Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2006 > July > 11 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USActivism can’t take credit in gay marriage ruling
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Is Fulton Superior Court Judge Constance Russell, whose decision to trash a constitutional amendment approved by 76 percent of Georgia voters was itself unanimously ash-canned by the state Supreme Court last week, an “activist judge”?
Maybe. Maybe not. Partisans and commentators on the right go so far as to declare her a “rogue activist” link on the marriage issue. While there can be no doubt that judicial activism in Massachusetts fired the cauldron nationally, conservatives do ourselves no favors by falling into the trap set by ideological adversaries. That trap is to declare unpopular decisions evidence of activism.
Judicial activism is real. It’s a serious problem. Decisions on voter ID dance there. The clue on that issue is when judges start to substitute their legislative agenda for those of elected representatives by declaring, for example, as U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy of Rome did, that the greater problem for legislators was absentee voting fraud. That’s an arguable point. But legislators are free to choose which of the state’s multitude of problems to address when and how. Object to their priorities, as judges and editorialists often do, and the simple remedy is either to pay the qualifying fee and run, or to put alternatives out there and let public opinion choose.
Judicial activism grew out of the impatience with legislative process — whether the definition of marriage should be expanded, for example. It grew, too, from the arrogance that afflicts the unchallenged. It is awfully tempting to fashion whole remedies, to imagine those who serve the other two branches of government to be prisoners of timidity or politics. Believing that, it’s not a far leap to push them all out of the way and to start divining solutions that spend public money.
Judges are not entirely at fault here. In some instances legislatures or mayors or governors intentionally avoid dealing with the dirty issues, such as prison overcrowding, because it’s far easier to fill ‘em than it is to raise the taxes to build ‘em. Much easier to explain to voters, too, that the devil made us do it.
In general, though, groups that are incapable of selling their agendas to elected officials have found ways to go around them, and the courts are key. But another special interest ploy, too, is to marshal resources at the federal level — the traditional route for organized labor and other activists. By law or regulation, a win there imposes agendas on the 50 states.
Organized labor, in its current jihad against Wal-Mart, had to go to the 50 states individually because it currently lacks the clout in Congress to impose a mandate that large employers spend a minimum of 8 percent of payroll on employee medical benefits. It succeeded in one. Maryland. In Georgia, the bill never got out of committee.
The marriage amendment decision by Fulton’s Judge Russell was not activist in the least. One could argue that whether a judge perceived the ballot phrasing to be one issue or two does offer some clue as to her leanings. The traditionalist’s certainty that marriage is one man/one woman and who believe that the definition should not be fudged, expanded or altered in any way saw the ballot question as indisputably one issue. If, however, marriage is a lifestyle choice enjoying entitlements denied other equally valid lifestyle choices, the ballot measure was two subjects, as Russell ruled.
If I were judge-shopping a challenge based on other grounds, I’d look her up.
In this instance, though, it’s wrong to call her an activist, and there was certainly nothing rogue about her decision. That two levels of judges could look at the same law and the same set of facts, and come to decidedly different conclusions is one reason to know more about who we’re putting on the bench — more certainly than résumés.
The case to watch out for in Fulton, though, for evidence of judicial activism is the one filed against the state by the administrators of some local school systems who are failing to educate children. They blame their failure on money and want more. Money’s one possible explanation. Dozens of others exist, too.
There’s no “solution” — or at least not one this nation has discovered, nor any appropriate sum to spend. It’s a give-and-take that should occur in a political environment where education spending is competing with other priorities. This suit and others like it around the nation are end runs around legislators.
Judicial activism is real. It’s not, however, issuing opinions conservatives don’t like.
Jim Wooten is associate editorial page editor. His column runs Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays.
Permalink | Comments (185) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
Comments
By Politcal Foreskin
July 11, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this
Gay Marriage is the topic or headline in three of the articles on pages 8 and 9 in the @ISSUE section of today’s AJC. A little obsessed with writing about this topic are we? What kind of journalism is this, “Brokeback Fountain(pen)?”
I’d suggest a line-item-veto at editorial brainstorming sessions if I didn’t think you’d make a line(dance)-item-veto out of it. Now I’m afraid to say anything.
The gay lilt, (that distinctive timbre of a gay man’s voice), is ubiquitous on Public Radio broadcasts. Isn’t there a newsprint text type equivalent that could serve as a warning: “Dont read this if you are sick to death of gay marriage, gay unions, or gay anything”
The Right won a pyrrhic victory over the phallic dictionary definition of marriage with the Ga. Supreme Court’s ruling. Now gay marriage wont be on the ballot to rally the lunatic fringe to get out and smart mob the election. Dittoheadwounds wont vote if there’s no (gay bashing) hate crime in it for them.
The other bad news for the right is in the big picture of the Ga. Supreme Court’s decision that the gay marriage measure was only one issue: it put civil unions on equal footing with marriage - that is, by declaring civil unions and marriage as equal legal identities on a ballot measure, then a really clever lawyer can construct an argument that does an end run around both the legislature and the court ruling.
Fine with me as long as I dont have to read anymore about gays. (not that there’s anything schlong with that) D’oh!
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
It looks like your liberal political foreskin is actually as obsessed with defending homosexuality as this shrinking circulation liberal fish wrapper is.
I am as sick of reading about homosexuals and their shrill activism as anyone.
Although its increasingly the case that most liberals consider homosexuality as a way of widening the circle of their friends.
You gleefully and profusely sneer at normal (conservative) folks who democratically binned homo marriage - but yet you stridently decry a seeming pinko obsession with the pooftah topic. So no hint of hypocrisy there - eh!!
Your liberal intellectual dishonesty is hugely amusing though - its not “a hate crime” to legally vote against marriage for homos.
Given the overwhelming majority that voted in GA against marriage for homos a good number of dems and independents must have supported the measure. So your poxy poof protecting prattle about “lunatic fringes smart mobbing elections” is as empty as your petulant pyrrhic little liberal head.
Perhaps you should emulate Chuck Berry for a while and “go play with your own ding a ling”!!
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this
Say it, dont spray it.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this
Now that response is much closer to the real YOU - cheers for the rather belated intellectual HONESTY!!
By Sara
July 11, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
Time for the Truth, a true biological heterosexual male would not be as consumed with the subject of gay marriage as you obviously are. As a true 100% biological female, straight at that, if I had some type of built in gaydar…it would be alarming right now. You can say pinko leftist and homo marriage until pigs fly, but I can still detect the lisp in how you type. Your need for attention is underwhelming, your need for a hiry chest to be pressed up to yours, monolithic.
By Sara
July 11, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
oops hairy chest…is what I meant to say.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
Jim, thanks for “thinking right” about this issue. You and I are on opposite sides of the court ruling because I agree with Judge Russell that it is two subjects, but I appreciate you making the distinction about activist judges and not just calling a judge activist when you don’t agree with her ruling. Often conservatives use that label only for judges who rule against conservative values.
As for the first two posters — you are showing your homophobia. Jim is writing about activist judges — not bashing gays.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
To be honest, I don’t know which side of the argument either of the two previous posters are on, because they are obviously in love with their dictionary/thesaurus. But I agree with Wooten (rare occurance). There is some level of activism on the bench, but it isn’t as rampant as most would say. I would go even further to say that the judicial branch is appointed by elected officials, many of which are now GOP. So those that chirp the loudest about judicial activism should realize this and ask themselves, are their beliefs the victim of some liberal judicial agenda, or fairly decided rulings based on facts and the law decided by judges appointed by both Republicans and Democrats. I think the person to ask about that would be George W. Bush. He has been able to name 2 supreme court justices, including one who replaced the swing vote of Sandra Day O’Connor, but yet has had rulings that went against his policies regarding prisoners at Guantanamo. Judges, while imperfect like the rest of us, usually have gotten where they are by being fair and followers of the law.
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Yes it is time for the truth, time for the truth. And the truth is that the whole issue is bulls%*#! There are so many more IMPORTANT issues that get totally lost when these ideological distractions hit the front burner. It never ceases to amaze me how many issues can be manufactured by pols on both sides that allow them to dodge real issues and tough questions. But they realize that xenophobia,homophobia,racism,bigotry,and nativism is what incites the masses. What is so tragic is that these non-issues bring out the above inclined rabble and tells all how sad our society still is.
By deegee
July 11, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Here we see that judicical activism grows out of impatience with the legislative process because the judicial branch imagines that the legislative and executive branches are prisoners of timidity and politics. Then we see that the legislative and executive branches really are prisoners of timidity and politics. In the case of the timid, political hacks that are elected to the Georgia legislature, even when they do actually adopt some legislation it is so poorly written that it takes a judge to sort it out. Stop trying to legislate moral ideology and your interpretation of Jesus Christ’s vision for the U.S. in the year 2006. Maybe then we could get back to the basics like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
I should have said “first two posters”.
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this
AMEN deegee!
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
@ Sara
This is too funny - yet another liberal haggette attempts to lecture its conservative betters with vacuous bollocks from the Howard Dean skool of hateful liberal pop psychology.
The imbecilic stock pinko response is - anyone who objectively critiques shrill homosexual activism must really be a closet poof!!
WOW!! That’s completely stumped me love, I have NO response to that, I’m utterly speechless!! In such ignominious circumstances how can I can I best beseech you to show some of that munificent Clintonesque/Carville/Begala like liberal compassion??
Christ - I bet if Pavlov were alive today he’d love to have a litter of liberal dogs and b*** to condition!!
Talking of pigs flying, will you be voting for Shrillary in any of the southern primaries if he/she/it makes it down south?
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this
I wish we could put the extreme wings of both sides in a sound proof booth, while the grown ups talk about real issues and actually get something done.
Can you imagine Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Pat Robertson in the same room with Michael Moore, Al Franken, Jesse Jackson and Cindy Sheehan? Yikes.
By Jacob
July 11, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
By Jim’s definition, the two most glaring cases of an activist judge’s political ideology becoming evident in their ruling, in the past century, have been Brown V. Board of Education, and Bush v. Gore. Both are clearcut cases of judges “substitut[ing] their legislative agenda for those of elected representatives.”
By MClark
July 11, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
Sorry to get off topic but I need to know something.
In my life I have had my military service questioned 4 times. The first was in 1967, when I decided to enlist. My father, who had fought for freedom himself, was not happy. He knew the horrors that I possibly faced and had hoped I would never have to go. The second time was after I returned home and started college. My father had every right to question my decision. He loved me and was simply trying to protect me. He was proud of me, but feared what may happen. The students spoke out of fear and were caught up in a fervor that can scarcely be understood today.
The third and fourth times have remarkably happened just in the last month. First I was told that my service didn’t matter and that I should “get over it”. Second, yesterday, a person named Pompano took it upon himself (or herself) to proclaim that I never served, that I made it all up. That I was confusing my time in Southeast Asia with service in the Girl Scouts.
What possibly did I do to bring this on myself? I disagreed with their right leaning opinions. I had the audacity to say things that didn’t fit their orthodoxy and therefore I was fair game to ridicule and in the latest case doubt I even served. I didn’t sleep much last night I was so upset and angry. My son said to ignore it. My wife said let it pass. I said hell no.
Enough is enough.
Those that know me from previous posts know I try not to call names or take sides, but I’ve got to know something. Is this the way the right does things. Since 1969 no one on the left has questioned my service. But two on the extreme right have done so in one month. To my right leaning friends I want to know, is this how things are done? Are you OK with your side being represented by shameful people like Pompano. Like it or not many Americans see you guys as bullies, a claim that I know is by and large not true. But it is folks like this who make you seem like you are.
I came to this blog a skeptic. I became convinced over time that it was a great place to discuss ideas and learn from people who have opinions different from me. I have no problem with debate and no problem with someone who disagrees with me. I am beginning, however to believe that the bullies rule the day. I am too old, too tired, and too damn proud to have my service to this country ridiculed and doubted based on my view of the issues. This is too much. It’s just too unsettling.
Call me a whiner, call me a cry-baby, call me whatever names you want. You’ll just prove that I am right. My posts are usually well thought out and carefully written. This is a vent. I know it and I’m sorry. I’m sorry for its tone and I’m sorry if it is a bit incoherent. But I’m angry and I want to know if the Right thinks this is OK. If so, then this moderate is gone.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 10:45 AM | Link to this
Why is it anyone who has sympathy or compassion for a group that is discriminated against is a pinko or communist? If I remember correctly Stalin was a communist and he was a murdering psychopath. So is Kim Jong Il. I think there are plenty of kindergarterners who could make better analogies than that. But I guess accuracy is a concept not yet grasped by the right wing, a la evidence for the Iraq war and Mr. time for truth’s predictable party line drivel.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Homophobia is more micky mouse liberal drivel … its a micky mouse word contrived by pinkos to hatefully finger point at anyone who doesn’t accept their shrill homo agenda.
Homophobic literally means you hate your own kind, its meaningless!! But the party of hate and the liberal media use it to constantly try and invoke hatred against their opponents.
@ Amelia … your little rant was very funny!!
I especially liked the “… ism’s” list. That was classic humour!! Thankyou.
I agree its a very minor unimportant subject - but I couldn’t resist laughing at the idiocy and intellectual dishonesty of liberal foreskin … knowing I would also effortlessly wind up the usual liberal morons on here was merely an added bonus!!
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
clearly you’re a complete idiot or extremely obtuse and take eveything literally!!
If you read liberal foreskin’s post you would have seen a number of abusive remarks about conservatives - my astute/fair comment about pinkos etc was merely designed to wind up any liberal obtuse enough to bite on it - whilst making a perfectly valid point about blatant leftist/pinko pandering to homosexuals etc.
Its political banter you dummy!!!
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
WELL!
By RetiredLTC
July 11, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
I hate to be the one to break the news to alot of you so called “patriots” that are anything but patriots with your derision of those that practice the most American of all traditions, dissent. But there are a multitude of those who served, are presently serving, to include many high ranking active duty officers and retired officers that very much question the present administrations use of our military and their motives for that use. Neither party has a lock on patriotism. But the more I read some of these blogs the more I am led to believe that there is definately one that has the lock on unthinking ignorance. And it is your freedom as an American to decide for yourself which one that is.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
now you’ve proved you’re a complete idiot!!
Hannity and Limbaugh are NOT on the far right - they are both mainstream conservatives. I agree that Coulter and the execrable Robertson are further to the right. Although Coulter is usually highly amusing and always factually correct, even if you dont like her conclusions!!
Moderates might sound reasonable in but they sure are mindnumbingly boring to listen to or read!!
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
By the strictest definition of the word, you are definately homophobic, time for the truth. Whether it is your unadulterated hate of homosexuals or as you say, your own fear of your sexuality, you are most definately a homophobe. And no time for the truth, the word is not a mickey mouse word contrived by pinkos. It is an apt description that can be found in Websters. So time for the truth, if the shoe fits, wear it. And I bet it fits.
By Sara
July 11, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
Ann Coulter is the conservatives Michael Moore. She has crossed the line now and can no longer be taken serious. Her bookings have taken a tumble, research it. I must say I have known other transexuals such as Ann that can’t pass as well as she does. She owes a heap of gratitude to her team of doctors.
By deegee
July 11, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
MClark, You are a gentleman and a scholar. Please don’t go, but if you do, go in peace.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
RetiredLTC claims that there is one blogger who has a lock on unthinking ignorance!
Lets see, who could it be…I dont know…nobody comes to mind….drawing a blank here…..one person who has a lock…..cant think of anyone off hand……I’m not sure…….could it be……..ALL THE UNDERSALVED DITTOHEADWOUNDS???????
By JK today
July 11, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
MClark,
People walk among us who are so miserable with their own bad choices, bad luck, and pathetic, loser lives, that the only way they can pretend to be happy is by taking small joy in knocking other people down to their level of miserable self-loathing. These people find their way to the blogs and insult you. That you took it to heart only fed the desire to stick another knife in your psyche. Your wife is right, Hon. PompussButt is not worth your aggravation. By the way, thank you for your service to our nation and your well-stated points. I love you, man.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
I guess I am a dummy. Because Political Foreskin uses such derrogatory terms in his posts above as “The Right” and “lunatic fringe” to describe Republicans. Yep those are terrible terms. So terrible and specific that “lunatic fringe” couldn’t possibly be used to describe both sides of the political spectrum. And “The Right” is so horrible that people in it, never use that to describe themselves, even in the blog originator’s own column. (that was sarcasm in case you are as dense as you seem)
The TRUTH is you wouldn’t use those terms to describe Democrats if you didn’t know that they irritated Democrats, not because they were accurate, but because they imply some allegiance to communism, which you know is a buzz word in America. So accusing me of taking them too literally is ridiculous. I know why you use them and that’s why I’m calling you out about it.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this
Time for the truth — if you are going to break words down for the literal meaning, be aware that phobia means fear, not hatred. Also, look up homophobia in the dictionary — it’s in there as “irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals.”
By Van
July 11, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
Whether Fulton Superior Court Judge Constance Russell was an activist judge or not can not be accuratly determined from one decision. If anything I would submit that the Judge was a product of a Georgia elementry school. Having trouble detemining what the subject of a proposed constitutional amendment was.
The Georgia Supreme court did correctly determine that the subject was to define constitutionally what marriage was.
Now, if the Gerogia Supremes went to foreign court decisions to make this determination, then they would be activists.
For Jacob, the 7-2 decision of the US Supreme Court on the Florida elections was not activism, it upheald Florida law regarding when results HAD to be certified.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
Amelia, that shoe that fits that blogger you addressed is a Jimmy Choo. (now you went and got his “shop” on!!!)
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
MClark,
Don’t forget the Republicans sporting purple heart band-aids at their national convention. They give lip service but no real respect to veterans.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this
Hannity and Limbaugh and the term mainstream do not belong in the same sentence together. Anyone who believes that America would be better off if all political offices were filled with one party (their own) is not mainstream. Listening for 5 mintues to either on their radio programs show that they don’t think that the other 49.999% of America deserves representation.
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
What is a Jimmy Choo?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
Watching shrill hags like you ramming your judgmental hate speech drivel down my throat is fabulous entertainment. Please keep it coming!!
The word is a micky mouse made up word used to bolster a political/activist agenda.
How long ago did Websters insert this pinko speech word?
It is relatively recent, literally contrived by homos and their supporters.
Its politically correct bollocks - nothing else.
A great deal of whatever you liberals despise/oppose you demonise and then designate any opposing views as hate speech.
Has it ever occured to you love that liberals are so unbelievably easy to wind up on so many subjects!! Why do you think I cited Pavlov’s dogs??
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
High end stilleto heels all the rave and cost about 1500 per pair as seen on “Sex in the City” and “the Devil wears Prada”. (Ironically the latest rage in shoes are flats) Unless you’re turned off by anything that happened so five minutes ago…for sure.
By B.S.
July 11, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
McClark,
Everytime someone on the right questions your patriotism, ask them what branch of the military they served in. You’ll be amazed how quickly this shuts them up!
Please don’t lose sleep over the losers on this blog. Most are societal outcasts who just enjoy riling people up, and are so close-minded, one wonders why they are in a forum that’s supposed to provide for debate.
Personally, I respect the opinion of anyone who has served their country (right or left -war or peace time)over those who haven’t.) You lose all credibility to me when you scream about being a patriot but conveniently never served yourself, especially those who are still eligible. In fact, I think the army upped the enlistment age to 42.
Both my grandfather’s emlisted to fight in world war 2. One, left a wife and 2 children in his late 30’s because his call to duty was so great. That would never happen today - so many just like to sport flags and ribbons, but not do anything that involves actual danger.
My father and myself were both in the Marines, neither saw combat. But we all are democrats from New York (though I’m actually independent now), so I laugh at the hypocrisy when non-serving republicans spew their patriotic talk from the safety of their houses.
Remember military service means nothing in politics, the attacks on Kerry (who saw actual combat), versus W’s questionable record. W’s 2000 primary campaign attacking former POW and combat vet John McCain. Chambliss attacking Cleland (yea, he might have lost his limbs in an accident - but he had the BALLS to serve unlike Saxby). So don’t worry, the extremists will taunt and question your patriotism, regardless of your military record so long as you don’t agree with them.
Hope this helps.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
@ time for truth,
What I want to know is why you hate so many people that you don’t even know? Was it part of your KKK…er uh I mean GOP initiation ritual?
By Jim Wooten
July 11, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this
MClark, I may have spoken too early yesterday on the caliber of the discussion. It did take a personal turn after that. And I can see why you might have had a restless night.
First of all, I agree with your assessment about the substance and style of your contribution to this blog. You are one of those contributors who provoke thought and while we may disagree, I love having you here. After a month, I’m beginning to form some sense of who the regulars are and, as I’ve said a number of times before, I’m bowled over by the creativity of some of the posters — today’s first two, as an example — and by the intelligence and insight expressed by contributors. it really does make me more hopeful that public policy issues can be debated fully and productively in the blogosphere.
You and I have Vietnam in common. It’s not the subject of a blog, but I know why you would have found the challenge to your service, or the suggestion that it was a Scouts equivalent, cause for a restless night. I must admit, too, that while I resist the temptation to join in a discussion between or among contributors who are perfectly capable of explaining and defending their positions, I was sorely tempted on the matter of your service. Whatever your ideology, and however much you might disagree with mine, thanks for serving.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
Hannity and RUsh are mainstream conseratives, that’s not simply an assertion, but based on their consistent political ideology and commentary. Neither of them adopt far right agendas. You might not approve of their politics but that’s irrelevant.
If you’re going to pontificate on political ideology at least have the BRAINS to back it up with facts, not effete pinko asserions that merely reflect your own political ideology.
Liberal foreskin was simply being a typical liberal - so I wittily mirrored his rhetoric back at him.
WHy be so judgmental about folks you dont agree with - are you the resident anal cyber policeman?
I am a conservative and I wasn’t offended at all!!
Christ you’re thinskinned mate!!
I really hate moderates!! big grin
By MikeT
July 11, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
I think time for the truth is my gay lover from the Luckovich blog. His name is Andy and he is gay. He is also one real sick pervert. The best thing to do is ignore him. Otherwise he will pollute and ruin this forum as he has the Luckovich blog.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
How long ago did Websters insert this pinko speech word? 1969
Racism is from 1936.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
Why did that bad boy cite Pavlov’s dogs? nothing rings a bell…I cant think of any possible reason….his syntactical choices WOULD make him over-salivate when he talks, so I suppose the pool of drool from which he constructs his arguments could in some way conjure up Pavlovian Dogs…I can only deduce that this guy has time to burn because he made his first million pinching loaves for bakeries….that’s doggish, isn’t it?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
NOW WE SEE YOUR TRUE PINKO HATE MODE!!
I just enjoy effortlessly winding up pinkos whilst making numerous logical/factual points.
Its damn good fun!!
By jbmlaw
July 11, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Concerned Citizen, who is a mainstream conservative?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
The word was NOT part of everyday liberal speech though until the homosexual activists and media began using it as an everyday part of their propaganda to push their agenda. Very few folks back in the late 60’s or 70’s used the term.
It is clearly a made up word though, merging two words to make a political point.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
And while I have the dictionary open— the words homosexual and homosexuality were added to the dictionary in 1892. Before then people were not defined that way. Same-gender sex was considered something people did and did not define a person they way it does now.
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
@ time for truth,
you have convinced me, I digress. I actually think you’ve won me over. Where can I sign up for “The Right”? How long will it take for me to get my cross burning kit, my “truth/fish” car magnet, W window sticker and my “I am a Christian, but I teach hate even though Jesus said to love thy neighbor, please ignore the hypocrisy of that” t-shirt?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this
@ liberal foreskin
Pavlov’s dogs is a perfectly apposite image to use against liberals because they are so easily conditioned!! with the same complete lack of a critical factor as the average dog!!
You prove that everytime you post!!
By concerned citizen
July 11, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
To answer your question, who is a mainstream conservative….one who comes to mind is Chuck Hagel. Or historically speaking Ronald Reagan.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
And “Pinko” is not a made up word?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
@ concerned citizen
I note you now UTTERLY IGNORE the awkward points about your utter political IGNORANCE!!
Get an adult to teach you some political ideology before you humiliate yourself with such brainless posts again.
AS for your far left pinko rhetoric about conservatives - its merely par for the course. I agree with you about the idiocy of the christian right, I despise their world view but I defend their right to believe what ever they want.
Where do I get my official liberal
islamic fascist terrorists are freedom fighters
t-shirts or an
I sell presidential pardons to wanted felons
bumper sticker.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
Oh yeah?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Hannity fully supports and defends just about everything REagan did - as does Rush!!
Hagel is a GOP “moderate” but is still mainstream, just more on the left of the party.
this concerned pinko just made my point for me!!
Pinko is a sardonic, literally colourful twist on commies/reds - essentially denoting a commie lite or socialist lite liberal.
It is NOT a melding of two words twisted into making a political point!!
By Toad
July 11, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Pinko entered the dictionary during the cold war, just as homophobia entered the dictionary during the gay liberation movement.
By J Tom
July 11, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
As entertaining as I find some of the drivel, er, comments posted, I would like to make a comment germane to the original subject.
At least two-thirds of both the State House and Senate believed the amendment complied with the state constitutional requirements. Seventy-six percent of the voters of the state voted to add this amendment to the Constitution. A unanimous 7-0 State Supreme Court ruled that it was a valid amendment.
Judge Russell may or may not be an activist judge. I’m sure such a judge could cloak her decision in a way as to seem reasonable. Regardless, what do the above numbers, particularly the unanimous overruling of her decision, say about her judicial temperament? Her ability to correctly interpret the state laws and constitution? Her competency and judgment? An honest but differing opinion is one thing, but she is clearly out of step with the rest of the judicial branch of the state government. I think she needs to step down before she causes more confusion, angst and bitterness in our state, but she won’t, and that illustrates one of the most irritating aspects of our system: there is no way to get rid of judges who exercise bad judgment.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this
so what!!!
it merely makes my point again - that BOTH terms were used to make political points!!
By harold
July 11, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this
If the Ga(y) Supreme Court’s meddling in our state’s legislative affairs is not judicial activism, Harold does not know what is.
Oh, wait, Harold does know. Judicial activism is when the activist judges vote against the conservatives legislative wishes.
All good conservatives need to have a go on Disney’s Mission:Space ride. It will help you understand the Creation.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
Will you two tag team tincture swabs give the lexiconic timeline a rest?
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
I assume Harold is not demanding that conservatives subject themselves to this Disney attraction on one of the infamous, perverted Disney homosexual days?
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
The only points you make, truth, is the ones on your head.
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
Harold recommends the day before Disney Gay Day: Disney In the Closet Day.
Mission:Space will blow your mind better than a walk thru Wildwood Park.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Vote for Ralph Reed.
He had me at “halo”.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this
Some more liberal foreskin petulance … cheers for that!!
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
How exactly can voter ID be judicial activism if Voter ID is not a political ploy?
So… you have a twin sister? Your feelings have now betrayed her, too. Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me; now his failure is complete.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
JTom, A judge is a legal expert. The populace and most legislators are not. The judge is not bound by a majority of voters or legislators in making a LEGAL decision. It is not unusual for the Supreme Court (state or US) to rule differently than a lower court. That does not mean that the lower court judge is incompetent or used bad judgment.
By what time is it?
July 11, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
apparently “the truth” is nothing but a bunch of buzzwords:
I have never seen the words “shrill, pinko, and drivel” used so many times by one person in my life.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this
I tried coming out of the closet once, Harold, but an old leisure suit pulled me back in. Ironic since I only went in the closet in the first place for the matching clothes. However, the guys in the closet with me kicked me out. I had to settle for a poorly lit foyer.
By JK today
July 11, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this
JTom makes a great point. Our state legislators, and 76% of the people who voted that day decided that is WAS INDEED okay with them to carve up Georgia citizens into categories based solely on their own bigotry, and decide that some can have rights and others cannot. Clearly, the will of the majority of Georgia voters is that bigotry and discrimination are LAW here. Who does that silly judge think she is to try to ensure that the enactment of such laws are applied legally?
Hey, did you vote to deny your neighbor the rights you have? Yes, YOU. Look in the mirror. YOU are a bigot. Yes YOU. Bigot. Very UN-American for YOU to decide that some Americans get rights and some don’t. BIGOT. Yes, YOU. BIGOT. That’s what YOU are.
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
Harold believes Christians forgot when they were the repressed minority.
As a remind, they should be interred at Guantanamo until such time that enough lions can be arranged to eat enough of them for them to be a repressed minority again.
In 2000 years the Gay Bible will have the US Christians playing the romans and it will be an accurate portrayal of these dark times for all of us.
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Okay, someone grab a hose.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
@ its time for your meds
given the number of shrill pinkos/commies/leftists/liberals posting drivel on here its only fitting that this be pointed out. Given that your average pinko liberal only learns by rote, and then usually very slowly at at least two grade levels below GOP types I made it easy for you commie creeps to assimilate todays self esteem lesson!!
Besides, shrill chumps like you would haven’t anything to whine about!!
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this
Harold predicts the Truthful utterance of “simpering” any minute now.
By Joe
July 11, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this
First thing to get off my conservative middle aged male white chest is the fact that I can’t see why seemigly straight men care so much about this subject. It’s kind of like that nut of a preacher in Kansas that pickets the funerals of dead Amercian soldiers saying they do it because or our attitude toward homosexuals. What is your excuse for the fascination with this subject you seem to have Time for the Truth? If anyone gets married, man and woman, woman and woman or man and man, what impact will that have on your daily functions? You’ll still wake up at the same time I assume and go to the same job, right? Ah…here’s my rub. TAXES. Why on Gods green earth was my tax dollars used for such a vote getting political ploy such as this stupid election when we have a law on the books already? Is there a surplus of tax dollars sitting around? With all the problems facing me today the possibility of allowing a marriage, civil union, whatever you want to call it between two adults ranks about 1,768,476 on my list of Hot Topics. Time for Truth, the truth is you just may have a little pink poo sticking to the bottom of the shoes you’re wearing and you are afraid it may not come off.
By Toad
July 11, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
If those early Christians had just stayed in the closet they wouldn’t have been fed to the lions. Why couldn’t they keep their personal life to themselves?
By J Tom
July 11, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this
Toad, Check out the primary occupation of our state legislatures. Do you not think that the legislature has a slew of attorneys advising them on the legality of their efforts? More to the point I was making, see how many lower court decisions have been overruled by a UNANIMOUS court. That is a VERY rare occurrence. It’s damned hard to get all seven judges to agree on the same thing! My opinion is that the only people who had a problem with the legal aspect of this amendment were those who were radically against it to begin with. A fair and impartial person -or jurist - would not come to the same conclusion as Judge Harold, no matter how ‘reasonable’ her argument was.
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
With regard to gay marraige - marraige is a sacrament, a rite that belongs to religion. Religions have the right to regulate who amongst their parishioners/faithful have the right to participate in that rite.
With regard to civil unions, however - the very name implies that it is a status granted by the government. Inasmuch as this is the United States of America, not the Klandom of Rednekkkia, the Constitution protects individual rights, and the right to full and equal protection under the law for all citizens. Since a person, not a bunch of Georgia redneck legislators or a bnch of bible-thumping bigots, has the right to live his/her own life and to enter into contracts and agreements with other adults, civil unions for gays is something beyond the pale of red state legislation or popular democracy.
Now, I am willing to outlaw gay marraige and civil unions, if we sterilize all rednecks so that their spawn won’t bedevil society with their stupidity and criminality. If we can break the cycle of redneck hate and stupidity, the world will be a far better place.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
@ Joe
If that’s the case, which I obviously doubt, then I’ll wipe it off on liberal foreskin’s intellectual dishonesty :)
I agree its not much of a topic, but it sure is fun watching all the pinkos having hissy fits and hurling their obtuse abuse!!
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
Toad, I think you have identified the single biggest problem facing America today - too many KKKhristians, not near enough lions.
By what time is it?
July 11, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
Joe-
Most people who post on message boards do not want to hear about “real” issues. Truth is, most here couldn’t tell you their stance on a real issue because their favorite radio personality hasn’t told them yet what their stance should be. The reason people care about the sanctity of marriage is if we allow 2 men to marry, we may as well allow men to marry squirrels, it’s a very slippery slope. Most here are barely comfortable with a southerner marrying a yankee.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
@ closet redneck
How come the lions missed you??
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this
Harold is going to start selling car magnets of a lion eating a Christian fish.
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this
Let’s face it - who or whatever Time for A Crap is married to should be shot and put out of it’s misery…
By Political Foreskin
July 11, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this
Toad brings up a good question. Why didn’t early christians stay in the closet?
I dont know…cant think of a reason….nothing comes to mind……could it be……oh……maybeee……..their circumcised weenies gave them away?????
By Champagne Tastes
July 11, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this
The reason people care about the sanctity of marriage is if we allow 2 men to marry, we may as well allow men to marry squirrels AW NUTS!
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this
The hilarious thing is that the gays are still cohabiting and getting each other in the butt like you did not want them to. All this ban did is require that the bottom acquire his own health insurance. B-F-D.
Anybody smart wants the gays to get married and move into the neighborhood. Property values skyrocket like nobody’s business when the gays start moving in. Nothing better can happen to a neighborhood.
Harold is going to fly a gay flag outside his home right now!
By Amelia
July 11, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
You know the answer to that one Joe. It is the same reason that immigration hit the front burner right before the elections. It serves to incite the homophobes, xenophobes, and nativists. Gets the “base” to the polls. These issues never come up in non election years. Imagine that?
By Toad
July 11, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
Why were their weenies waving around for all to see? Was there a Christian Pride parade?
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this
These issues are the Xian right wing robbing the state treasury for their campaigns as surely as Cathy Cox did with her tv spots about the hope scholarship or whatever it was last year that put her face all over TV.
They should all be forced to reimburse us taxpayers from their campaign funds.
By Harold
July 11, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
C’mon, Truthiness. Hurry up! Harold is too busy to wait for it. Say it! SIMPERING!!! SIMPERING!!! You know you want to! SIMPERING!!! SIMPERING!!! SIMPERING!!! SIMPERING!!!
By Jim Wooten
July 11, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
It’s noted that Rednecks-America’s Al Qaeda, rejoins the discussion from an extended vacation that took him and his ‘63 Rambler from the outskirts of Ty Ty to a trailer park in Murray County — or as he attempted to pass it off, a vacation to various spots in Europe. Observers in Valdosta and other sites where the white ‘63 Rambler was spotted know othewise. Welcome. Behave.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this
@ closet Redneck
Congratulations … I see you finally got bailed out then mate.
Funny how the liberals dont abuse you for your visceral hate speech - I suppose its because they agree with most of your unhinged yankee poison!!
By John Smith
July 11, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
I think we should amend the constitution to make polygamy legal. Makes as much sense as flag burning and gay marriage.
By Flibberdgibbit
July 11, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Wee! the people, in order to form a more perfect (heterosexual) union….
By Harold
July 11, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this
Polygamy cannot be legal because there would have to be same sexed participants in one marriage.
Otherwise, great idea! As the wife gets old and ugly and fat, just stick her in the guest room and get a young skinny good looking one!
There would be no need for messy divorces anymore.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this
Maybe we should burn Harold’s poofy flag - only question is should closet Redneck be wrapped in it first?
By Rednecks - America's Al Qaeda
July 11, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Ladies, there is hate speech, and then there is truth. I am a modern day Elijah, truth all the time, how ever harsh it may seem - it is good and God’s work to put the light on the homophobic and hatefilled ignoramuses that populate and predominate in the state of Georgia.
I am thankfully unfamiliar with this TyTy and Murray County that seem to be redneck Valhallas given your reverence for them.
Greetings today from Charing Cross Road, London, United Kingdom… More on my travels later, but supper calls…
By Harold
July 11, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
Elijah? Like Frodo?
By Toad
July 11, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Elijah,
There’s always a place for you at my table.
By time for the truth
July 11, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
@ closet redneck
YOU BERKISH PILLOCK!!!!
Charing Cross Road is in White County, near Harold’s fave day trip destination Helen, Georgia. The visionary county where the high schools have sensibly resolved the limp wristed school clubs issue.
By jbmlaw
July 11, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
I’ve tried to define “judicial activism” myself, with no satisfying answer.
I sense that Griswald v Connecticut is the epitome of a court out front and in opposition to the elected representatives. Seemingly, a by-product of true “judicial activism” is that social disagreements are exacerbated rather than settled.
By that definition, of course, Brown v Board of Education was not activism, since the court took three years and two hearings to frame a narrow but unanimous opinion, which was accepted widely and quickly and finally.
Roe v Wade looks like activism, as seemingly settled laws were abolished by court fiat without reference to any constitutional language. That one is not over yet.
The extension of the first eight amendments (explicit restrictions on the Federal government) to apply against state activity looks like activism to me, as there is no language or cogent logical argument requiring such an extreme rewriting (of those first amendments) within the 14th Amendment. Every Supreme Court term seemingly has to redefine state limits over the 1st or 2nd or 4th or 5th or 6th or 8th Amendments. Far from settling anything.
To the extent that Judge Russell’s ruling: (1) was out front of, and in opposition to the work of elected representatives, and (2) exacerbated, rather than settled the social issue, her ruling would have to be called activism at work. Non-activism would have affirmed the work of the elected representatives, to allow only the high court to overrule the legislature. Didn’t seem to be widely accepted, did not seem to settle anything on either side. Same thing with the Rome Federal judge who just doesn’t want Georgians to produce an id to vote; guess he (like all Fed Dist Judges) is smarter than our legislature.
I do not believe activism is inherently bad, although I cannot think of a case where it was not. Dred Scott has the earmarks of activism, in that it seemingly limited the legislative remedy in place and caused the underlying tensions to fester. Perhaps Marbury v Madison, but I think that one is a close call.
By Jim Wooten
July 11, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw: thanks for decisively and coherently salvaging the thread and getting us back on topic. I agree on Griswold, Brown (well stated in your post) and Roe. I of course thought Russell was one challenge shy of activism in her ruling on whether the language was one issue or two.
By R@
July 11, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Jim Wooten - although most of the comments so far have nothing to do with your written opinion piece, it is one of your best - IMHO. Worth a few re-reads if people would take the time. It is an important issue.
To MClark: I salute you for your service - I don’t care where you stand: Right - Left - Middle. We’re about the same age and although I missed going to Nam, many friends and relatives came home in body bags. Glad you made it home safe. It was a ugly time.
I don’t post here often but read all the comments. I refuse to join in on the name-calling, peeing on the bushes. Many on here need to start their own blog - obviously they have a lot to say - to somebody. The extreme right and left that is displayed in many comments here - I do not believe it represents most of America. Thanks Wooten for bringing important issues to blogsphere for discussion and thanks to the many here who do try to carry on intelligent discussion. It will make a difference one day.
By deegee
July 11, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw, i am not so sure how you come to the conclusion that Brown vs. Board of Education was not activism because it settled some social disagreement. When the Supreme Court overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson it had to make the leap that segregated schools deprived black children of equal protection under the law as Plessy had determined that seperate was equal. By your definition I would suspect that Brown exacerbated the social issue at that time. Although Brown only applied to school desegregation, it became the foundation for breaking down the legality for racial segregation in schools and public places. In other words, it served a catalyst for societal change.
By MClark
July 11, 2006 02:02 PM | Link to this
Anyone wishing to see why Conservatives are painted as boorish bullies, take a look at yesterday’s blog, which has unfortunately continued today.
We are judged by our extremes in todays world and I can think of no better example of what is turning the tide of debate away from the right than the nastiness exhibted by one Pompano. (He now not only claims I’m a fake, but that he’s my Daddy.) Add this to the whining of todays liberal and you see why I believe a march to the middle is on the horizon.
I’m just too p** to talk about gay marriage today. (Look at the last three posts from yesterday, actually posted today, to see why.)
I’ve got to reassess.
By Southern Democrat
July 11, 2006 02:07 PM |