases as ad hominem attacks as if we didn't have any other leg to stand on for our rational arguments.



Let's face it, liberals and progressives are just So Cool.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Seriously, is there an example of a judicial decision that progressives have called "legislating from the bench"?

Oh, and psh, the concept that everyone on the left wing "speaks like intelligent people" is a joke.