Herbert West wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 00:31:15 GMT, Friendly Everyday Mad Scientist
wrote:

WShoots1 wrote:

Another judge overriding the democratic process, I presume.

Bill, K5BY

You presume entirely wrong, then.

Judicial review is an integral part of the democratic
process in the US, and has been since the start. *Bypassing*
judicial review, the Constitutionally-mandated role of the
judicial branch, would be overriding the democratic process.
Including it when there are parties suing from both sides,
is merely a case of that judge discharging his
Constitutional duty as expressly constructed under our US
Constitution, and arrived at a ruling you don't personally
agree with.

Override the democratic process, my ass. You're lying.

Not lying. Simply misinformed about judicial and constitutional
process.


If it were a case of this one poster making up this ignorant
little statement all by himself, and telling it to us, you
might even have a point that it's just ignorance. But he
didn't make this up himself. He's repeating a lie made up
by someone who knew full well it was a lie.

You and I both know this whole "subverting the will of the
people" thing has been on talk radio for years, ready to be
dragged out when any court overturns any law they favored,
no matter how unconstitutional it may have been.

With the exception of hopeless nutcases like Ann Coulter,
yes, I expect political talk show hosts to have completed
high school and to understand how their country's political
system works. So yes, if (say) Rush says something like
"that awful judge subverted the democratic process" on his
radio show, I expect that he's lying and he knows he's
lying, and has a responsibility to not do that.

So there are plenty of liars (like the ones who misquoted Al
Gore to have said he "invented the Internet", which he did
not in fact say), because all that matters in American
politics today is winning and spinning.

Sorry if that annoys the living crap out of me. I thought
truth and the common good counted for something.



So next time, instead of mouthing foolish right-wing
propaganda and lies about "overriding the Democratic
process" whenever things don't go your way, try making
better arguments. And when you lose, instead of whining
about "overriding the Democratic process" (which is entirely
false), try appealing your case if it was poorly decided.

I don't see any evidence in this thread of his "losing" any arguments.
This was his *first* albeit, misinformed, comment.

Of course, that would require a respect for the system of
government we have, above winning.

If it was a bad ruling, then appeal it. But don't lie.

Huh? Come on down out of the Ionosphere, You're so so far off in the
ozone that radio signals are bouncing off you, and skip is rolling in.
g

Herb