Yes, I was referring to the 1972 Roe vs. Wade case. I was in high school then and I remember alot of hoopla about it and everybody excited about a ticket to free sex. There was lots of cheering and the swelling of the womans lib movement in the seventies, you know, my body, myself. Of
course there was no internet, so society's standards were set by the liberal
media and college professors. Joe Middle-Class, never had a say in these matters. By the eighties, the movement started loosing steam. By the nineties, the internet and average young woman were beginning to have a voice. The internet has leveled the playing field for all. The times, they are a changin.

McCorvey's child was born. The decision came too late to affect her and her baby. I wonder if that person knows how close they came to not being born.

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

"We keep hearing about activist judges, but we are never told what the criteria is for being one. It seems that bush considers any judge to be an activist when he or she delivers a decision that he (bush) doesn't like."

Any judge who, instead of doing his or her constitutional duty, chooses to re-interpret the constitution to fit the political whims espoused by themselves or popular opinion.

The door swings both ways. A liberal activist judge could be replaced as easily as a conservative activist judge... provided the votes are there... simple majority and presidential approval.

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

The problem is that it is a meaningless description. There are at least two parties to every lawsuit and in any lawsuit concerning a political subject, and many that don't, at least one of the sides will claim that the judge is legislating from the bench. It doesn't make it so.

We have heard more about "activist" judges since the gay marriage case in Massachusettes, but I doubt most of the people complaining have even read the case or the Massachusettes constitutional provision that it was based upon. People who don't like gay marriage just start screaming, in tandum, hey those judges were legislating from the bench.

We have replaced any sense of rational political conversation with sound bites and mantras that are regurgatated ad nauseam by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Many Americans on both sides of the aisle are mindless automatons. They are nothing more than cheerleaders who take what they are told by their "team" and incorporate it into their belief structure without a second thought. The government talks about "junk" lawsuits and most people who say "hey junk lawsuits are bad" have no idea what a junk lawsuit is. We then hear that we need to "protect marriage" but we aren't protecting it from divorce (which is something that actually KILLS a marriage, but we are "protecting" it from a class of people who want nothing more than to share the benefits and duties of the state of marriage. Perhaps it is just me, but gays don't sound like the goths attacking the roman empire that is marriage.

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out that one of the best ways to win a cause is to get everyone to use your language. That is why we hear such descriptive terms in public discourse. Who would fight for "junk" lawsuits? Who would want marriage to be destroyed? Who wants the judicial branch to "legislate?" The answer for all three questions is no one. But just because Bush considers something a "junk" lawsuit doesn't make it so. And just because Bush considers a judicial decision an act of "legislating from the bench" doesn't make it so.

I have read a lot of articles from legal scholars who consider the Supreme Court case that put Bush into office as "legislative." It bolsters their case when you consider that the decision specifically applied only to the "current case at bar" and not to any future cases.

My point is that we need to get past the language that politicians try to force feed us. Judges shouldn't usupt the legislative function, but until people try to understand what the difference is between "legislating" and "faithful interpretation," the debate on the subject will be nothing more than two sides screaming at each other using meaningless sound bites.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

Wasn't the "right to privacy" invented by an activist judge?

__________________
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~Ronald Reagan

Yes, I believe it was. I don't believe in "penumbras" like the ones that support Roe. In my opinion, it is legal fiction.

__________________
"George W. Bush surrounds himself with smart people the way a hole surrounds itself with a donut." —Dennis Miller

11 states amended their constitution to make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. I think more states will do the same. This means that if you get married in Connecticut, it will not be recognized in Utah. I also think that ACTIVIST JUDGES will think twice before ruling for their political agenda. I believe it is to make more states make a decision on this issue, and I believe it should be up to each state to make that determination. I do not think this will be passed nationally.

__________________
"It aint over, till it's over"