"Lisa" wrote in message
news:bN0Ec.194535$Ly.156855@attbi_s01...

]I'm much more alarmed at activist judges that are creating legislation
]instead of judging based on law. Many people applaud when they think
that
]the "right" is losing religious ground, they won't be so happy when the
same
]standard is applied to them.

Newbie here, I really hate to introduce myself on a
controversial thread, but I can't help it. From what
I've seen, an "activist judge" is a judge who makes a
decision that those on the right don't like.

I think the problem is more far reaching than that. Consider this quote:

"Legislative enactments, presidential actions, and amendments to the
Constitution are all things which publically announce changes in the law of
the land, providing foreknowledge of changes in the legal framework within
which free people may plan and act. Moreover, all the processes are
ultimately responsible to the people themselves and can be reversed if the
peole find them onerous. Judge-made innovations are, in effect, expost facto
laws, which are expressly forbidden by the Constitution and abhorrent to the
rule of law. For courts to strike like a bolt from the blue hitting an
unsuspecting citizen, who was disobeying no law that he could have known
beforehand, is the essence of judicial tyranny, however moral or just the
judges may imagine their innovation to be. The harm is not limited to the
particular damage this may do in a particular case, great as that may
sometimes be, but makes all other laws into murky storm clouds, potential
sources of other bolts from the blue, contrary to the whole notion of "a
government of laws and not of men."
***
The quest for cosmic justice via the judiciary--law as an "agent of change",
as it is often phrased--quietly repeals the foundations of the American
revolution. It reduces a free people to a subject people, subject now to the
edicts of unelected judges enforcing "evolving standards" and made more
heedless by their exhalted sense of moral superiority. It is one of the most
dangerous of many ways in which towering presumptions are a threat to the
freedom of America."

This is exerpted from Thomas Sowell's "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" (page
167) on this site
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../posts?page=85

My hubby and I watched a grand old b/w movie recently about the Nuremberg
Trials. Spencer Tracy was the judge. It was a fascinating look at the ideas
that shaped the Nazi movement and how they were implemented. The judges
began to use the Nazi ideology to shape their decisions, in which innocent
people were convicted of spurious allegations simply because they were Jews.
In a final scene, one of the judges who was on trial and convicted made the
statement that he never realized how far it would go and never meant for the
slaughter of millions of Jews to take place. Spencer Tracy said that it went
too far when the first innocent person was convicted.

I've read many books about the Holocaust. My father was wounded two times in
WWII seeking to help liberate France and the concentration camps. I've tried
very hard to understand how and why 6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews
could be sacrificed to such a brittle philosophy. The Nazis cared very
passionately about their national identity, and more so about their supposed
Aryan supremacy. They were certainly exercising their "right" of free
speech, weren't they? And their ideas were so powerful that they swept
everyone with them in a tidal flood of destruction. Beyond that, they
influenced a whole generation to their way of thinking, including "activist
judges" who handed out the sentences that helped make being a Jew criminal.

11 million people sacrificed to an ideal.

Since 1971, 3,000 Americans per day, 1.5 million Americans per year, about
50 million Americans to date, have been sacrificed to an ideal... almost 5
times the toll of the Nazi Holocaust. It started with activist justices and
their sympathy for the plight of a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. It was
fueled by a symbol - remember the ubiquitous coat hanger with a slash
through it? It has been continued by the cry for reproductive rights -
although how destroying a fetus is "reproductive" is beyond me. It is
certinally politically incorrect to dispute such a feminist dogma, probably
even financially suicidal to even bring it up here....

50 million people ... and counting... sacrificed to an ideal.

I'm wondering, was it worth it?

The Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court subjugated the rights of the
slave to the slave owner. The disastrous effects of this nonsense is still
being felt today. To relegate one "type" of human being to subhuman status
for the benefit of another has been shown to be bad law, as well as morally
wrong. Yet the "type" of human being known as a "fetus" has had subhuman
status since 1971, thanks to activist justices.

Euthanasia is next on the list, let's see who'll be relegatred to subhuman
status now. Who decides who is no longer useful or necessary? Will it be the
person's family, perhaps eager to collect an inheritance? Will it be the
HMO, who will not find it profitable to continue a person's existance? Will
it be some court, deciding when to "pull the plug"? (Wait, they do this
already...) Statistics from countries who already practice euthanasia show
that it is often the primary physician, the person's own doctor whom they
have trusted with their very life, who decides, without any input from any
one, including the patient, that their life span is over. Many of these
patients did NOT have a terminal illness, just chronic conditions that were
expensive to treat.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... basic rights out of which all
the others flow. But activist justices in 1971 decided that the most
innocent and defenseless of all our citizens didn't have any basic rights,
no rights at all. Slave=Jew=Fetus, it's all the same thing. And Euthanasia
will add to the list: the Aged, the Infirm, the Mentally Unfit, the
Unwanted, the Chronically Ill .... You?

As Thomas Sowell was quoted above:
"The quest for cosmic justice via the judiciary--law as an "agent of
change", as it is often phrased--quietly repeals the foundations of the
American revolution. It reduces a free people to a subject people, subject
now to the edicts of unelected judges enforcing "evolving standards" and
made more heedless by their exhalted sense of moral superiority. It is one
of the most dangerous of many ways in which towering presumptions are a
threat to the freedom of America."