Sally Mason's Contract not Renewed

[Golfer]

A judge who says a belly putter that is hinged isn't an unfair advantage, and doesn't unnaturally affect the swing. This judge is an activist judge. He, or she, is interfering with natural law, and the way things were intended. Much like a golf ball which only seeks out its natural habitat. The cup.

Hope you found this helpful.

 

[FreedComanche]

Serious question.. FC just what is ​an activist judge? A judge that doesn't agree with your political ideals or one that doesn't agree with mine?

Based on the way you phrase your question, I think you miss the point. Truth is what matters, not what I or anyone else think or thinks.An activist judge is one who deliberately over steps his judicial bounds. So basically, to answer your question, an activist judge, is evident, when they try to legislate from the bench. Only the congress has the power to make law.

Since you have most of the congress constitutionally illiterate, and have no idea that they can stop a judge cold, you have activist judges a plenty now and not being held accountable. I predict within a few decades that is all that the Supreme Court will be made up of.

LOL...........I am depressing myself now. Gonna go watch "Rudolph the red nosed rein deer".

Merry Christmas.

FreedComanche

 

[NCHawker]

The word "separation" doesn't appear, but the Establishment Clause has been interpreted that way for 200+ years. Which makes it a little hard to argue that some hippie activist judges have recently been stompin' on the Founders' intent.



Yes, purely as a matter of law. It wasn't "ok" morally and really can't be defended Constitutionally either (which the Founders knew at the time, by the way, they set the institution up for eventual failure - sneaky and brilliant bastards that they were), and thankfully it was overturned subsequently.



Quite so, but the Court can overturn a law it deems unconstitutional. Judicial review, Marbury vs. Madison etc. Nothing you just said contradicts Thunder.

I'm as conservative as anyone, but the Tea Party "it's not in the Constitution!" meme really grows tiresome. Know what else isn't in the Constitution?
* The Air Force
* Congressional Districts
* Public Pensions
* Unions
* Executive Orders
* Executive Privilege
* God
* "Immigration"
* "Electoral College"
* Innocent until proven guilty
* Jury of Peers
* Marriage
* Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
* Paper Money
* Political Parties
* Primary Elections
* Qualifications for Judges
* The right to privacy
* The right to travel freely
* Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac
* The FCC, FTC, FDA, FDIC or SEC
* The United Nations
* TV, radio, movies, music or the Internet

Outrageous!!! Death to the activist judges!

You forgot bacon. read somewhere on wikipedia that bacon isn't in the constitution either.

• Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benjamin Franklin. Therefore prohibition was unconsitutional and beer is the state religion.

 

[twinlaker]

Based on the way you phrase your question, I think you miss the point. Truth is what matters, not what I or anyone else think or thinks.An activist judge is one who deliberately over steps his judicial bounds. So basically, to answer your question, an activist judge, is evident, when they try to legislate from the bench. Only the congress has the power to make law.

Since you have most of the congress constitutionally illiterate, and have no idea that they can stop a judge cold, you have activist judges a plenty now and not being held accountable. I predict within a few decades that is all that the Supreme Court will be made up of.

LOL...........I am depressing myself now. Gonna go watch "Rudolph the red nosed rein deer".

Merry Christmas.

FreedComanche

I believe you are side-stepping my question, by inserting the "truth". What the hell is the truth? Your "truth" or my "truth"? Judges can only rule on the constitutionality of a law brought before them, right? They do not "legislate" from the bench... they just reject or accept law made by legislatures.

 

[Billso]

You forgot bacon. read somewhere on wikipedia that bacon isn't in the constitution either.

• Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Benjamin Franklin. Therefore prohibition was unconsitutional and beer is the state religion.

Good catch. Ima edit my post right now with full attribution.

 

[Billso]

That is not true. The federal government was to never have any involvement in public schools of any state. It all started during Carter's admin. However the Iowa Constitution indicates that the state is to provide free education. What's at issue is the federal government and it's not to be involved. This was the Founder's intent.

I said nothing about "public schools". I said the Establishment Clause has been interpreted as enforcing an effective separation of church & state for 200+ years. If you're derping about prayer in public schools, the first SCOTUS case there was in 1962 (Engel v Vitale), not under "Carter". An excellent decision, by the way, and a conservative one: that the government can't compose a prayer and mandate students to recite it. But that's an aside, because again, I wasn't talking about public schools or prayer.

So legality and morality should be separate?

No, I'm one who believes the Constitution very much has an underlying moral basis, as did English Common Law before it. What I said was that SCOTUS got that case wrong. Nonetheless, until it got corrected, it was the law of the land. If men choose which laws to obey or ignore, you have anarchy. If you believe a law is immoral, or unconstitutional, or (in this case) both, you work to fix it. Pretty simple; not controversial, except in the minds of anarchists and other morons.

Of course it can, but the legislature can vote to overturn their ruling and that ends the story. The court can then no longer have any authority over that ruling.

LOL. Do you frequently make things up? Care to link us a single example? If a law is deemed unconstitutional, re-passing it doesn't make it constitutional. SCOTUS can overrule it again, and again - but in practice that never happens because a) Congress generally understands law, unlike you and b) the few times they've tried to get cute and re-pass a law with minor or non-responsive changes, the federal courts smack it down and SCOTUS simply chooses not to hear it again.

Billso

 

[FreedComanche]

I believe you are side-stepping my question, by inserting the "truth". What the hell is the truth? Your "truth" or my "truth"? Judges can only rule on the constitutionality of a law brought before them, right? They do not "legislate" from the bench... they just reject or accept law made by legislatures.

Certainly did not try to side step your question. The truth is the Constitution here. That is what they are to judge everything against that comes their way.

FreedComanche

 

[FreedComanche]

I said nothing about "public schools". I said the Establishment Clause has been interpreted as enforcing an effective separation of church & state for 200+ years. If you're derping about prayer in public schools, the first SCOTUS case there was in 1962 (Engel v Vitale), not under "Carter". An excellent decision, by the way, and a conservative one: that the government can't compose a prayer and mandate students to recite it. But that's an aside, because again, I wasn't talking about public schools or prayer.

Sorry, that is what I thought you meant. The federal government started to really get involved with public schools during the Carter admin. That's when the dept of education was started. I realize the fed was involved before that.


No, I'm one who believes the Constitution very much has an underlying moral basis, as did English Common Law before it. What I said was that SCOTUS got that case wrong. Nonetheless, until it got corrected, it was the law of the land. If men choose which laws to obey or ignore, you have anarchy. If you believe a law is immoral, or unconstitutional, or (in this case) both, you work to fix it. Pretty simple; not controversial, except in the minds of anarchists and other morons.

I don't see where we disagree here then.

LOL. Do you frequently make things up? Care to link us a single example? If a law is deemed unconstitutional, re-passing it doesn't make it constitutional. SCOTUS can overrule it again, and again - but in practice that never happens because a) Congress generally understands law, unlike you and b) the few times they've tried to get cute and re-pass a law with minor or non-responsive changes, the federal courts smack it down and SCOTUS simply chooses not to hear it again.

Your view is incorrect on this. The judicial branch was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of the federal government. Once again, when the scotus rules on something, they do NOT have the final say. The congress can thank them for their opinion and vote to over rule them on that decision because of their superiority to them. Don't believe me on this. Go look it up. Has it been tried much? No. I think the last time it was tried was when Tom Daschle wrote a bill that took the away the court's ability to rule on it. I think it has something to do with forestry. It's gotta be on the net somewhere I'd bet.

The scotus is never the final legal authority, congress is.
Billso

 

[pekurhawk]

Who F*****G cares, R U Done?

 

[9YRPLAN]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...ort-Sally-Mason-is-center-of-conflict?archive

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20121216/NEWS01/312160010/Area-leaders-Mason-is-being-targeted

 

[Golfer]

Good ole boy network? Like those that support her don't have a good ole boy network of their own.

 

[Billso]

Who F*****G cares, R U Done?

 

[Billso]

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...ort-Sally-Mason-is-center-of-conflict?archive

http://www.press-citizen.com/article/20121216/NEWS01/312160010/Area-leaders-Mason-is-being-targeted

In fact, the chairman of the UI Alumni Association’s Board of Directors said Thursday that he thinks there’s a “good old-boy’s network” trying to get Mason ousted.

“Let’s face it, in the last week or so, a couple of men have thrown her under the bus,” said Ron Steele, who is an anchor for the Waterloo-based TV station KWWL-7. “It almost appears that the president is being targeted for extinction by certain individuals, and that’s a shame.”

Strikes me as an irresponsible quote, in his position. And not just the borderline sexist "couple of men" implication. The criticisms of the UI are substantive based just on what we know, and we don't know everything yet. Doesn't mean Mason should be fired, or perhaps even blamed, but nonetheless the buck stops with her and Steele's comments try to diminish legitimate criticism.

 

[papathawki]

Well, shucky darn, I think liberal bias is a good thing.

 

[9YRPLAN]

its completely accurate. lang is trying to force her out before his term is up. ron has no opinion on whether she deserves a new contract as president but rather that its BS that they are criticizing her publicly rather than privately if they were truly hoping that she would improve on certain things. hes speaking as chair of the UIAA board, mind you. they are simply setting her up to fail in the public eye. shell be done by spring.

 

[Golfer]

I think it started in the Gov's office. I think Jack Evans was asked by the Gov, after he got elected, to not become Pres of the BOR. This did happen, and then later the Gov loaded the weapon, and let someone else pull the trigger (current events).

That's what I would speculate.

To 9's point, I guess Ron Steele could be correct, but I do agree with Billso, he has no business opening his mouth. Although others opened their mouths, so I guess all is fair in love, war and politics.

 

[9YRPLAN]

steele, as chair of the UIAA board, and other university and local leaders were asked to comment on the situation. gannett called him. i have no problem with him commenting on the issue.

however, i do think it is noteworthy that as a reporter he has little problem with the UI policies. perhaps it is because he has been around for 40 years but he doesnt think the media are entitled to answers RIGHT NOW. he asked president mason some very direct, unscripted questions in his interview with her and she was as candid as she could be. as i have been saying, it is tough for me to disagree with the position of mason and university as a whole. people dont have a problem with UI policies...they have a problem with the fact that UI policies dont coordinate well with todays quick news cycle and the corresponding OUTRAGE to everything. this is why you see guys who are supposed to be unbiased reporters like ryan foley tweeting snarky comments towards the UI.

by the way, lang was also asked to comment for the story and refused.