Lots of Judicial Activism?

[RanchMan]

Just heard that a judge ruled that terrorists groups (as labeled by the State Dept.) can't be prosecuted but must be afforded the opportunity in court to plead their case. Additionally organizations/individuals who contribute to those groups can not have their assets frozen or prosecuted either. (might want to check the details out for yourself just in case I inadvertently "tweaked" them slightly, but this just came on the TV, so it might not be on news web sites for a little while...)

Anyway, the intent of this post is not to discuss the "rightness" or "wrongness" of any of the issues or to "stirr up something", but to ask if it seems like there has been a lot of "Judicial activism" in the past week or two (e.g. this one, the pledge, the death penalty, etc.) Seems like it to me, but I just wanted to see what you guys thought.

 

[RoyJackson]

Always a problem defining what a "terrorist" group is...that's the rub.

I believe Jane's (of Jane's Fighting Ships, Jane's Fighting Aircraft, etc.) considers the Gun Owners of America a "terrorist" group.
I'm sure more then a few Lefties agree with Janes...they probably include the NRA too.
In the 60's and 70's, the FBI considered more then a few civil rights organizations "subversive".

So called "Hate" groups (which include some Christian organizations) are considered "terrorist".

Big problem is that we, as a coountry, have to play by certains rules (Bill of Rights), whereas the true terrorist could care less.

Heck, I consider more then a few of the Lefties in Congress as much of a threat to this country as the Muslim terrorists. We got one running for Governor of PA now...he's as much of a terrorist (to our Rights) as Bin Laden.

 

[livincountry]

Just a thought....have you ever wondered what started the fall of the Roman Empire and if what we are experiencing parallels it? Seems like we have way too much time on our hands and we are going to he!! in a hurry. Need to read up on my history but any thoughts out there would be appreciated....Tony

 

[livincountry]

Gee....I just read the post from Gary_In_Indiana and my post was a bummer. Sorry for that guys....I guess it just weighs heavy some times......Tony

 

[rmorgan]

Ranchman--

I'm not sure that a judge's decision that groups or individuals are entitled to legal process before they are deprived of property constitutes "judicial activism," since that was one of the fundamental points of that crazy bunch who enacted the Bill of Rights (in that case, the "Fifth Amendment"). The same is true of military efforts to hold U.S. citizens without ever charging them with any crime (same Amendment; this was one of the practices of the pre-colonial British crown deemed by those wild constitution-framers to be mildly offensive), or, in the death penalty context, the requirement that one be sentenced to death only by a jury of one's peers (as guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment; again, those silly framers thought that juries were an important check against executive-branch abuse). On the other hand, that wild, neo-communist Nixon-appointed judge applying the First Amendment to prevent public school children from being required to recite religious messages in elementary classrooms . . . that's a horse of a different color!! /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Tony I would really be interested in hearing your criteria for the heck in a handbasket theory.

I see it as a better nation today than it was anytime previous. I'm not particularly happy with this administration and some of it's underhanded ways that do threaten our rights as citizens. But I see their finagling ways as exposing a weakness that we will correct in the near future.

Sorta funny how that works. We can never seem to be one step ahead of the evil doers. We're always a step behind. Just the nature of the beast I guess.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

It's sorta neat how the system works. We don't allow the same folks that make the law to enforce it or judge it.

Them old boys were genius' I tell you. Of course they knew first hand about having a god in the class room or on the throne!

 

[wasabi]

<font color=blue> It's sorta neat how the system works </font color=blue>

I agree, but sometimes I feel like Scotty from Star Trek who says "I don't know how much she can take, Captain...she's shakin' something bad already" (or something to that effect).

I'm more than a bit concerned that the recent rash of another category of "evil-doer's" shenanigans within the corporate and accounting realms are wreaking as much or more havoc than the terrorists! /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

we have seen the enemy and......

 

[RanchMan]

rmorgan-

<font color=blue>I'm not sure that a judge's decision that groups or individuals are entitled to legal process before they are deprived of property constitutes "judicial activism"..." </font color=blue>

Let me clarify what I meant by "Judicial Activism"... Basically I meant actively changing things that had been established. For example, the death penalty (federal), which had been found "constitutional" in the past, has now been found not to be.

I understand the whole issue about due process & reason behind it (and agree, BTW) - but the implication of this particular ruling for the U.S. is that it legally opens the way for groups currently identified as "terroristic" by the U.S. government, (i.e. al-Qaida, the National Liberation Army, Abu Nidal, H****s, Hizballah, etc. ) to sue in U.S. court to be reclassified as "non-terroristic" organizations.

If some of these organizations are officially recognized as "legitimate political parties" by the U.S. government, there could be some rather profound implications for all of us.

Of course, my real reason for starting this thread was to see if others out there have "seen" as many major changes in policy as handed down by the courts in the last couple of weeks as I have.

 

[rmorgan]

Ranchman--

I was a little too tongue-in-cheek responding to your carefully-stated thoughts--I apologize!! /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif I had the other death penalty case in mind, ie the Supreme Court's decisions vs. the NY judge's. The interesting thing about "evolving standards," to me, is that the reason for the federal death-penalty ruling was that innocent people will inevitably end up executed, which the DNA testing shows pretty clearly to be likely; the question we have to answer as a culture is whether we've decided that's an acceptable risk in order to have the penalty. I did catch and understand the spirit of your post, and there is definitely ample food for thought.