Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (33157)	3/6/2004 10:25:42 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793915

The more I think of it, the more I think I could get behind Hatch's amendment. The reason is that I am sensitive to the issue of judicial activism. I think that most of what folks who complain about judicial activism isn't really that but merely the courts deciding things in a way that doesn't suit them. But I do oppose judicial activism in principle. Hatch's amendment addresses that. It sets limits on the judiciary's interpreting the Consititution in this case and moves the fight to where it belongs. I think that's a good thing for this particular issue and for the precedent re judicial activism, in general. pro s-s marriagers are framing this as a Constitutional issue of "equality before the law" so they would like a Supreme Court decision a la Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade, as it has played out, may have been the worst thing that could have happened to choice on abortion. The same-sexers would be foolish to follow that path.