Replies

Well...

I guess you told me.

In my life, I have traveled down many roads, all leading me to this point in time; along the way, and as we all have, I formed opinions on many subjects. I was not always real comfortable in expressing those opinions for fear that someone glibber, more educated, with more gravitas would put them down, and consequentially me with them; I spent a whole lot of time fretting about how I would be perceived if I chose to voice my opinions.

For a while, I merely parroted others whom I believed to be more qualified; I felt secure in behaving in that manner.

I had a discussion, an argument actually, a few years ago with my younger brother, the one place were I always felt free to express myself being around my family; we disagreed on some political issues as I found him to be too far to the left for my taste, I berated him and he left nearly in tears.

I commented to my father that I was dumbfounded that the son of people who fled Communism could have such leftist ideals, and suggested that he and I needed to bring him to our side of the issues; what Dad said next floored me, it took me months to actually figure out what he meant.

He said that he had no problem with my brother's opinion on politics, and that he was OK with his seemingly leftist leanings, "I brought you here so that you could become a Communist if you so wished".

I was floored.

Like the idiot that I am, I failed to understand that what he actually said was that he had brought us to a place where I had the freedom to choose my political ideology, and left behind a place where your only choice was to become a communist.

In my world, laws serve as an ombudsman to justice, laws without justice are immoral.

In my world, society has no rights, but individuals do. Genderless, colorless, ageless individuals, the weakest fetus to receive the same protection of his rights to life, as the oldest have their right to dignity protected.

In my world, Courts of Justice engage in the "constant and perpetual will to secure to every one HIS OWN right"; "and in a Court of Justice, where there are two parties present, justice demands that the rights of each party should be allowed to himself, as well as each party has a right, to be secure and protected by the Court."

John Quincy Adams arguing that a Court of law has the duty to gauge the impact of laws on the individual, and not on society.

In my world, I would dishonor my father by not freely voicing my opinion because of fear of disapproval from others.

But more importantly, in my world Justice is served however the circumstances require that Justice to be served, and in my world, I would welcome an act of runaway judicial activism that terminated the notion that murdering the unborn is a "right", and make abortion illegal in our country; I imagine most people in here would as well.

In my world, if I welcome Judicial activism when it suits my agenda, then I am required to equally welcome it when it doesn't, because to do otherwise, in mine or anyone's world, would amount to nothing less than monumental hypocrisy

I think certain concepts can be nuisances. My first guess when I encounter a conceptual nuisance is that there might be an excess of abstraction and/or a lack of emphasis for a telling process. Exemplifying this are two concepts present in your post: hypocrisy and judicial activism. They are phenomena, symptoms, elusive categories not descriptive of actionable offenses.

Jonah Goldberg is fond of pointing out the predilection of liberals to cartoonishly raise hypocrisy to a level comparable with genocide. Similarly, cries of judicial activism ring hollow somehow.

I think when presented with an instance where judicial activism is readily identified, to find the truth one must dig deeper than that and find the specific error. As Luis Gonzalez and Robert Bork have pointed out, activism is possible by more than one camp and those decrying it are the ones whose ox is getting gored.

The kind I am currently perceiving as a danger is the antihierarchical kind. Systematically tilting the scales of justice in favor of the perceived weakest is part of an accelerating trend where victimhood trumps all, and judges form a vortex of soft power. The solution, I think is to follow the process of justice faithfully and minimize errors.

Similarly, it is not fruitful to try to minimize "hypocrisy" per se. It is a false target. If two judgements reached by the same person are inconsistent, it will not do to bring them into conformance by arbitrarily flipping over the lighter one. One may have to actually endure the inconsistency.

I recall something else Jonah said about hypocrisy (it might relate to Luis Gonzalez' story). A parent may catch himself giving advice to his child that he himself does not follow. That may have to be endured for the benefit of the child's lesson, and quietly filed for later reflection.

excellent post (and much more in line with the LG that I remember from earlier days)

Now extend this just slightly. Babies in the womb have the right to life. They need to be protected from those that would do them harm. Right?

Children have the right to live free from the threat of molestation. Right?

If there was a group of people who chose to murder babies (abortionists) you would be outraged at them. right?

Why are you not outraged at the group that chooses to practice a behavior that leads far, far too many of them to molest. The evidence leads to an inescapable conclusion that 'homosexuality' is a chosen behavior. Everyone who is trapped in that lifestyle can leave it if they choose to.

The data proves that the practice of homosexual behavior is deadly both to those who practice it and to those who come in contact with it.

I cannot say that 'homosexuals' have killed more than abortionists have. But I can say that they have damaged far more than abortionists have. An abortionist's victims don't go on to victimize others while a 'homosexual's' victims usually do. Its a deady cycle of molestation and perversion and it is contrary to the general welfare of these United States.

(It is a proven fact that those who were abused as children will abuse their own children in the lack of outside intervention. Likewise the sexually molested will become molesters in the lack of outside intervention)

In my world, if I welcome Judicial activism when it suits my agenda, then I am required to equally welcome it when it doesn't, because to do otherwise, in mine or anyone's world, would amount to nothing less than monumental hypocrisy

After catching up on this thread I can see that my previous post to you has no meaning.

I would point out to you Luis that judicial activism moved us from the right to privacy to murdering babies who are almost totally outside the womb and ready and able to breathe on their own.

The problem with judicial activism Luis is that the law is what 5 people say it is in direct contravention to what this nation should and did stand for.

Supporting judicial activism and supporting the rule of law are incompatible notions as witnessed by thirty years of sliding down the slope from "first trimester" abortion to killing them on the way out.

Rights are self evident, for example the right to life, the right to property and the right to travel as one sees fit in this nation.

Questions of liberty can get a little bit stickier. While one has the right to certain behaviors in the privacy of ones home, engaging in the same behavior in the public park is not a right, it's a question of liberty that is best decided by all those who pay for the park. At the same time the same persons have the right to life, property and travel whether or not they are in a public park.