If you're really concerned about immigration,

[Dhunter55]

Fuhgetabout judges! A vote for Juan McBush is still a vote for illegals.

[Judge]

How can you fuhgetabout judges when they'll do a lot more harm than the lower number of illegals mccain will let in versus obama....

Originally Posted by Dhunter55

Fuhgetabout judges! A vote for Juan McBush is still a vote for illegals.

[Frenchy]

Nothing like an argument over the better turd!

[Dhunter55]

Originally Posted by Judge

How can you fuhgetabout judges when they'll do a lot more harm than the lower number of illegals mccain will let in versus obama....

As it relates to amnesty for illegals, Osama or McBush doesn't need the SCOTUS. All they need is a bill to cross their desk.

[Judge]

yeah, I can't argue that...

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Nothing like an argument over the better turd!

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by Dhunter55

As it relates to amnesty for illegals, Osama or McBush doesn't need the SCOTUS. All they need is a bill to cross their desk.

That's the idea they hope to achieve

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Nothing like an argument over the better turd!

Originally Posted by jtkratzer

...it's another case where a lib judge is ruling from the bench and overruling the people. The people voted and the majority do not want rentals being leased to illegals and a judge decided to overturn that because of this person's individual, personal views.

These judges need strung up.

While I'm not familiar with the details of this case, and even if I were, I'm not a lawyer or a judge so my opinions may be worthless. But it seems to me that the above argument (the people's will being overturned by a judge) isn't necessarily wrong - at least not according to law.

Laws are not made or repealed by referendum (for the most part). If they were, we'd have so many different sets of laws in this country it would or could be dangerous to just to leave your house.

The people of the town two blocks from where you live decide to vote on making a right turn on red a felony with a mandatory five year prison sentence. The 26 registered voters were all devestated by the tragic death caused when someone made a right turn on a red light and ran down the high school's prom queen and valedictorian who was also the mayor's daughter and on Sundays she led the services at the church everyone in that town attended. And was also related by blood to the majority of those 26 voters. Emotions ran high, a referendum election was quickly held, and the law was changed to make the right on red a serious felony.

Besides.....laws are not necessarily right in the first place. They are just the law. Right and wrong and justice or injustice aren't necessarily served.

Our legal system isn't perfect, but it's better than most. And often judges have to enforce the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written. Those judges are correctly doing their job. "Stringing them up" for doing their jobs seems a bit extreme.

Was this judge's decision in Texas based on law? Or was it based on his own personal preference? Seems that's the central issue, not the decision itself.

Peace,
D.

[KingArthur]

Legislating from the bench, or acitvely impeding the law is what an "activist" judge is. A judge who doesn't care about anything other than their polical opinion, and justice be damned is an "activist" judge.

[switchfoot]

Originally Posted by Delija

While I'm not familiar with the details of this case, and even if I were, I'm not a lawyer or a judge so my opinions may be worthless. But it seems to me that the above argument (the people's will being overturned by a judge) isn't necessarily wrong - at least not according to law.

Laws are not made or repealed by referendum (for the most part). If they were, we'd have so many different sets of laws in this country it would or could be dangerous to just to leave your house.

The people of the town two blocks from where you live decide to vote on making a right turn on red a felony with a mandatory five year prison sentence. The 26 registered voters were all devestated by the tragic death caused when someone made a right turn on a red light and ran down the high school's prom queen and valedictorian who was also the mayor's daughter and on Sundays she led the services at the church everyone in that town attended. And was also related by blood to the majority of those 26 voters. Emotions ran high, a referendum election was quickly held, and the law was changed to make the right on red a serious felony.

Besides.....laws are not necessarily right in the first place. They are just the law. Right and wrong and justice or injustice aren't necessarily served.

Our legal system isn't perfect, but it's better than most. And often judges have to enforce the laws as they are written, not as they want them to be written. Those judges are correctly doing their job. "Stringing them up" for doing their jobs seems a bit extreme.

Was this judge's decision in Texas based on law? Or was it based on his own personal preference? Seems that's the central issue, not the decision itself.

Peace,
D.

Absolutely right, Delija. The Founders called them "popular passions," I think. It is why government is so slow. It is deliberate.

And it is why I try to find logical ways to explain why I support some stuff and don't support some stuff. People are stupid. Having a majority doesn't make something a good idea.

[AZXD]

Originally Posted by switchfoot

Absolutely right, Delija. The Founders called them "popular passions," I think. It is why government is so slow. It is deliberate.

And it is why I try to find logical ways to explain why I support some stuff and don't support some stuff. People are stupid. Having a majority doesn't make something a good idea.

Deliberate is an interesting way to view the inefficiencies of government.

As for a majority not always having a good idea ... I guess that's why we have all these do good organizations ... Someone has to brainwash the sheep.