Support NeoGAF

[teiresias]

Activist Judges

 

[Dan]

This country pisses me the fuck off.

These people are NOT my fellow citizens.

I can't even articulate how frustrating these people are to me.

 

[sefskillz]

I'm a fan of people testing the system for something they believe in.

 

[Drozmight]

"I applaud Judge McKathan. It is time for our judiciary to recognize the moral basis of our law," Moore said.

 

[videogamer]

"I applaud Judge McKathan. It is time for our judiciary to recognize the moral basis of our law," Moore said.

Well it's coming from Moore, so that comment was pretty much expected.

I find this part amusing for some reason

McKathan told The Associated Press that he believes the Ten Commandments represent the truth "and you can't divorce the law from the truth. ... The Ten Commandments can help a judge know the difference between right and wrong."

 

[Iceman]

The complexity of the code of law sometimes clouds the issues at the heart of most legal proceedings. People need to be reminded about the absolutes that the law was founded on. It's a moral compass in the morass of technicalities.

 

[teiresias]

So I guess a Moore and this judge would have no problem with another judge wearing an embroidering of the Five Pillars of Islam on their robe?

 

[xsarien]

The complexity of the code of law sometimes clouds the issues at the heart of most legal proceedings. People need to be reminded about the absolutes that the law was founded on. It's a moral compass in the morass of technicalities.

There's nothing complicated about the seperation of church and state.

 

[Hitokage]

xsarien: Or the fact that of the commandments that aren't implemented everywhere as common law(don't kill, etc), none of them have ANYTHING to do with American law.

 

[Xenon]

I was expecting to see big gold tablets hanging off of a 4" thick gold chain

 

[Teflar]

I was expecting to see big gold tablets hanging off of a 4" thick gold chain

:lol

Why is separation of church and state so hard for some people to grasp?

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Meh, it goes both ways. Judge in Alabama shows up with the Ten Commandments on, judge in San Francisco shows up without anything on...

 

[Jonnyboy117]

:-(
:-(
:-(

Roy Moore is probably going to run for governor in 2006, and he will probably win unless the Rep. party gets very smart and shafts him out of hit or the Dem. party gets very lucky and just wins over him.

 

[Azih]

The complexity of the code of law sometimes clouds the issues at the heart of most legal proceedings. People need to be reminded about the absolutes that the law was founded on. It's a moral compass in the morass of technicalities.

Dude, seperation, church, state.

Or are you saying that American law is Christian law?

 

[Hitokage]

Iceman is saying he flunked both History and Civics.

 

[Jim Bowie]

:lol

Why is separation of church and state so hard for some people to grasp?

Don't you see? The church IS the state! The state of how everything SHOULD be!

Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality! Morality!

SINNER!

 

[Dujour]

Golden calf > that judge

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Golden calf > that judge

Only in pawn value.

Me? I just like watching dogmas clash. *eats popcorn*

 

[videogamer]

:-(
:-(
:-(

Roy Moore is probably going to run for governor in 2006, and he will probably win unless the Rep. party gets very smart and shafts him out of hit or the Dem. party gets very lucky and just wins over him.

considering the recent news about Alabama, I wouldn't be suprised if Falwell moves to Alabama and wins the election.

 

[Kuroyume]

These religious nuts make me so angry.

 

[MetatronM]

The complexity of the code of law sometimes clouds the issues at the heart of most legal proceedings. People need to be reminded about the absolutes that the law was founded on. It's a moral compass in the morass of technicalities.

Are you saying that judges need to be reminded that God is the one true God and there is none other than Him in order to be able to decide a DUI case?

 

[Gek54]

The terrorists are winning again. Save Christmas!!!!!........from what?

 

[demon]

The complexity of the code of law sometimes clouds the issues at the heart of most legal proceedings. People need to be reminded about the absolutes that the law was founded on. It's a moral compass in the morass of technicalities.

link plz

 

[explodet]

I can't wait for the Law and Order episode based on this.

 

[Drozmight]

It’s a commonly stated error that U.S. law, based on English common law, is thus grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.

Yet Jefferson (writing to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 ) noted that common law “is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England …about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century. …We may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

http://www.msmagazine.com/fall2004/fightingwords.asp

 

[Gek54]

Wow, great article. ^

 

[Link648099]

Last I checked, no one was being forced to adhere to the Christian (or if you want to get technical, Jewish faith as the Ten Commandments come from the Torah) faith and no law was made by Congress imposing a national religion on the people. So going with that judge's First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom to practice one's religion, it should be perfectly fine for him to do this.

I mean, come on now, it's the liberal judge activists that are the one's discovering new "rights" in the Constitution every other Tuesday and imposing their own standard of morality on the people, whats wrong with another judge actually doing so with the backing of the Bill of Rights?

Most of you people here foam at the mouth simple because you dont like religion. No one's forcing you to convert, so why dont you take the lesson of tolerance from your own mantras and actually put it into action? You all insist everyone else be tolerant, so why dont you all stop being hypocrites and try it out for yourselves for once.

You people always make me sick with your anti-religious bigotry and extreme intolerance.

 

[demon]

You people always make me sick with your religious bigotry and extreme intolerance.

You all insist everyone else be tolerant, so why dont you all stop being hypocrites and try it out for yourselves for once.

I don't give a rat shit if someone wears a shirt listing the ten commandents. And for that matter, I couldn't give a rat shit what religion people practice on a personal level. I do give a shit when a Judge, sitting on a bench, interpreting the law, announces to the courtroom that he is happily under direct influence of some ancient scriptures of a specific religion. That is in direct conflict of seperation of church and state, whether you decide to see it as such or not.

Take all your "I hate you anti-religion bigots" crap and blow it out your ass. No one here ever cares about what religion anyone practices, until it in any way begins to affect their lives and their laws.

 

[Gek54]

Because its a Government offical, a Judge no less, endorsing a specific set of religious beliefs. Its simply innapropriate and unprofesional.

 

[xsarien]

You people always make me sick with your anti-religious bigotry and extreme intolerance.

This has nothing to do with intolerance, being "anti-religion," or bigotry. If people want to worship a fucking *spork*, hey, all the power to them. Our government is secular, and its agents shouldn't endorse the symbolism, ideology, or belief system of any one faith when they're on the job. In their private life, outside of work, they can do whatever they damned well please.

I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if the judge had a robe with a crescent moon and a star.

In short: Stop playing the victim/religious persecution card, it's simply inappropriate.

 

[NLB2]

The complexity of the code of law sometimes clouds the issues at the heart of most legal proceedings. People need to be reminded about the absolutes that the law was founded on. It's a moral compass in the morass of technicalities.

Close your mouth before any other bullshit comes pouring out of it. Since when has it been illegal to covet your neighbor's wife? Or how about worshiping a false idol? MORALITY IS SOCIALLY DETERMINED! Society today, like society in the time of Moses, has determined that murder is immoral. Murder being illegal now has nothing to do with the ten commandments. Our current legal system has far more to do with the means of production that are society employs than religion.

 

[videogamer]

I mean, come on now, it's the liberal judge activists that are the one's discovering new "rights" in the Constitution every other Tuesday and imposing their own standard of morality on the people, whats wrong with another judge actually doing so with the backing of the Bill of Rights?

Since the other posters have done a through ripping on the other points, I'd like to pick on this one. Perhaps the rights belonged there in the first place. They just weren't allowed. So legalized discrimination against homosexuals was a-ok all this time? Forcing other people to use a religious definition of life doesn't fit with the separation of church and state. No one forces you to marry a guy or have an abortion. No one is forcing them down your throat because you have these rights.

 

[NLB2]

No one forces you to marry a guy or have an abortion. No one is forcing them down your throat because you have these rights.

That reminds me of some fuck on the radio saying that pro-choice is really pro-abortion as if people who are pro-choice would like for every single pregnancy to be aborted.

 

[demon]

That reminds me of some fuck on the radio saying that pro-choice is really pro-abortion as if people who are pro-choice would like for every single pregnancy to be aborted.

Isn't that just a useless argument in semantics?

 

[NLB2]

Isn't that just a useless argument in semantics?

Yes

 

[videogamer]

Isn't that just a useless argument in semantics?

Perhaps not. Lakoff makes good points on how the left should not let the right define or "frame" the debate. For instance, the term "partial birth abortions" only came into existance about 1995 in the Washington Times. The medical term is "intact dilation and extraction", and a more neutral term would be "late-term abortion". However, the media and the discussion over this kind of abortion has totally centered around this term "partial birth abortion". Another example is "tax relief". Who wants to argue against "tax relief"? So then Lakoff goes on to say how taxes could be related to membership to a gym or YMCA. A "tax investment" into our nation's infrastructure and future.

 

[Nerevar]

I mean, come on now, it's the liberal judge activists that are the one's discovering new "rights" in the Constitution every other Tuesday and imposing their own standard of morality on the people, whats wrong with another judge actually doing so with the backing of the Bill of Rights?

Do you people actually realize where this phrase comes from? It was applied to the judges who made decisions that, you know, abolished segregation? It's like we're regressing as a country. Why don't you just call these judges "nigger-lovers" instead, we'd all get the point just as clearly - that you're an ignorant retard.

 

[NLB2]

Perhaps not. Lakoff makes good points on how the left should not let the right define or "frame" the debate. For instance, the term "partial birth abortions" only came into existance about 1995 in the Washington Times. The medical term is "intact dilation and extraction", and a more neutral term would be "late-term abortion". However, the media and the discussion over this kind of abortion has totally centered around this term "partial birth abortion". Another example is "tax relief". Who wants to argue against "tax relief"? So then Lakoff goes on to say how taxes could be related to membership to a gym or YMCA. A "tax investment" into our nation's infrastructure and future.

Yeah, and who wants to be opposed to progressive policy? Certainly the name of these things we are defining can have an impact on public perception however once we actually understand these things we are defining what we name them is purely superficial.

 

[Hitokage]

Last I checked, no one was being forced to adhere to the Christian (or if you want to get technical, Jewish faith as the Ten Commandments come from the Torah) faith and no law was made by Congress imposing a national religion on the people. So going with that judge's First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom to practice one's religion, it should be perfectly fine for him to do this.

I mean, come on now, it's the liberal judge activists that are the one's discovering new "rights" in the Constitution every other Tuesday and imposing their own standard of morality on the people, whats wrong with another judge actually doing so with the backing of the Bill of Rights?

Most of you people here foam at the mouth simple because you dont like religion. No one's forcing you to convert, so why dont you take the lesson of tolerance from your own mantras and actually put it into action? You all insist everyone else be tolerant, so why dont you all stop being hypocrites and try it out for yourselves for once.

You people always make me sick with your anti-religious bigotry and extreme intolerance.

Extreme intolerance? Who are the ones trying to make America ever more like a christian Iran? Who are the ones who wish to impose their own brand of christian law THROUGH GOVERNMENT onto those of other sects or beliefs? ... and on the other hand, who are the ones petitioning that government let ALL PEOPLE conduct their own personal religious affairs as they wish as they are consitutionally obligated? You've got everything so incredibly backward it's little wonder you're talking out of your ass.

 

[videogamer]

Yeah, and who wants to be opposed to progressive policy? Certainly the name of these things we are defining can have an impact on public perception however once we actually understand these things we are defining what we name them is purely superficial.

Cyan hit it. People don't necessarily see some umbrella of progressive policies. They can get emotional over certain issues like taxes and abortion. That's one area where liberals need to shift the debate onto more favorable ground.

 

[Drensch]

pro-choice would like for every single pregnancy to be aborted.

Alabama wouldn't be a bad test bed.

 

[NLB2]

Even if you fully understand what a partial birth abortion really is, the name will still have an impact, affect how you think about it. It's simply how our brains work.
Lakoff knows what he's talking about-- he's a cognitive scientist, as well as a linguist.

That's interesting. What book did he publish these findings in?

 

[NLB2]

That's dissapointing.

 

[BobbyRobby]

For instance, the term "partial birth abortions" only came into existance about 1995 in the Washington Times. The medical term is "intact dilation and extraction", and a more neutral term would be "late-term abortion". However, the media and the discussion over this kind of abortion has totally centered around this term "partial birth abortion".

Well, don't they pull the legs out of the womb? The term "partial-birth abortion" doesn't seem deceptive to me whatesoever. In fact, its a lot more clear than "intact dilation and extraction".

The only reason it gets a negative connotation is because it is a pretty gruesome process, not the choice of words.

As long as the judge is making decisions based upon the law, not his beliefs, I don't mind the robe. I think he should be investigated.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Alabama wouldn't be a bad test bed.

Fuck off. Reality is not the same as what you're told. There are many great things and good people in Alabama. We happen to have some cultural problems and one fucked up state government, but it's not the cesspool it's made out to be.

 

[NLB2]

Fuck off. Reality is not the same as what you're told. There are many great things and good people in Alabama. We happen to have some cultural problems and one fucked up state government, but it's not the cesspool it's made out to be.

Well I think this thread's over.

 

[videogamer]

Well, don't they pull the legs out of the womb? The term "partial-birth abortion" doesn't seem deceptive to me whatesoever. In fact, its a lot more clear than "intact dilation and extraction".

The only reason it gets a negative connotation is because it is a pretty gruesome process, not the choice of words.

As long as the judge is making decisions based upon the law, not his beliefs, I don't mind the robe. I think he should be investigated.

Actually the tern "intact dilation and extraction" is pretty clear and certainly more precise with a little background knowledge. The cervix is dilated and the extraction of the fetus is done at one time, not by parts.

The name "partial birth abortion" does not take into account that it is a procedure that is rarely done. The emotional aspects of the term overwhelms the fact that the parent's health can be in danger or the fetus is severely malformed. Also, the recent bill does not have in exceptions for the mothers' health except cases to save a mother's life.

On further research, I should have used the term "dilation and evacuation" instead of "intact dilation and extraction".

 

[Meier]

I love watching some of you squirm. Makes me giddy.

 

[videogamer]

found what may be a picture of the thing. Darn activist judges.

http://www.gutlesspacifist.com/gp/archives/002593.html