logo Sign In

Post #101122

Author
JediSage
Parent topic
A Big Debate for the New Century
Link to post in topic
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/101122/action/topic#101122
Date created
15-Apr-2005, 2:40 PM
Quote

Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Agreed. It didn't occur to me until watching "A Beautiful Mind", when the baby was in the bathtub and the water level was up to his face. I found myself clenching my fists and almost jumping out of my seat to save him. Wow!

BTW, I ran across this odd off-topic discussion while reading about "activist judges". I though the comparisons were very interesting.

Americans vs. Europeans


I'll check it out.

Yes, my wife will tell you, if I'm watching tv or a movie and I see anything about a child being abused I FREAK out and will not watch it. I have almost started fights over the way some parents treat their kids. Was in a bowling alley on "Midnight Bowling" night with the loud music...REALLY loud, and someone had a newborn there. Thought I was going to rip their spine out.


OK...here's my reply to the Activist Judges link:

This is a long, ugly thread regarding judges. IMO:
This issue needs to be addressed from multiple
directions:

1. The Democratic fillibuster of judicial nominations
is unconstitutional. There is no middle-ground here.
There is absolutely no historical precedent of needing
a super-majority to break a fillibuster, nor is their
any constitutional grounds on which their resistance
can be based. The law reads that they shall offer "...advice
and CONSENT" to the nominations. The battle cry that
Republicans (I'm an independent, btw) are trying to
destroy Senate rules and 200 years of tradition are
outright lies. Lies that are being trumpeted by the
media without so much as a request for a clarification
of the Democratic position or pointing out the errors
in what they're saying.

2. Let's be honest...the Judiciary is the last bastion
of Democratic political power in the US at this time.
They desparately need to defend it to the death, which
to be honest I can understand. However, the belief
that they seem to be under and that sadly too many of
the American people seem to subcribe: That the word of
the courts is the last word on all issues is not
accurate. The system of checks and balances was
always meant to be transitory. Meaning, the courts
could rule a law written by Congress or signed by the
President as being unconstitutional, however the
Congress and President could do the same to the
Judiciary. For example: 1832, President Jackson citing
constitutional concerns vetoed a bill in spite of
prior court ruling, stated the following:

"The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each
for itself be guided by it's own opinion of the
Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to
support the Constitution swears that he will support
it as he understands it, and not as it is understood
by others..."

This also precludes any notion of looking to outside countries traditions/precedents in terms of legal ruling. Our system of laws is derived from English Common law and, like it or not, Judeo-Christian tradition. Those should be the only "outside" influences that should be considered in the US legal system. Unfortunately, this is not happening, and the roots of our legal system are being slowly whittled away (ie: Is a man's home REALLY his castle anymore?). The left is seeking to empower non-elected enties, like the EPA, the FDA, and the Judiciary, which does nothing but usurp the power of American citizens and render the notion of our system of government useless (we live in a Constitutional Republic, btw, not a Democracy).

As for the notion of executing under-age criminals, I can't believe there are actually people in the world who feel that someone learns the difference between right and wrong on the exact second that they turn 18. Don't know about you, but when I was 17 I knew it was a terrible crime to tie someone up and toss them from a railroad bridge. I believe in restorative justice, meaning that the criminal must make restitution to the victim(s), and also should not be put to death, BUT must pay a price. How they make restitution in a capital murder case, I do not know.

The UN: Don't get me going. The most dangerous organization on the planet right now, IMO, with an avowed socialist agenda.

Love and Kisses,

JediSage