Lds Ched De Mission Steps Down....

[Jaybear]

You should also look at history a bit. For instance. Because Scott was taken to Il. which is a state prohibiting slavery (disallowing it), his argument was based on the state laws, laws chosen by the people in a vote, that in effect, he was free.

Judicial activism overturned the will of the people in that state, judicial activism ignored the precedent that any slave, once freed remained free, and turned the individual into chattel.

Think about it before you advocate your brand of judicial activism.

So what was the "agenda" that drove this judicial activism? The liberals at the time were disappointing by the ruling.

[Jeff K.]

So what was the "agenda" that drove this judicial activism? The liberals at the time were disappointing by the ruling.

Jaybear, you need to think a bit more. Fascism with a liberal or conservative face remains fascism. Judicial activism whether liberal or conservative is wrong in any constitutional democracy.

By the way Jaybear, you would have been listed as conservative in that court. You would have agreed with the idea of an overarching government that could undermine the state rule of IL.

[Jaybear]

By the way Jaybear, you would have been listed as conservative in that court. You would have agreed with the idea of an overarching government that could undermine the state rule of IL.

Wrong once again.

The conservative position was that the Govt could not interfere with your private property rights.

Slaves were considered property.

In any event, do you have to go back to the 1800s to find a case of "judicial activism"? What about the Loving case?

[Jeff K.]

And so we see another disengenuous answer from Jaybear.

CFR Jaybear where in the opinions of the judicial activist or in the defense where your position is mentioned. Yours is a foolish answer attempting to bolster a poor argument. I on the other hand have shown you a case of judicial activism in which all clearly understand how a judge or judges imposed their will upon the populace rather than allow the democratic process to free an individual.

You are a great fan of judicial activism, you in effect should be celebrating the Scott case as a victory for your point of view.

[Jaybear]

And so we see another disengenuous answer from Jaybear.

Jeff,

I have learned that once you start down the "disingenuous", aka Jaybear is lying path, its best to just end the discussion.

[Jeff K.]

You should stop the discussion before you go down that path, it saves us all time and effort.

[sjdawg]

Except that gays weren't harassed at their work places or homes for doing so. Vidmar apparently has put in a lot of time to do this and was doing a good job. To be railroaded because of his exercise of free speech is the work of thought police, whether it be the state or organized citizens.

Yes we all know what harassment free lives gay people have enjoyed.

[Jeff K.]

Pretty much in CA that is true. Same cannot be said for members of the Church of Jesus Christ in this state.