Re: cleaner wiring solution needed (resend)

["Aegis" <lordaegis@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qYCdnaclBJ4X69_fRVn-uw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> First off the top of my head is Chief
>> Justice Marshall and her "..to hell with the law.."-attitude.
>
> Can you be more specific, please?  In what specific case has Marshall
> displayed this attitude?

Here is a good link on her:
http://www.masskidnap.com/MarshallHistory.doc

>
>> I DO see the Constitution as a "living
>> document" too... Just in a different way.
>> It is "alive" because it has provisions
>> for change....
>
> Agreed, but changing the Constitution is the prerogative of Congress --
> not the judiciary.

...of the PEOPLE through Congress.

>
>> But I believe in interpreting laws by
>> their original intent, not by events that
>> have changed since then...
>
> Actually, the US Supreme Court's job
> is not to interpret the laws.  It is their
> responsibility to make certain that
> Congress does not exceed its constitutional
> authority and that laws do not infringe
> upon the rights of the people.  Integral to
> this charge is the responsibility to make
> certain that Congress does not infringe upon
> states' rights and vice versa.
>

I wasn't referring strictly to the USSC. You are correct in their primary
role: establishing constitutionality of laws.

>> If the law is outdated, strike it down
>> or update it (this is a power of the
>> legislature, NOT the judiciary), but
>> as long as it's on the books, a judge
>> should only have the power to follow
>> it as stated in black and white.
>
> I disagree, at least in part.  The courts have the responsibility of
> interpreting and applying the law.  They must further assess the
> constitutional validity of the laws in order to protect the rights of the
> citizens.  If a judge finds that a given law is unconstitutional he has
> the responsibility to decline to enforce it in a specific case.  The
> appellate and Supreme Court have the authority to examine lower court
> decisions and the laws themselves and to strike down any which they deem
> to be unconstitutional.
>

Agreed.

> This system of "checks and balances" is an essential part of our form of
> government designed to protect the rights and freedoms of the people.
> Take away any part of the trinity of power and the inevitable result is
> dictatorship.
>

Agreed in part. The end result would definately be non-democratic, but may
or may not result in a dictatorship.

>> I've seen, so far in my lifetime,
>> several of my rights dwindle down
>> to the verge of being history and
>> now I'm witnessing the checks and
>> balances part of the Constitution
>> also beginning to fade...
>
> Make no mistake about it.  The present administration would like nothing
> better than to take away all of your freedoms in the names of "security"
> and "morality" -- neither of which they are able to offer.

Actually I like their method of trying things out using end-dated
legislation. It's better than the alternative of doing nothing and you get
to keep what works, extend what looks promising, and get rid of what doesn't
work.

>
>> The judiciary cannot be allowed to legislate.
>
> Without the system of judiciary review, there would be no Miranda rights;

I don't have a problem with judiciary review by the USSC. Don't confuse this
with lower courts legislating from the bench.

> children would still be executed;

..to what are you referring here?

> black Americans would not be able to vote

Legislation by Congress, Amendment XIII, took care of this. Forget not that
the Democratic party (the boys in gray uniforms) didn't like it very much.

> or attend "white" schools and women would still undergo back-room
> butchered abortions by the thousands as they did only a few years ago.
> The list of

Yep. So now the murder of an unborn child is very polite and clean. It's
feared less than a root canal; you might as well be getting LASIK done.

> rights protected by the courts goes on forever.  It is almost as long as
> the list of disingenuous politicians who would gladly legislate away your
> rights for their own political gain.

I was actually referring to the general decay of our rights in society.

Freedom of Speech is a perfect example. I'm not racist, but let's say I was.
Voicing my negative opinion of a minority (even though flawed) should be
protected. Why? Because without that protection we move from "protectors of
individuals' rights" to "thought police". In that case, my flawed diatribe
should be met by others exercising THEIR rights to Free Speech attempting to
sway or correct me or even insult me for being uneducated. This is the role
of a society as a whole. ***Note that I'm talking about free speech as it
applies to (IMO, flawed) prejudice, NOT discrimination.

The whole 'politically correct speech' movement is also an affront to
Freedom of Speech. I was raised saying "black man". "African-American" is
not only not necessary ("black man" isn't meant in a harmful or
condescending way, only as a descriptor), but often it is actually
relatively inaccurate (so many have not only not ever been to Africa, their
parents and grandparents were never there either). It's as asinine as
referring to a friend as Welsh-American simply because of distant roots.

The current debate on "racial profiling" is a joke as well. If I kill
someone, I firmly believe the witnesses should be able to reference the fact
that I am white and the police should be able to use this information to
find me. So if I run into a room full of purple and green people, and I'm
the only white person with them, I must be the killer right? It's stupid not
to be able to profile based on a cosmetic feature. What's next? Gender
profiling?

Killers description now: White, male, blond hair, blue eyes, 6 feet tall,
170 pounds last seen wearing a white oxford shirt and gray slacks.

Killers description in the future: a person (can we still say person?)
wearing a white oxford shirt and gray slacks
White: racial descriptor
Male: gender descriptor
Blond: goes to racial because many races genetically don't produce blond
hair and that's exclusion
Blue eyes: same
6 feet tall: Some new class to protect the rights of short/tall people?
170 pounds: Not sensitive to obese-Americans

This is all about small groups of "offended" people wielding way too much
power (through the liberal politicians that cater to them). I STILL can't
find a line in the Constitution that says you have the right to not be
offended. I'll keep looking though.