Now that Conner is going to go away, what about Stevens?

[Erc]

stevens is a great justice.  he is actually commited to civil rights and civil liberties.

Mitty...that statement makes less sense than most of v0031's posts...

[Wakie]

stevens is a great justice.  he is actually commited to civil rights and civil liberties.

Mitty...that statement makes less sense than most of v0031's posts...

Only if you are opposed to civil rights and civil liberties.

[A18]

I don't support judges making up civil rights/liberties based on their own subjective preferences.

[Democratic Hawk]

I don't support judges making up civil rights/liberties based on their own subjective preferences.

Be they conservative, liberal or 'swing'?

Dave

[A18]

I don't care what their preferences are. Lochner v. New York and Lawrence v. Texas both advanced policies I like, and they were both bunk rulings.

[MODU]

I don't support judges making up civil rights/liberties based on their own subjective preferences.

Be they conservative, liberal or 'swing'?

Dave

The Judicial branch isn't suppose to create "anything" on any level.  Their job it is to make sure the Legislative branch doesn't create anything unconsitutional.

[Democratic Hawk]

I don't support judges making up civil rights/liberties based on their own subjective preferences.

Be they conservative, liberal or 'swing'?

Dave

The Judicial branch isn't suppose to create "anything" on any level.  Their job it is to make sure the Legislative branch doesn't create anything unconsitutional.

I agree that judges should not legislate from the bench (i.e. in having their own political agenda).

As far as 'unconsitutional' legislation goes that's a matter to be resolved by the electorate. If they don't like the legislation, then they can vote their legislators out. First and foremost, I cherish democracy

Dave

[MODU]

As far as 'unconsitutional' legislation goes that's a matter to be resolved by the electorate. If they don't like the legislation, then they can vote their legislators out. First and foremost, I cherish democracy

Dave

That's the nice thing about our Constitution:  something is unconstitutional until we amend it to make it constitutional. 

[opebo]

I don't support judges making up civil rights/liberties based on their own subjective preferences.

Why not?  More civil rights and liberties are always a good thing.

[Emsworth]

He really should.  WalterMitty is a very decent fellow - better than a lot of the theocrats we have calling themselves Democrats (emsworth, prude caldwell, Ebowed, etc.).

I'm a theocrat? Ha!

stevens is a great justice.  he is actually commited to civil rights and civil liberties.

Stevens is the same Justice who ruled that flag burning is not constitutionally protected speech. He argued, if Congress can prohibit the desecration of the Washington Monument, then it can prohibit the desecration of the flag. Frankly, any person who seriously makes such an argument should never have been placed on the Supreme Court.

[opebo]

He really should.  WalterMitty is a very decent fellow - better than a lot of the theocrats we have calling themselves Democrats (emsworth, prude caldwell, Ebowed, etc.).

I'm a theocrat? Ha!

Absolutely, one of the worst.

stevens is a great justice.  he is actually commited to civil rights and civil liberties.

Stevens is the same Justice who ruled that flag burning is not constitutionally protected speech. He argued, if Congress can prohibit the desecration of the Washington Monument, then it can prohibit the desecration of the flag. Frankly, any person who seriously makes such an argument should never have been placed on the Supreme Court.
[/quote]

He's still enormously better than all of the conservative justices, emsworth.  You seem to have no sense of an overall career, and nitpick one little decision.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

stevens is a great justice.  he is actually commited to civil rights and civil liberties.

Stevens is the same Justice who ruled that flag burning is not constitutionally protected speech. He argued, if Congress can prohibit the desecration of the Washington Monument, then it can prohibit the desecration of the flag. Frankly, any person who seriously makes such an argument should never have been placed on the Supreme Court.

Wow, you have terrible views on justices.

[A18]

stevens is a great justice.  he is actually commited to civil rights and civil liberties.

Stevens is the same Justice who ruled that flag burning is not constitutionally protected speech. He argued, if Congress can prohibit the desecration of the Washington Monument, then it can prohibit the desecration of the flag. Frankly, any person who seriously makes such an argument should never have been placed on the Supreme Court.

Wow, you have terrible views on justices.

Change your avatar to Republican immediately.

[Emsworth]

Absolutely, one of the worst.

Considering that I am not religious, I hardly see how that is possible. Nor do I seek to enforce "morality" in society, although I am compelled to admit that the Constitution does not contain any prohibition on such laws.

[opebo]

Absolutely, one of the worst.

Considering that I am not religious, I hardly see how that is possible. Nor do I seek to enforce "morality" in society, although I am compelled to admit that the Constitution does not contain any prohibition on such laws.

There you go.  You have in that last sentence completely turned the country over to the theocrats.

I suppose if you are not a theocrat yourself, you are an abettor of theocrats, because of your trashing of the constitution.