Debra wrote: > I've heard that lately from conservatives, including Bush himself I > think, on tv so I've also heard the scornful tone of voice. It's strange > to me that only liberal judges would be "activists" when all judges, > even the Supreme Court ones (as the election debacle showed), are not > completely impartial and base their decisions somewhat on their personal > viewpoint and prejudices.
With regard to the election, I intently followed every court proceeding in Florida and the two appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. I'm not a lawyer but I called every decision in advance correctly 100%, not based on my political prejudices, but from everything I ever learned about the Constitution, Federal and State rights and laws and the U.S. government and electoral system. I work with some of the most highly educated lawyers in the country and they argued with my reasoning throughout each and all court proceedings. Each time a decision came down, the reasoning taken by the court was the same as mine. (those lawyers, by the way, avoided me for a couple months afterward ;-) > So, what does this "activist" thing mean anyway? Anything that would subvert or abolish constitutional and state rights - owning a gun, extra-legal confiscation of personal property, banning free speech when it takes the form of displaying a flag, banning religious or political displays on private property to name a few that come up from time to time. One of the scarier things I heard during the election debacle was the call to the abolish the electoral college. Another scary episode was Janet Reno's justice department attempting to federalize law enforcement in Los Angeles when there was a scandal in the police department a few years back. > Good for California regarding the tightening up. I hope it works. It > seems like if the Supreme Court outlawed abortion then abortion would > not be allowed in any state, but maybe that's not the case. No, states would still have the right to do what they want. The U.S. Supreme Court can only rule on constitutional questions. Roe v. Wade got tied into a constitutional question and that is why they took the case and ruled on it. > My statements about conservatives are about politicians who have said or by their actions shown >they have a certain agenda, which they themselves would label conservative, or > about radio talk show hosts, who also label themselves conservative, > usually proudly so, and push their viewpoint on the airwaves. Both > groups are making their viewpoints public so disagreeing with them seems > fair to me, especially when they're politicians whose actions may have > some effect on my life. Well I have a jaded eye towards most politicians and media personalities. Sometimes one has to glean the gist of the issue from the rhetoric and grandtstanding. Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dornan and a number of other conservatives make my hair turn up on end when they are not totally disgusting me. Same for so-called Christian media personalities such as Jerry Falwell and Dr. Laura and the tele-evangelists. They are no more representative of all conservatives or Christians than many politicians and religious personalities on the left are representative of all liberals. > Really? I think the conservatives (some of whom are Christians but I > don't automatically assume they are) are doing very well these days. > Even the president is one! So how are they being disenfranchised? Attempts to disenfranchise by tactics of demonization and stereotyping (all are "far right extremists") and slander (Bush caused Enron, Bush caused the California energy crisis, Bush paid off the Taliban, etc.). Holding up judicial appointments based solely on political affiliation, etc. Aren't these some of the same odious tactics used by Gingrich and company a few years back? Turned me way off the Republican party at the time. > I agree that there are many side issues that get put under the abortion > concern, and not all people who are anti-abortion are extremists. > Talking about each single issue can get quite complicated, which is why > it often is all lumped together and made to seem very simplistic. And that's where some people start to feel disenfranchised - when individual issues are deliberately obscured and truncated in the cause of some larger political goal. I can't oppose funding abortions in other countries for fear of being called mean and anti-choice when really I simply don't want my tax dollars squandered recklessly in foreign countries, many of whom have a long track record of taking the money for their own corrupt political elites and not spending it where it is intended. In the end I am not so invested personally in all the various political rhetoric that I have some huge problem with it. But there is something personally disturbing to me about the demonization of Christians and other religious groups. I'm really not very religious myself, but there is something that really chills me when that particular kind of rhetoric starts up. Kakki
