Do you know who the Scouting progam is most beneficial for? The leaders in Salt Lake that pull down over a quarter of a million per year in salaries. Quit worrying about gays in scouts and start worrying about endless war and economic stagnation, and your vote will become clear.

In politics code words are used to avoid discussing certain topics. "Activist judges" is one of those code words. We are told by "conservatives" that activist judges legislate from the bench and do not follow precedent. The truth of the matter is decisions that "conservatives" don't like are attributed to "activist judges." If one of the measures of legislating from the bench is overturning precedent (essentially creating new law) a recent study of federal courts reveals that judges appointed by Republican presidents overturn precedent (legislate from the bench) more frequently than judges not appointed by Republican presidents.

The reality of this argument is that "conservative" judges are the ones that will provide the "right" desired outcome in certain cases, not necessarily adherence to the law.

Hopefully that clears up some confusion.

So, a vote for Obama, is a vote to destroy the BSA. That is quite a jump. But then again, when I voted for Bush 8 years ago, I never thought that we would be involved in a 7-year war, involved in torture, spying on American citizens, and holding people in prison for years with no charges filed.

So now Obama hates Boy Scouts?? Give me a break! I think we can all see where the "conservative" course has gotten us.

Seven of the nine judges on the Supreme Court were placed there by Republican presidents.
Do the math.

Come again? at 1:05 AM neglected to mention the current headline that this administration routinely listened to American's private conversations with their relatives oversees.

The Boy Scouts are not the scouts of my youth, they've been politicized by the right to the point it seems more about the money for the Church and the exclusion of gays than about building character in the youth. I think with the financial crisis and a war costing a few billion a week, we have much more to worry about than the Church's revenue stream from the scouts.

To geebee:
Without the sponsorship of the LDS church the BSA would be in in a world of hurt. In case you didn't know, they are, by far, the biggest financial supporter

Not only does Obama have a scary middle name, but he hates America, and Boy Scouts. I also heard that he bought Girl Scout cookies from the niece of a known terrorist!

Scouts aside, the best reason not to vote for Obama is that he is a whack job.

Nice spin.

The reason conservatives have a problem with activist judges is not that they make unpopular rulings, but that their decisions are not based on the law - which is partly why the results are so unforeseeable and shocking. Then we are left withe these decisions with the force of law.

Roe v Wade is an excellent example. Regardless your views on abortion, this is a terrible judicial/legal decision. No where in the 14th amendment does it even infer a right to privacy. But the justices conjured it out of thin air. ~1830 there were ~20 states with antiabortion laws. When the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 why did that not end those laws. The answer is that the intent of the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with privacy.

Now you can dismiss my analysis and just conclude that we just don't like their decisions; or you could actually cite a case that conservatives deem "activist" and show some support in the law as to why the judge came to the right decision.

But changes in our laws should come from our elected representatives. At least that is what the Constitution says - if you value that.

It is little surprise how dumb some conservatives can be, after all they did give us bush the biggest liberal of govt. spending and taxing of all time.

Looks like we have the usual liberal name calling of those who disagree with their intelligence and critical thinking skills yet they don't debate the merits of the letter.

@Activist Judges: You might be correct in your statistics I have not read up on them. But I will say based on your post being true and correct, the reason conservative judges would have to overturn precedent is because the laws they are overturning were new law created from the bench by the liberal judges.

Bad precedent is bad precedent. There is nothing anywhere which states that one must continue affirming bad precedent. As you can clearly see, abortion will one day be completely overturned. It's bad law, a bad precedent and a new "right" created by judges.

The same with all this homosexual behavior garbage going on today. Liberals don't want limits placed on their whims. Well, I don't want your whims dictated to me that I have to accept them and condone them.

Bad law must and will be overturned by good men/women. Start voting for them now!

Can we grasp at any weaker straws?

To "Pennie | 8:27 a.m." we have a Republican in office, not a conservative. Also, just to make things clear, because liberals like to use the term neoconservative. Neoconservaties are actually liberals that tend to be more conservative. Reagan was the closest thing we have had to a true conservative in my lifetime.

Don't give up on the conservatives, they are out there doing their best.

The only reason the judicial branch has usurped any sort of real power is because for the last 30 to 40 years the other two branches of government have been completely defunct. If Roe v. Wade deemed abortion laws unconstitutional than the legislative branch should go to the drawing board and form an amendment that would in essence make said laws constitutional--that's their job. The precedent stands because there is no real political will to change it. Such issues are not even governmental issues. Both parties use hot button issues like abortion as smoke screens to cloud the uneducated masses from real problems.

re: To: Activist Judges | 8:21 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

>>The reason conservatives have a problem with activist judges is not that they make unpopular rulings, but that their decisions are not based on the law <<

No. The reason is that some judges don't goose step merrily along with some repressed individuals interpretation of what they feel should be the law.

>>Roe v Wade is an excellent example. Regardless your views on abortion, this is a terrible judicial/legal decision.<<

Silly libertarian that I am; I don't believe morality should be legislated. Abortion is murder and is wrong. At some point, these people will be punished. The are consequences that each Individual must eventually pay for.

Until then, Roe v Wade is the law of the land and you are seeking to overturn it. So, who is the activist now?

Today's conservatism is nothing at all like that of our fathers.
Today we are as dangerously close to fascism as I have ever seen.
Take a quick look at the 14 signs of fascism published a while back, and what is happening today. It is truly chilling.

Back around 1980, John Paul Stevens was considered a moderate centrist. Today he is the court's most liberal member, yet his politics have not changed one iota. The Court around him has grown far more conservative. We now have the most conservative court we have had in at least 75 years, but its still not enough for some of you. Conservatives can relax anyway, the justices most likely to retire soonest are the more liberal members Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.

Utah has five electoral college votes, which because of the huge Republican population in Utah virtually always go to the Republican candidate. All the rancor and bitterness over who gets elected at the top of the ticket in Utah is pointless and in my opinion a waste of cyberspace ink.

Here's the reality: If you are conservative and typically vote Republican and you are disgusted with McCain as your candidate, then do something totally radical and vote for an independent candidate on the ballot, or write in the candidate of your choice. Your "rebellion" from the Republican party isn't going to make a gnat's eyelash of difference in the outcome, because Utah's five electoral college votes are going to McCain no matter what else happens.

If you are a Utah Democrat, or even inclined to vote for Obama because he makes your day every time he opens his mouth, then vote for Obama by all means. It isn't going to make a gnat's eyelash of difference in the outcome, because Utah's five electoral college votes are going to McCain no matter what you do.

To the rest of you lemmings -- vote a straight Republican ticket -- elect McCain. OUCH!

For those who don't understand the concept of not overturning precedent have not listened to any judiciary hearings on C-SPAN. That's one of the first things that the conservative senators ask the candidates about because they don't want them "legislating" from the bench, hence creating new laws. That's a legal tradition known as "stari decisis" (the spelling may not be correct).

In recent years current "conservative" judges as well as The Supreme Court have disregarded the law when they "legislated" from the bench by consistently overturning environmental protection laws in favor of polluting industries, favored wage discrimination for women in the Ledbetter vs. Goodyear case and the list goes on.

So, much of this topic goes back to "code speaking." All certain low-information voters only thinking of only one issue before the courts (Roe v. Wade) want to hear is that the judge in question will no "legislate from the bench." Back to my original point of using this rational only to justify decisions they like and criticize decisions they don't like.

About BSA, all they have to do is stop taking Federal $$$ and they can discriminate to their heart's content. No homos allowed. Just like golf clubs that exclude women, or the Klan that excludes Blacks and Jews.

While some are worrying about "gay marriage", there are real problems that real people would like to see solved.

You have people at the top getting hundreds of millions of dollars, if they do a good job or not. Meanwhile these same companies do not have enough moeny that decent health care can be given to all americans.

So when a child is sick, either they don't get the care they need or the family finances are destroyed.

I'm sorry, I am tired about strawmen like gay marriage, this serves as a diversion to solving the real problems that we have.

Since I can't stop these CEO's from getting more pay than they deserve, I can at least vote for someone who will tax them at a fair rate,

But no I am asked to consider gay marriage.

If you can't lead, at least follow or get out of the way, enough with straw men that have no relevance.

There is no reason to try and tell people to be a "good Mormon" they have to be a conservative Republican. The smart ones know better, the not-so-bright ones will never change their mind anyway. However, maybe people like this author can stop writing this junk so that others stop painting Mormons with the same "what a bunch of idiots" brush. BTW, some of your church leaders have been and are now....Democrats...GASP!

With all the real problems in the world, why is someone asking me to vote with an eye single to the gay plague instead?

Couched in the subtext of the letter is the disappointment approach disgust that the writer has neighbors and friends who will not vote as she believes. It comes across as sour grapes that more people do not think as the letter writer as she appeals to everyone that the preferred political party subscribes to a conservative agenda.

All this noise about "activist judges" is about having judges who do not rule in favor of the letter writer's beliefs. Hence, a judge who rules in favor of the social issues she approves, that person is not "activist". However, if a judge rules in a way she does not support, this is "activist".

So-called "activist judges" take a less rigid approach in interpreting the Constitution while "non-activist judges" are self-proclaimed strict Constitutionalists who try to think in the 18th century fashion to interpret what the framers "really" meant.

However, with the critical issues of today which were not even dreamed of by in the late 1700s, the framers realized that the Constitution had to be a living document interpreted in the times of the day because they realized that circumstances change and life moves forward. The knew the past is passed.

More proof that the remaining loyalists to the modern American conservative movement are nuts.

or the black and hispanic organizations that discriminate against white people, such as: schools, gangs and clubs.

Re: Frank Castle | 9:45 a.m
"No. The reason is that some judges don't goose step merrily along with some repressed individuals interpretation of what they feel should be the law."

What?? Can you address the argument? Show me any pre-1973 law that supports Roe v Wade. The Constitution would be a great place to start - but you would find it there.

Roe v Wade was not my point but an (wonderful) illustration of it. No where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy, which is the premise of a woman's right to an abortion.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a right to privacy or a right to abortion; but if people want to change the law - fine - the Constitution prescribes that the legislature can do that, not the judges.

Re: Activist Judges

Actually, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co the conservative majority wanted to uphold the prior precedent. Prior caselaw established that the actual intentional discrimination must occur within the charging period prescribed by the statute (Equal Pay Act of 1963) It was the liberal minority that wanted to change and expand the current understanding of the statute. Come on thats not even hard to find out its on wikipedia, you dont even need Lexis.

As for some other overrulings, they were actually going back to previous precedents specifically pre-1930s interpretation of the Commerce Clause. In the mid '30s judges abandoned precedent which has been followed until the mid '90's.

Now which precedent to uphold, pre-1930s or after, is an intersting debate, but its not judicial activism.

Statistically, half of all voters are below average in intelligence. Judging from the content of the above letter, conservative Republicans must be attempting to gain a monopoly on those voters.

Whatever happens, let's never discuss how the economy went down the toilet under GOP rule.
There are millions of other important issues such as how demonic liberals are.
LOL!

I am an Eagle Scout. I'm voting for Obama. I think the Scouts are off track, particularly in Utah. God does not make you a good man but scouting used to.

Charles,

"Bad precedent is bad precedent. There is nothing anywhere which states that one must continue affirming bad precedent. As you can clearly see, abortion will one day be completely overturned. It's bad law, a bad precedent and a new "right" created by judges."

Over my dead body will you and your family impose your will on me and my family. This issue is about liberty and we are willing to die for our rights.

"The same with all this homosexual behavior garbage going on today. Liberals don't want limits placed on their whims. Well, I don't want your whims dictated to me that I have to accept them and condone them."

The issue of gay marriage is different than the right to choose an abortion. I don't want another voter sitting in the doctor's office with me or my wife or in my Bishop's office with me and my wife as we are trying to make a difficult decision.

You can try to say otherwise but this is about us and not about you. Now bring it on voter. Bring your opinion on and if my wife dies because of your opinion be prepared to kill my entire family.

Re: Activist Judges | 1:33 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
Re: Frank Castle | 9:45 a.m
"No. The reason is that some judges don't goose step merrily along with some repressed individuals interpretation of what they feel should be the law."

What?? Can you address the argument? Show me any pre-1973 law that supports Roe v Wade. The Constitution would be a great place to start - but you would find it there.

"Roe v Wade was not my point but an (wonderful) illustration of it. No where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy, which is the premise of a woman's right to an abortion."

Yes there is. It's in the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th and 14th amendment. Even the 1st amendment implies a right to privacy. Just because a specific right is not enumerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If we take your extreme views than the only rights that exist under the Constitution are:

"...but if people want to change the law - fine - the Constitution prescribes that the legislature can do that,"

Actually the Constitution does grant the Courts the power of judicial review otherwise we have only two ways to protect ourselves.

Speaking of judicial activism (or judicial terrorism, as I prefer to call it), the unelected Connecticut Supreme Court just imposed gay marriage on the state via judicial fiat, by a vote of 4-3.

The rot is spreading. I'm beginning to understand why popular Internet radio host Hal Turner has such a negative attitude towards judges.

Tell ya what neocons.
I won't tell you what to do, if you don't try to tell me what to do.
What do ya say?
A deal?

The supreme court has only the constitutional power to declare a law constitutional or un-constitutional. The supreme court does not have the authority to give or take rights from the people or rule on laws that do not exist. It does not have the authority to make decisions on cases that are not addressed in the consitution and written into law by the congress. In such cases their rulings could not be binding, as laws that are not written can not be struck down as constitutional or un-constitutional.
Now some judges on the left and right have participated in this illegal activity. But as is the case with most problems political. It is the congress with which most of the blame lies.
Congress writes the laws, congress increases or decreases taxes, and congress has the constitutional authority to not approve of judges put forward by any president that are not fit to make decisions.
Yes our president can make many decisions, but remember, in this country the president can't flush the toilet in the white house without congressional funding.

No one has a right to privacy. Therefore, I'm going to stand outside your home with a big microphone, and record everything that goes on in your house, and publish it on the web.

You won't mind, I'm sure, since you didn't have a right to privacy anyway.

You don't have a right to control your own body, since Roe v. Wade was a bad law.

Therefore, the government has the power to force your kids to get any inoculations or shots they feel is appropriate. Right?

Or is that not a "right to privacy?"

I am an active LDS and have the right to reject both major parties. These two parties, "two wings of the same beast of prey", as Pat Buchanan aptly described them, must be abandoned en masse by the entire electorate. They have created this chaos which we have to deal with. The GOP and Democrats deserve to be thrown on the ashheap of history!

The older I get the more liberal I get. It makes no sense to me that Republicans want to micromanage every aspect of a citizens' life, Homeland Security to spy on everyone without a WASP baskground and then say, hey, we want smaller government, less interference. They want no taxes and just expect highways, police, other things to just exist. They accept and expect a utopia without any pesky effort on their part. If they want to live in fantasyland I think they should be able to, however, since we live in the USA, maybe they can accept that they can't have it all.

"Most active members of the LDS Church have participated in BSA activities."

Sorry Michael, but you are wrong. Most active LDS are not in the US. Add them to the many female LDS and you have a majority that has not worked with BSA at all.

As for 'active LDS', many of us don't like BSA at all and wouldn't support them if they were the only youth group in the world.

"You say you want a revolution .."
- Lennon & McCartney

I must admit that I think the potential effects of judicial activism on the BSA may be worrisome.

However, my biggest fear at the prospect of having the two most liberal Senators in the Executive office while their liberal buds control BOTH houses of congress, is their continued legitimization of the premeditated murder of MILLIONS of unborn children and the institutionalization of racism and sexism within programs such as "Affirmative Action".

It is notable that ALL these abominations, and many others, are the result of corrupt members of the Supreme Court who think nothing of interpreting the Constitution creatively, no matter how fraudulently. And I’m certain that Barack Obama, Joe Biden and, according to my rough estimate, most of the people making critical comments to this letter, would love to see more of the same on the bench.

Far worse than the near certainty of increased socialism from an entire government controlled by the Democrats, it is the addition of more corrupt judges to the Supreme Court that is the principle danger of electing Barack Obama as president.

Bush just nationalized the banks and the conservative myth is offically disappeared.

Call Obama and Biden whatever you want but yes we do need to elect them. The right is getting out of hand in their views and is acting as if we shouldn't be free anymore unless it is their view of freedom. The level of pride is horrific. We need to restore some sanity to our country and have acting normal rather than fundamentalist be the norm. I am LDS and will vote Obama. I don't need the government to hold my hand while I worship God.

re: Re: Activist Judges | 1:33 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008
re: 2 ways: Amend or revolt | 2:25 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

2 ways has given great examples of precedence. I was going to go with Life, Liberty, & the pursuit of happiness but then thats in the Declaration of Independence

Its really Sarah Palin-like when some i.e. social conservatives complain about activist judges when what they really mean Roe v Wade s/b overturned.

This whole activist judge thing is just another emotional wedge issue put forth by Rush O'Hannity types to keep "some" distracted while things like the Community reinvestment act, Commodities modernization act, the bailouts, etc... slowly send the US down the tubes from a Consututional Republic w/ Democratic ideals to socialism.

re: Roland Kayser | 10:01 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008 & Political Reality | 10:10 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

These are the 2 best points in this thread.

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted. Other criteria, which are variable, unstated and at the discretion of DesNews, will also be applied.

@2:15...Are you really making threats to kill me? Abortion is about liberty?

wow, how tolerant are you of those who disagree with your position. Just like a flaming liberal.

But I'll take you on...I've got my concealed permit to carry so if you were smart, don't get in my way. But you aren't smart because you think it's ok to murder an innocent life in the name of privacy and liberty.

Nobody more foolish on these boards except Anonymous....