Debate on Reagan policies/politics

[JUGGERNAUT]

On social side there are consequences to every decision a judge makes. I don't live in your fantasy world where you believe judges are anything more than idealists enacting their beliefs on a nation. You call it upholding the Constitution I call it bending the Constitution. Any one who has studied law knows that there are 2 sides to any argument & in more cases than not both sides have the same merit. So in reality there is no wrong or right way to interpret the Constitution.

 

Likewise this is 2004 & not 1776. By & large Congress represents those who are both educated & experienced in the law. In some cases the representatives are more talented in the law than the judges. When you add to the fact that there are four times as many lawyers available to the public than doctors the % of the populus educated in the law is far & beyond anything the founders imagined. There is simply no rationale basis for judges to serve beyond the terms of the elected officials who appointed them. America is becoming more and more a collective determined by majority opinion. It's closer to resembling democracy than at any greater time in it's history. It's only the antiquated arrogant & pretty much useless judges that stand in the way.

 

There's really no value in debating beer's libertarian views of government because they are pure fantasy to the size & scope of govt we have today. You can't turn back the clock no matter how much he wants to. You have to work w/in the system we have today. Marriage laws & regulations exist throughout the land at both fed & state levels. Interstate commerce is affected by them. So the state & fed have a say. There is no social issue in America today that does not have economic consequences. This includes abortion. By & large Americans believe gay marriage to be immoral. This is the number one reason. More than double that of any other reason. We have seen already that the issue has begun splitting protestant churches because America simply is not going to allow the courts to assimilate it's culture embredded in religion & morality. Whether you or I or any one else likes it or not by & large Americans view sodomy & lesbianism as immoral behavior. It's their right to do so & it's their right to exclude people on the basis of their behaviors.

 

To me that's the central issue here & it's a big one. It's not just about gay marriage either. It's about language, course study, schools, work, entertainment, etc. The Constitution & Bill of Rights implied a distinct distaste for discimination on the basis of

physicial attributes such as race or ethniciity. But it did not imply such distaste for discrimination on the basis of behavior. It assumed that the majority will would define a collective theme for what appropriate behavior was. That is why we have laws governing behavior. What activists judges have done over the years has served to undermine that collective by imposing individualistic will on the majority.

The majority has the right to govern individual behavior in so much as it affects the majority. Activists judges have no right to undermine that. Congress & the Executive branch are supposed to influence the majority. Not judges.

 

In terms of beers basic belief that Americans have a right to segregate themselves economicallly through ordinances, state laws, etc. in a true democracy it's hard to argue against that. What the activist judges choose to ignore is that their job is primarily to protect Americans from gross misuse of such processes. Not minor but gross. As beer suggests if a township chooses to pass an ordinace that excludes persons of certain behavior from being members that person has the choice not to live in that township. A judge should not force his existence on the majority of that township. Basically a judge should be applying common sense. If a couple of such ordinances affect only a few individuals that hardly constitutes a gross infraction of individual rights. In that respect the judge should simply refuse to rule or provide a temporary ruling on the basis of it being a minor inconvenience to the individual.

That's called applying common sense. Something these activist judges seem to be completely void of.

[Texsox]

No. There are certain things local groups cannot vote themselves. We cannot say, for example, that ripping MPs is legal in my town. We cannot say, for example, that only Whites can live here. We are United States. By being a part of the Union, you must conform to some set of National standards, or else we are not United States, we are the Independent States of America.

 

I agree that local ordinances for liquor licenses, speed laws, littering laws, etc. should be local, but they must also be legal on a Federal level.

 

Judges are only activist if you disagree with them. They are operating within the scope of the Constitution. I've disagreed with several judgements, but instead of calling them activist judges, I asked my Congressman and Senators to get their activist asses off their chairs and get new laws passed that would be constitutional. Of course Judges pass judgement based on their judgements. That is why we pay them. Any two people can read the same thing and have two different opinions as to what it means. Further, our understanding of issues changes over time. Interraccial marriages is a prime example. Within our lifetime it has gone from illegal to common and accepted.

[JUGGERNAUT]

No. There are certain things local groups cannot vote themselves. We cannot say, for example, that ripping MPs is legal in my town. We cannot say, for example, that only Whites can live here. We are United States. By being a part of the Union, you must conform to some set of National standards, or else we are not United States, we are the Independent States of America.

 

I agree that local ordinances for liquor licenses, speed laws, littering laws, etc. should be local, but they must also be legal on a Federal level.

 

Judges are only activist if you disagree with them. They are operating within the scope of the Constitution. I've disagreed with several judgements, but instead of calling them activist judges, I asked my Congressman and Senators to get their activist asses off their chairs and get new laws passed that would be constitutional. Of course Judges pass judgement based on their judgements. That is why we pay them. Any two people can read the same thing and have two different opinions as to what it means. Further, our understanding of issues changes over time. Interraccial marriages is a prime example. Within our lifetime it has gone from illegal to common and accepted.

Your argument is simply too simplisitic with respect to judges. If you were to add up in $'s the process of what it takes to bring a bill into law & then to enforce that law it is simply too much an amount to expect Cogress to pursue that process over & over again to where a law is deemed acceptable to an judge.

 

Sometimes idealism has to give way to reality. Try naming the number of times a law that was struck down by a judge has been re-worked & re-introduced. It's few & far between. Congress has too many problems to deal with on a daily basis to keep re-working the same problem over & over just so it can be approved by an obviously biased judge.

 

Interracial marriage is inextricably tied to race & civil rights legislation with respect to race. It wasn't going to become accepted in American society until blacks were. The speed at which it became acceptable after the civil rights movement is a clear indication that it was never viewed as immoral beyond racism itself. In other words you couldn't very well be a defender of civil rights & then make claim that interracial marriage was immoral.

 

Gay marriage has nothing to do with civil rights legislation. Gays are not discriminated against because of their race or ethnicity but rather their behavior. Americans have the right to exclude groups because of their behavior. No judge has a right to define what is & is not moral in American society. The people define that themselves. The law is supposed to reflect that definition. The best way to look at gay marriage is from the perspective of married persons. They represent a social group of society defined by one man & one woman. It's up to that social group to decide whether to exclude or include others & not a judge. What would be discrimination or injustice is if one social group prevented the creation of another.

So far I don't seen any evidence of that being the case.

 

Ladies night is another perfect example of judges having no root in common sense & reality. A select few individuals are making this an issue. The overwhelming majority of Americans support ladies night. This is not an example of GROSS misuse of capitalistic use of sex discrimination with respect to pricing. This is a minor greviance. It doesn't require making ladies night illegal. It's a prime example where some are trying to use the Constitution like Bible fundamentalists to dictate behavioral policy against the will of the majority in America. That's simply abuse of judicial power to social engineer Americans against their will. In my opinion it's so non-democratic it borders on treason.

[Texsox]

Your argument is simply too simplisitic with respect to judges. If you were to add up in $'s the process of what it takes to bring a bill into law & then to enforce that law it is simply too much an amount to expect Cogress to pursue that process over & over again to where a law is deemed acceptable to an judge. 

 

Sometimes idealism has to give way to reality. Try naming the number of times a law that was struck down by a judge has been re-worked & re-introduced.  It's few & far between.  Congress has too many problems to deal with on a daily basis to keep re-working the same problem over & over just so it can be approved by an obviously biased judge.

 

Interracial marriage is inextricably tied to race & civil rights legislation with respect to race.  It wasn't going to become accepted in American society until blacks were.  The speed at which it became acceptable after the civil rights movement is a clear indication that it was never viewed as immoral beyond racism itself.  In other words you couldn't very well be a defender of civil rights & then make claim that interracial marriage was immoral. 

 

Gay marriage has nothing to do with civil rights legislation.  Gays are not discriminated against because of their race or ethnicity but rather their behavior. Americans have the right to exclude groups because of their behavior.  No judge has  a right to define what is & is not moral in American society.  The people define that themselves.  The law is supposed to reflect that definition. The best way to look at gay marriage is from the perspective of married persons.  They represent a social group of society defined by one man & one woman.  It's up to that social group to decide whether to exclude or include others & not a judge. What would be discrimination or injustice is if one social group prevented the creation of another.

So far I don't seen any evidence of that being the case.

 

Ladies night is another perfect example of judges having no root in common sense & reality.  A select few individuals are making this an issue.  The overwhelming majority of Americans support ladies night.  This is not an example of GROSS misuse of capitalistic use of sex discrimination with respect to pricing. This is a minor greviance.  It doesn't require making ladies night illegal. It's a prime example where some are trying to use the Constitution like Bible fundamentalists to dictate behavioral policy against the will of the majority in America.  That's simply abuse of judicial power to social engineer Americans against their will.  In my opinion it's so non-democratic it borders on treason.

Provide a better balance than what our constitution provided? Should Congress have free reign to pass any law, without any oversight? I think the balance has kept congress in check and our system of appeals have kept judges in check.

 

I do not see a better system.

 

As far as ladies night, I agree the outcome is silly. I am laughing at my conservative friends who are defending a woman's right to 1/2 price drinks, a behavior (drinking) that most of them condemn.

[southsider2k5]

USSR was dying a slow economic death dating back to at least the late 60's. 

 

I have no idea where this "ending the Cold War" nonsense came from. Even Gorbachev can't take credit for it.

 

As IF, with app 15,000 operatable nuclear and R-charged warheads and countless decoys spread all over the glorious vastness of Mother,  people gave a s*** about Ronnie's threats or international pressure.

See the other Reagan thread for two of the biggest downfalls of the USSR that directly resulted from Ronnies policy making.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Judges that are allowed to rule on the constitutionality of a law are an antiquated & useless part of the system. No one can argue that kind of power promotes democracy. No one can argue that kind of power is needed in a country where there will soon be more legal professionals than engineering ones.

 

Here is an example of how democracy is suppose to work in a capitalistic market:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nia_gay_boycott

 

Democracy in VA so dominated the issue that the law was passed with a veto-proof margin. So the opposition took the next step in the battle: declaring a boycott. It's pitting those who routinely spend $ in VA or on VA goods & services against those living in VA. That's the way the modern system should work. Representative of the people by voting either with their $ or their voice. Of course the biggest name in VA is America Online so this boycott will also serve as an indicator of how strong the opposition is.

 

Personally I think it's sad that the concept & nature of civil unions has to fall victim to the show-boating between the two sides. Civil unions should have a much bigger scope than just the state recognizing a sexual union. It should provide for non sexual relationships as well. If they had gone that route they undoubtedly would have gotten far fewer headlines from the press.

[JUGGERNAUT]

On the issue of gay marriage this is very similar to the debate over co-ed schools.

The social liberals pushed their agenda that in general school would be better off being co-ed. Well now after 25 yrs of that failed policy even Hillary Clinton herself is advocating that schools be segregated based on sex. I suppose it's not a coincidence that Japan is moving in that direction as well.

 

It's funny how conservative ideas that were considered old-fashioned & antiquated are now surfacing in the midst of America's failed school system. Do you think the fact that 50% of blacks drop out of high school might have something to do with a 30% decline of blacks at Berkeley? The main reason I would imagine Asian Americans are beginning to dominate the admissions in colleges is because they have the lowest drop out rate & the highest acceptance rate. Now of course the social liberals would say that has nothing to do with their homelife being the most conservative in the nation.

 

So what does this have to do with gay marriage? Simply put it changes the culture of the nation towards a more socially liberal mood. The precedent of saying to 66+% of the American people "F you" means there is no way to re-define it for gays & still exclude polygamists & other freaks. Not one social liberal has come up with an even plausible argument to debate that. That's why now is the wrong time to push for this. It would be better to push for civil unions having no definition in terms of sexual behavior or familiy ties & then let the nation ADJUST & OBSERVE these unions over time.

 

Finally married people in America should have the biggest say on this issue because they are the living definition of the word. In my opinion that supercedes any law or any dictionary definition of the word. Presently they are adamantly against gay marriage. The polls/surveys amongst married persons is as high as 77%. Well above the 2/3rds majority.

 

Civil unions is the best way to avoid all the social ills that will arise from forcing acceptance of sexual behavior on the American people. They can provide fair & impartial benefits & opportunities to a much greater multitude of Americans w/out debating the norms of sexual behavior. An intelligent society would move in this direction but the two sides are so polar that intelligence rarely is considered.