Hostile to Religion on Campus

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
142

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:<<< And so is hatred of gays. I was using a semi-recent example to illustrate my point.[/quote]Define hatred and who are these people?
[/quote]

Intense dislike, or ill will.

Today?

Well there are some predominately Christian/Muslim nations where it’s highly illegal.

Then as I said you have some leaders such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell blaming terrorists attacks on homosexuals.
[/quote]

What “Christian” countries do you know of where homosexuality is illegal? I know of zero.

Islam is stuck in the middle of a epic identity crisis. Where a country has a theocracy/ dictatorship they are mired in old world fundamentalism. I am vehemently against theocracies, or dictators… They hate everybody, not just gays.[/quote]

Uganda. 84% Christian. 41.9% Roman Catholic, 35.9% Anglican with the rest being made up of Evangelicals and Pentecostals.

Penalty for homosexuality is 7 years. Multiple convictions will land you the death penalty.

143

Here you go Pat:

There are multiple Christian dominated countries where homosexual activity is illegal.

In Trinidad & Tobago for instance, the penalty is life imprisonment. They are 66% Christian.

144

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here you go Pat:

There are multiple Christian dominated countries where homosexual activity is illegal.

In Trinidad & Tobago for instance, the penalty is life imprisonment. They are 66% Christian.

[/quote]

Uganda? Trinidad? Well, I guess. I am pretty sure Uganda has bigger problems than worrying if dudes are doing each other…But whatever. I’d say if that’s all you can find, your doing pretty good. I think you should go to Uganda and organize a gay protest.

145

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

…Also, the 9th Circuit Court hears by far the most amount of cases per year, which at least partially explains why they have so many cases end up in front of the Supreme Court.[/quote]

C’mon man…[/quote]

I’m not denying that it isn’t a liberal court. But that liberality isn’t the inherent, singular cause of their high reversal rate at the U.S. Supreme Court level, that’s all.[/quote]

I beg to differ.

I would argue that it is precisely because it is so liberal, aka a legislate from the bench court, that it consistently gets its verdicts overturned.

Being a busy court is not a valid excuse for being a court that is so, so, so consistently wrong.

On another note, there is talk of breaking the 9th up by adding another court. That would be fine with me as Montana falls under the 9th’s jurisdiction along with other generally and relatively conservative states, i.e, AK, ID, NV, and AZ.

I say let CA, OR, WA and HI keep their ridiculously charlatan 9th Court and give these other western states their own new one.

FWIW.[/quote]

Conservatives legislate from the bench as well. We’ve seen it in Bush v. Gore and we see it in most gun rights cases. Judicial liberalism simply implies that the court is trying to protect or expand individual rights, whereas judicial conservatism refers more to those who would let the states determine the extent of rights, rather than define for themselves what that extent goes to. I think in gun cases we see the conservative judges take an “activist” stance and we DEFINITELY saw the conservative judges do that in Bush v. Gore by citing the most liberal court (Warren) as the basis of their rationale, thereby taking a liberal stance toward the 14th Amendment.

146

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here you go Pat:

There are multiple Christian dominated countries where homosexual activity is illegal.

In Trinidad & Tobago for instance, the penalty is life imprisonment. They are 66% Christian.

[/quote]

Uganda? Trinidad? Well, I guess. I am pretty sure Uganda has bigger problems than worrying if dudes are doing each other…But whatever. I’d say if that’s all you can find, your doing pretty good. I think you should go to Uganda and organize a gay protest.[/quote]

And I’m pretty sure America has bigger problems than forcing catholic hospitals to accept contraceptives.

What me worry?

147

Canada? I’m pretty sure Canada has bigger problems than honour killings. I mean it only happened once.

What me worry?

149

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

…Also, the 9th Circuit Court hears by far the most amount of cases per year, which at least partially explains why they have so many cases end up in front of the Supreme Court.[/quote]

C’mon man…[/quote]

I’m not denying that it isn’t a liberal court. But that liberality isn’t the inherent, singular cause of their high reversal rate at the U.S. Supreme Court level, that’s all.[/quote]

I beg to differ.

I would argue that it is precisely because it is so liberal, aka a legislate from the bench court, that it consistently gets its verdicts overturned.

Being a busy court is not a valid excuse for being a court that is so, so, so consistently wrong.

On another note, there is talk of breaking the 9th up by adding another court. That would be fine with me as Montana falls under the 9th’s jurisdiction along with other generally and relatively conservative states, i.e, AK, ID, NV, and AZ.

I say let CA, OR, WA and HI keep their ridiculously charlatan 9th Court and give these other western states their own new one.

FWIW.[/quote]

Conservatives legislate from the bench as well. We’ve seen it in Bush v. Gore and we see it in most gun rights cases. Judicial liberalism simply implies that the court is trying to protect or expand individual rights, whereas judicial conservatism refers more to those who would let the states determine the extent of rights, rather than define for themselves what that extent goes to. I think in gun cases we see the conservative judges take an “activist” stance and we DEFINITELY saw the conservative judges do that in Bush v. Gore by citing the most liberal court (Warren) as the basis of their rationale, thereby taking a liberal stance toward the 14th Amendment.[/quote]

I won’t comment on Bush v Gore simply because I never looked at it in depth.

But by definition conservatives don’t legislate from the bench, generally speaking, because a conservative would conserve the (original intent of the) Constitution.

And if you want to go down the gun rights road just let me know. I will slaughter your argument with ease. With one arm tied behind my back. Come at me, bro, I have an itchy trigger finger on that subject.

You’d better be thoroughly Jeopardy-ed up, my friend, and even then I will toss you so far out of the ring that the folks in the first 10 rows will barely see the flash of your white behind as you go sailing over.[/quote]

What are you going to tell me about gun rights that I don’t already know? I’m a member of the NRA. I don’t think you’ll be able to whip me at it if we agree, and you certainly won’t be able to if you’re unaware of gun rights cases and their similarities to Bush v. Gore in terms of the liberal/conservative spectrum in the USSC.

Conservatives largely protect an expanded take on gun rights by fighting to reject limits placed on ownership, in much the same way that liberal justices, and some conservatives, have rejected limits on free speech, abortion rights, minority rights, voting rights (except in Bush v. Gore) and so on.

152

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

What are you going to tell me about gun rights that I don’t already know? I’m a member of the NRA…

[/quote]

If you are a knowledgeable NRA member, and you may very well be, you should know that any “loosening” of gun control by conservative judges would not even remotely be considered legislating from the bench but rather movement toward a return to original intent or “de-legislating” from the bench.

BTW, membership in the NRA is not a guarantee of knowledge about gun rights.

But I do commend you for your membership.[/quote]

All I’m saying is that this ain’t my first rodeo when it comes to gun rights issues.

I understand the argument about returning to previous or original intent, but I think this is more semantic than anything else. “De-legislating” for all intents and purposes IS legislating. Regardless, a decision by one court is overturned by the precedent set in another. Setting aside the particulars of the issue, there isn’t any difference between overturning a court decision that limits free speech and overturning a decision that limits gun rights, from an activist standpoint. It doesn’t become activism when it’s a liberal court overturning a decision and cease to be activism if the decision is overturned by a conservative court.

153

Also Push, I think if you were to take a look at Justice Kennedy’s record, a Justice appointed by Reagan and with a decidedly conservative viewpoint, you’ll see evidence of judicial activism. It’s activism that moves toward a liberal view (Romer v. Evans) but it’s further evidence that activism doesn’t always come from a liberal judge.

155

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Also Push, I think if you were to take a look at Justice Kennedy’s record, a Justice appointed by Reagan and with a decidedly conservative viewpoint, you’ll see evidence of judicial activism. It’s activism that moves toward a liberal view (Romer v. Evans) but it’s further evidence that activism doesn’t always come from a liberal judge.[/quote]

Del, you and I and my dog know Kennedy is not considered a conservative but rather a moderate. He is the quintessential swing vote(r).[/quote]

He also voted with Rehnquist on 83% of his decisions. He may be a moderate, but he leans pretty hard to the right on many issues.

157

From merriam-webster.com: legislate: to mandate, establish, or regulate by or as if by legislation.

If a judge or a court hands down a decision that overturns a previous law, regardless of the Constitutional interpretation behind that decision, I fail to see how that is anything but legislating as defined above.

Also, almost any conservative would say that the 14th and 4th Amendments have been beaten to a bloody pulp as well.

Liberal judges would argue that the “bloodying” of the 14th Amendment in particular has actually pointed us very much in the direction of “shall not be infringed”.

Judicial precedent is nothing more than a binding interpretation of the actual words of the Constitution itself. Few people would argue that the Constitution isn’t ambiguous to a large extent in terms of how it can b interpreted. The difference as it lies between conservative and liberal judges heavily revolves around who should interpret those ambiguities: the state or the Supreme Court. So for all intents and purposes, the Constitution IS judicial precedent. Until another decision overturns it, de-legislates, legislates, whatever, the precedent set by one decision is how the Constitution is applied to that particular issue.

158

[quote]DBCooper wrote:<<< If a judge or a court hands down a decision that overturns a previous law, regardless of the Constitutional interpretation behind that decision, I fail to see how that is anything but legislating as defined above. >>>[/quote]I see your semantic game and raise you one dose of reality. “legislating” is creating law, that is to say, a state sanctioned mandate for human behavior under it’s jurisdiction. “De-legislating” as Push is using it here, is the cessation of said law enforcing said state mandated behavior.

Legislate = create mandate = more government
De-legislate = return to pre-mandate state = less government

If you want to stick to this irrelevant definition that says essentially any change in law is legislation, go ahead. It doesn’t change the fact that activist judges find law where it isn’t and constructionist judges see the law that’s there and wait for the legislative branch to create more. (they don’t have to wait long btw)

You’ll say “yeah, but if we did things like that we wouldn’t have MOST of the laws we have now”. BINGO!!! =]

159

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Here you go Pat:

There are multiple Christian dominated countries where homosexual activity is illegal.

In Trinidad & Tobago for instance, the penalty is life imprisonment. They are 66% Christian.

[/quote]

Uganda? Trinidad? Well, I guess. I am pretty sure Uganda has bigger problems than worrying if dudes are doing each other…But whatever. I’d say if that’s all you can find, your doing pretty good. I think you should go to Uganda and organize a gay protest.[/quote]

And I’m pretty sure America has bigger problems than forcing catholic hospitals to accept contraceptives.

What me worry?
[/quote]

Which begs the question, why is the government trying to cross that line between church and state when the economy sucks and Syria is about to blow? Yes, they should have better things to worry about but they chose to pick a fight with the Catholic Church.

160

Mis-direction. Focus on the religious and maybe they will forget about the economy