Should IL settle his case on the Judge Judy show?

@dij671:

is this post to long or am I just lazy :wink:

too long.  I didn’t read half of it the first time

@GeodrivE:

Believe me, It’s nothing I’m losing sleep over. I’m curious thats all.     I wonder if commander jen gets to pick the name of the next level since she’ll be the first one there? :-)javascript:void(0);

Powerful in the Force, she is.

@idk_iam_swiss:

I love kitties!!

Dogs are cool but to me cats rule. I have always had kitties throughout my life so I love kitties as well!!

It’s that frog guy.

you can make a strong argument for either side. missing on your list of ratting him out: in some ways, it is the “right” thing to do. you are helping the justice system work, and it works on this very kind of situation. people get immunity all the time for cooperating with police to allow them to get a conviction on someone else. i know your situation is a hypothetical, but could you modify it at all? because as it is, its unlikely that if the two of you are partners, and neither is the mastermind/a bigger criminal, that you would be offered a deal. is it a set situation? if not, i would say that for some reason, they want your partner more than you, or maybe they cant prove much on you, but they can on him. etc. maybe this doesnt impact the argument at all, i dont know how your debate works, but the other side could fault your situation, which would surely work against you.

I don’t think “too liberal” has really been an issue for a very long time. A Democratic president (not necessarily a liberal president) hasn’t had a choice for quite some time now, and that’s probably why the issue hasn’t come up.

In addition, I tend to think on the real hot button social issues, “liberal” causes are generally less intrusive. Pro-choice doesn’t actually impact people who don’t want to get an abortion for example. Neither does gay marriage, although a possible exception would be racial quotas, but that is in many ways recognized as being offset by preferential treatment of other groups in, say, college admissions, etc. This is probably not true for things like economic issues, but then again after Clinton’s centrist swing on trade policy, I’m not sure how much of a concern that is anyway. After all, sound economic policy has much stronger guidelines than “sound” social policy.

As for justices making law, well, they’ve done that since the Marshall court. I find the concern from the US right somewhat disingenuous, in that “no judicial activism” appears to be a cover word for advancement of socially conservative causes. Any act of judgment, even one to uphold precedent, is an act of judicial action, refining and redefining the parameters of the law. Whether a judge upholds the finding in Griswold, say, or does not, it still impacts the parameters of legal behavior in the United States and is in that sense, activist.

@TG:

“There’s no question of touching holidays,” thundered Communist lawmaker Alain Bocquet. “There’s no question of erasing May 8 and the memory of victory over Nazi barbarity and fascism!”

Note: Not all my commie friends are like that :wink:

Your commie friends are also Nazis?