[Modernman]

Your response makes it obvious that you would have stood idly by or even supported Irene Emerson if she had decided to dehydrate or starve Dred Scott, his wife, and his children to death.

My point is:

(1) In the Dred Scott case, the courts refused to engage in judicial activism to strike down a law that they did not like. You criticize them for that.

(2) In the Schiavo case, you attack the Florida Supreme Court for striking down a law that they did not like and accuse them of judicial activism.

So, which is it, do you want activist courts or courts that follow the law, no matter what their personal feelings might be?

[Spiff]

My point is: (1) In the Dred Scott case, the courts refused to engage in judicial activism to strike down a law that they did not like. You criticize them for that. (2) In the Schiavo case, you attack the Florida Supreme Court for striking down a law that they did not like and accuse them of judicial activism. So, which is it, do you want activist courts or courts that follow the law, no matter what their personal feelings might be?

I want life, liberty, and the benefits of the fruits of one's own labor to be protected. I want the core unit of our civilization, the family, to be preserved. I want good to triumph over evil. I want right to prevail and wrong to fail. Period.

[jwalsh07]

"For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights." Chief Justice Taney

For those words and for his judicial activism in overriding Congress' prohibition of slavery in the territories, Taney should have been impeached.