If you want to save the fillibuster

[KRC]

so does this "nuclear option" make a law that keeps the fillibuster from being used to appoint judicial nominees?

 

or to simply get rid of the fillibuster all together?

342425[/snapback]

 

From what I understand of the procedure they will employ, it will just be for judicial nominations. It is not a law, but a Senate rule.

[OBXBILLSFAN]

Nice meaningless "liberals suck" rant.  You have anything to say about the fillibuster rules?     

342424[/snapback]

If you want government by do nothing Dems reading the phone book for hours on end, then I guess you're happy.

 

But you're right about one thing - the current liberal leadership of the Democrat party really does suck. When is the last time they had an idea that didn't involve bashing Bush or raising taxes?

 

FDR must be spinning in his grave.

[ch19079]

From what I understand of the procedure they will employ, it will just be for judicial nominations. It is not a law, but a Senate rule.

342429[/snapback]

 

thank you for the info. im learning new stuff every day...

[Mark VI]

Question: What do H. Alston Johnson (5th Circuit), James Duffy (9th Circuit), Kathleen McCree-Lewis (6th Circuit), Enrique Moreno (5th Circuit), James Lyons (10th Circuit), Robert Cindrich (3rd Circuit), Stephen Orlofsky (3rd Circuit), Andre Davis (4th Circuit), James Beaty (4th Circuit), and J. Rich Leonard (4th Circuit) and Allen Snyder (D.C. Circuit) all have in common?

 

Answer: They all recieved the American Bar Association's unanimous "well-qualified" rating, yet they were all denied an up or down vote by Republicans after being nominated by President Clinton. 

 

Here are more Circuit Court judges who received satisfactory ABA ratings but were denied a vote: Helene White (6th Circuit), Jorge Rangel (5th Circuit), Robert Raymer (3rd Circuit), Barry Goode (9th Circuit), Christine Arguello (10th Circuit), Elizabeth Gibson (4th Circuit), Elana Kagan (D.C. Circuit), James Wynn (4th Circuit), Bonnie Campbell (8th Circuit), Kent Markus (6th Circuit), and Roger Gregory (4th Circuit).

 

In all, there were 60 (yes, 60) Clinton nominees that were blocked by Republicans.  But now the GOP is claiming that denying an up or down vote is unfair?  That's pretty funny - almost as funny as those who buy into that line of crap.

342400[/snapback]

 

Eisenhower’s first nominee was Chief Justice Earl Warren –- architect of modern liberal jurisprudence. Nixon’s picks, like Nixon himself, frequently got entangled in scandal. But his first successful associate justice nominee was Harry Blackmun, who was certainly no conservative. Ford gave us one justice: John Paul Stevens –- one of the four members of the court’s liberal wing. Reagan’s first justice was Sandra Day O’Connor, whose nomination sent conservatives into a conclave contemplating, ironically, a filibuster. And George H. W. Bush? His first nominee was David Souter, who, with Stevens, forms half of the court’s current liberal wing.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

ok,

 

so does this "nuclear option" make a law that keeps the fillibuster from being used to appoint judicial nominees?

 

or to simply get rid of the fillibuster all together?

342425[/snapback]

 

First, there is no applicable law to the fillibuster. It's not in the legal code, it's in the rules of order for the Senate. Those rules simply state that he who has the floor may not be interrupted...the fillibuster developed from that through the simple extention that if one has the floor and can't be interrupted, he blocks the Senate from doing any other work as long as he's speaking.

 

But eventually, they got lazy and decided "Rather than stand up there, let's just agree that if the minority declares a fillibuster, it has the same effect." That's the way it works today. What the Republicans are trying to do now is change the rules of order so that if a fillibuster is declared, it can be broken by a majority vote. Ultimately what that will most likely do is force the fillibuster to revert to its original form: take and hold the floor until your voice gives out. Changing THAT requires changing the rules of order to remove from everyone the right to uninterrupted speech on the Senate floor - which ultimately hurts the majority party more than the minority.

 

But there's no legal or Constitutional issue directly involved here. The fillibuster is embodied not in any laws, but in a formal code of conduct and a gentlemans' agreement that dictate the internal workings of the Senate.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If you want government by do nothing Dems reading the phone book for hours on end, then I guess you're happy.

 

But you're right about one thing - the current liberal leadership of the Democrat party really does suck. When is the last time  they had an idea that didn't involve bashing Bush or raising taxes?

 

FDR must be spinning in his grave.

342430[/snapback]

 

Take your "Dems suck! Republicans rule!" crap to another thread. We're trying to have an intelligent discussion on the fillibuster here.

[Reuben Gant]

But there's no legal or Constitutional issue directly involved here.  The fillibuster is embodied not in any laws, but in a formal code of conduct and a gentlemans' agreement that dictate the internal workings of the Senate.

342437[/snapback]

Good Post: I think it was in the mid seventies they changed the rules from

67 needed to stop a fillibuster to just 60. The rule change many would like to

see is to 51.

[Alaska Darin]

Thanks for the link. 

 

I would think that all of us, regardles of political affilliation, can see the benefit of the fillibuster.  If you're a Republican, think about when the tide turns and the the Dems are back in control.  Do you really want all of their legislation to be passed with virtually no chance of revision or review?  I'm guessing you don't.  It's the same tool that the GOP invoked when the Dems controlled Congress.  While it can be frustrating at times, the fillibuster is critical to our form of government if we are to remain a nation that respects our laws.

 

I know MoveOn is a liberal PAC, but in this case they just happen to be the ones fighting to preserve the fillibuster - and they just happen to be right.  Please fill out the petition.

342371[/snapback]

Personally, I'd like to see them vote to confirm or not. It's simply not good to not have judges in place to do a very important job. If these people aren't competent, they shouldn't be holding the positions they're currently in.

 

Once again, Nero is fiddling while Rome burns.

[Pac_Man]

An underlying issue in this debate is the naked abuse of political power. According to the Constitution, law should be made in the legislative branch. But in the 1960s, activist judges began legislating from the bench. Whether you agree or disagree with their motives, objectives, or positions, the way they went about legislating was a clear usurpation of power. It would be like a man becoming president despite having been beaten both in the popular vote and the electoral college. You may support the candidate and his views, but you wouldn't want that kind of precedent in place.

 

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution's prohibition on random government searches of homes was tantamount to a general right to privacy. The Supreme Court then announced this right to privacy prohibited the government from banning any kind of contraceptives. In the 1970s, this "right to privacy" was expanded to include a prohibition against abortions.

 

It is absolutely, abundantly, and completely clear that when the Founding Fathers talked about a prohibition against random government searches of private homes, contraceptives and abortions were the furthest thing on their minds. Regardless of your stance on contraceptives or abortions, the proper place to make new laws regarding them--according to the Constitution--is the legislative branch.

 

The problem during the Clinton presidency was that neither the president nor the Democrat Congressional majority that existed in his first two years in office was prepared to accept the limitations the Constitution imposes on judicial activism. On the contrary, Clinton and the Democrats saw judicial activism as a useful tool for achieving their goal of an increasingly hyperactive and interventionist government. That fact put the Republicans in an awkward position: either they could accept the Clinton apointees, knowing they would violate the Constitution, or they could filibuster, knowing the Constitution requires an up or down vote by the Senate.

[Wacka]

If they get rid of the fillibuster, how will Robert KKK Byrd stop civil rights legislation?

[Campy]

An underlying issue in this debate is the naked abuse of political power. According to the Constitution, law should be made in the legislative branch. But in the 1960s, activist judges began legislating from the bench. Whether you agree or disagree with their motives, objectives, or positions, the way they went about legislating was a clear usurpation of power. It would be like a man becoming president despite having been beaten both in the popular vote and the electoral college. You may support the candidate and his views, but you wouldn't want that kind of precedent in place.

 

In the 1960s, the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution's prohibition on random government searches of homes was tantamount to a general right to privacy. The Supreme Court then announced this right to privacy prohibited the government from banning any kind of contraceptives. In the 1970s, this "right to privacy" was expanded to include a prohibition against abortions.

 

It is absolutely, abundantly, and completely clear that when the Founding Fathers talked about a prohibition against random government searches of private homes, contraceptives and abortions were the furthest thing on their minds. Regardless of your stance on contraceptives or abortions, the proper place to make new laws regarding them--according to the Constitution--is the legislative branch.

 

The problem during the Clinton presidency was that neither the president nor the Democrat Congressional majority that existed in his first two years in office was prepared to accept the limitations the Constitution imposes on judicial activism. On the contrary, Clinton and the Democrats saw judicial activism as a useful tool for achieving their goal of an increasingly hyperactive and interventionist government. That fact put the Republicans in an awkward position: either they could accept the Clinton apointees, knowing they would violate the Constitution, or they could filibuster, knowing the Constitution requires an up or down vote by the Senate.

342524[/snapback]

Isn't the role of the judiciary to hear cases, interpret the law, and apply the law to the case? All of the "judicial activism" rants sound to me to be based upon disagreement with the principle of precedent as used by the courts.

 

Of course, we could always request Congress to study all of the judgements rendered across the country and have them pass individual laws to cover every conceivable situation, but that'd be kinda' stoopid, wouldn't it?

[Alaska Darin]

Isn't the role of the judiciary to hear cases, interpret the law, and apply the law to the case? All of the "judicial activism" rants sound to me to be based upon disagreement with the principle of precedent as used by the courts. 

 

Of course, we could always request Congress to study all of the judgements rendered across the country and have them pass individual laws to cover every conceivable situation, but that'd be kinda' stoopid, wouldn't it?

342541[/snapback]

I would agree - right up until I read through the decisions of the Ninth Circuit. The lack of common sense in both the legislative and judiciary is stupifying.

[Campy]

If they get rid of the fillibuster, how will Robert KKK Byrd stop civil rights legislation?

342529[/snapback]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it actually the fillibuster that stopped anti-civil rights legislation from moving forward?

[Campy]

I would agree - right up until I read through the decisions of the Ninth Circuit.  The lack of common sense in both the legislative and judiciary is stupifying.

342543[/snapback]

The Ninth is in a liberal part of the country. It doesn't surprise me that the judges tend to reflect that in their judgments - at least not any more than some of the Bible-thumping anti-science judgments rendered by courts in the deep south.

[Alaska Darin]

The Ninth is in a liberal part of the country.  It doesn't surprise me that the judges tend to reflect that in their judgments - at least not any more than some of the Bible-thumping anti-science judgments rendered by courts in the deep south.

342554[/snapback]

Thanks for the clarification. I was very confused on that point.

 

I'm not aware one court in a "red state" that compares to the Ninth Circuit. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[KRC]

I'm not aware one court in a "red state" that compares to the Ninth Circuit.

342570[/snapback]

 

They set the bar pretty high (or low, depending on your POV), don't they.

[Wacka]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it actually the fillibuster that stopped anti-civil rights legislation from moving forward?

342545[/snapback]

 

Robert KKK Byrd and Al Gore Sr. filibustered the 1963 civil rights bill. A greater % of republicans voted for it than democrats.

[Pac_Man]

Isn't the role of the judiciary to hear cases, interpret the law, and apply the law to the case? All of the "judicial activism" rants sound to me to be based upon disagreement with the principle of precedent as used by the courts. 

 

Of course, we could always request Congress to study all of the judgements rendered across the country and have them pass individual laws to cover every conceivable situation, but that'd be kinda' stoopid, wouldn't it?

342541[/snapback]

Was there something about my post you didn't understand? I described two instances in which the Supreme Court created constitutional provisions out of thin air. Your post utterly fails to address this abuse of power. Unless of course you call your sentence at the end an attempt to address the issue. And maybe you are right: maybe Congress was just too plain busy with other things to give any thought at all to minor issues such as contraceptives and abortion. So instead of having Congress pass laws that deal with "every conceivable situation"--in this case, contraceptives and abortion--why not just let the Supreme Court deal with such minor, inconsequential issues? Forgive my sarcasm, but the point of view you seem to be advocating is impossible for a thinking person to take seriously.

[Reuben Gant]

Robert KKK Byrd and Al Gore Sr. filibustered the 1963 civil rights bill. A greater % of republicans voted for it than democrats.

342626[/snapback]

Of course there was also Strom "Who's Your Daddy" Thurmond in 1957.

I think the Dems and Rep of yesteryear are nearly unrocognizable today.

Republics were social liberals, Democrats the social conservatives for about a 20 year period. It was the Civil Rights Legislation that probably destroyed the Democratic power hold on the Old Solid South.

 

Anywho: US New and World Report 5-16-05 with a little Fillibuster ex-

with fair use:

 

"Filibusters were used repeatedly by southerners seeking to block civil rights legislation in the 1950s and '60s. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina still holds the record for the longest single speech, when he railed for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Unlike Long, he kept his speech relevant to the subject matter--reading from legal tracts, which made it unbearably dry.

 

The tactic has been used in a variety of other ways as well. Abe Fortas was President Lyndon Johnson's choice for chief justice of the United States, and after a group of conservative senators filibustered his confirmation, he withdrew. Now, senators often filibuster in an attempt to get press attention. In 1994, as New York Sen. Alfonse D'Amato kept his colleagues up overnight by denouncing spending provisions of a crime bill, he played to the cameras, holding up a big picture of a pig as he talked about pork. Though he did not succeed in killing the bill, he and the pig did get their mugs on national television."

[Campy]

Was there something about my post you didn't understand? I described two instances in which the Supreme Court created constitutional provisions out of thin air. Your post utterly fails to address this abuse of power. Unless of course you call your sentence at the end an attempt to address the issue. And maybe you are right: maybe Congress was just too plain busy with other things to give any thought at all to minor issues such as contraceptives and abortion. So instead of having Congress pass laws that deal with "every conceivable situation"--in this case, contraceptives and abortion--why not just let the Supreme Court deal with such minor, inconsequential issues? Forgive my sarcasm, but the point of view you seem to be advocating is impossible for a thinking person to take seriously.

342627[/snapback]

I was commenting on the "activist judiciary" rant that has become the con buzzword. There is no abuse, they are doing what they're Constitutionally required to do.

 

I'll type slowly so you can follow along, 'kay? Two parties have a dispute and are unable to settle it between them. They go to court and present their side of the issue, and, in the case of the Supreme Court, the Justices hear the arguments made and then look for applicable law in rendering their judgment.

 

In the event that a specific law hadn't been passed, or if a law has been passed but it is a law which restricts a right that has not been expressly prohibited by the Constitution, the Supreme Court will consistently rule in favor of individual liberties and rights. Lower courts will then use the Supreme Court's opinion as guidance in addressing future cases because of (drumroll please) precedent.

 

If you find that to be disturbing, perhaps you should reconcile that you live in a country in which her citizens are entitled to certain rights, although it really does sound like you'd prefer a system whereby the government is even MORE involved in your life than it is now, telling you right and wrong, and what you can and cannot do.

 

Personally, I wouldn't like the government to be anymore involved in my life than it already is. In fact, I'd prefer it if the government would just kinda' back off, but that's just me, I'm a believer in individual freedom and rights, but that's just me.

 

You mention abortion. If you don't want one, don't get one. But don't try to force your beliefs on that issue on others.

[Wacka]

Dems of yesteryear? KKK Byrd is still there and is called "The conscience of the Senate" by the MSM.

[Reuben Gant]

Dems of yesteryear? KKK Byrd is still there and is called "The conscience of the Senate" by the MSM.

342803[/snapback]

With good cause. He is constantly warning against encroachment

of the executive branch into the legislative. If you think it is the

KKK that defines Byrd, well then, either you hate him or think

he would make a groovy grand dragon.

 

Personally, I think the guy is great on CSPAN, he talks about the

Peloponesian War and an Omnibus bill in the same breath.

Can't say I know his voting record, but I did once work a political

campaign in West Virginia and it was damn spooky from start to finish.

Death threats, race baiting, union plots, and being ex-KKK is not a liability in W.Virginia, for half the state it just means your Daddy was protestant and Christian because none of them had seen a black man until they got a TV around 1980.

 

Believe me, Byrd represents

the moderate middle in West Virginia, and I think he links most of

his speeches to history so his constituents don't know what the hell he

is talking about.

[Pac_Man]

I was commenting on the "activist judiciary" rant that has become the con buzzword.  There is no abuse, they are doing what they're Constitutionally required to do. 

 

I'll type slowly so you can follow along, 'kay?  Two parties have a dispute and are unable to settle it between them.  They go to court and present their side of the issue, and, in the case of the Supreme Court, the Justices hear the arguments made and then look for applicable law in rendering their judgment. 

 

In the event that a specific law hadn't been passed, or if a law has been passed but it is a law which restricts a right that has not been expressly prohibited by the Constitution,  the Supreme Court will consistently rule in favor of individual liberties and rights.  Lower courts will then use the Supreme Court's opinion as guidance in addressing future cases because of (drumroll please) precedent.

 

If you find that to be disturbing, perhaps you should reconcile that you live in a country in which her citizens are entitled to certain rights, although it really does sound like you'd prefer a system whereby the government is even MORE involved in your life than it is now, telling you right and wrong, and what you can and cannot do. 

 

Personally, I wouldn't like the government to be anymore involved in my life than it already is.  In fact, I'd prefer it if the government would just kinda' back off, but that's just me, I'm a believer in individual freedom and rights, but that's just me.

 

You mention abortion.  If you don't want one, don't get one.  But don't try to force your beliefs on that issue on others.

342780[/snapback]

 

Your post once again fails to address the issue of judicial activism. Reply again if or when you feel like discussing judicial activism instead of making irrelevant comments. I will however point out an inaccuracy:

 

"if a law has been passed but it is a law which restricts a right that has not been expressly prohibited by the Constitution, the Supreme Court will consistently rule in favor of individual liberties and rights." If this were actually true, noise ordinances would be unconstitutional, because nothing in the Constitution says I can't make as much noise as I want. Pollution ordinances would be an infringement of liberties also, because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that I can't have a wildly polluting factory. By the same token I'd even be allowed to own a nuclear weapons arsenal. If the system worked the way you described, most laws, rules, and restrictions we have would be unconstitutional.

[Campy]

Your post once again fails to address the issue of judicial activism.

342867[/snapback]

Sorry. Your analogies just don't cut it. Excessive noise and pollution infringes upon others' rights - that whole "pursuit of happiness" thingy. In other words, it's easier to not make noise than it is to ignore noise. It's easier to not pollute than it is to not get sick living at Love Canal...

 

Lastly, the part where I said there's no such thing as judicial activism pretty much addresses the (non)issue of judicial activism. But go ahead with your talking points, I'm listening.

 

Really.

[Pac_Man]

Sorry.  Your analogies just don't cut it.  Excessive noise and pollution infringes upon others' rights - that whole "pursuit of happiness" thingy.  In other words, it's easier to not make noise than it is to ignore noise.  It's easier to not pollute than it is to not get sick living at Love Canal...

 

Lastly, the part where I said there's no such thing as judicial activism pretty much addresses the (non)issue of judicial activism.  But go ahead with your talking points, I'm listening.

 

Really.

342949[/snapback]

Another useless response. Well, I guess you tried.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Your post once again fails to address the issue of judicial activism. Reply again if or when you feel like discussing judicial activism instead of making irrelevant comments. I will however point out an inaccuracy:

 

"if a law has been passed but it is a law which restricts a right that has not been expressly prohibited by the Constitution,  the Supreme Court will consistently rule in favor of individual liberties and rights." If this were actually true, noise ordinances would be unconstitutional, because nothing in the Constitution says I can't make as much noise as I want. Pollution ordinances would be an infringement of liberties also, because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that I can't have a wildly polluting factory. By the same token I'd even be allowed to own a nuclear weapons arsenal. If the system worked the way you described, most laws, rules, and restrictions we have would be unconstitutional.

342867[/snapback]

 

Question: what do you think of the judicial elite's to push their liberal campaign of marital genocide, by which they're undermining the purity of the different subspecies of humanity, to the degree where the intermingling of Homo Sapiens Africanus and Homo Sapiens Europeansis will become so pronounced that there will be no more blonde people in the world by 2200?

 

I ask, only because it was a question that came up some time back...I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it...

[Pac_Man]

Question: what do you think of the judicial elite's to push their liberal campaign of marital genocide, by which they're undermining the purity of the different subspecies of humanity, to the degree where the intermingling of Homo Sapiens Africanus and Homo Sapiens Europeansis will become so pronounced that there will be no more blonde people in the world by 2200?

 

I ask, only because it was a question that came up some time back...I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on it...

343509[/snapback]

This question really is out of the blue. I'd just as soon keep this thread focused on the issues regarding judicial appointees--including the issue of judicial activism--rather than wander off into a discussion about race, mixed marriages, etc. What bothers me about judicial activism is the idea of the Supreme Court creating new constitutional provisions out of thin air. Regardless of what your views on contraception or abortion happen to be, the right way to put those views into law is through Congress, not by pretending the constitutional clause about unreasonable government searches of private homes has anything to do with either contraception or abortion. While this tactic gets many people the policies they want, it does so by abandoning the rule of law.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

This question really is out of the blue. I'd just as soon keep this thread focused on the issues regarding judicial appointees--including the issue of judicial activism--rather than wander off into a discussion about race, mixed marriages, etc. What bothers me about judicial activism is the idea of the Supreme Court creating new constitutional provisions out of thin air. Regardless of what your views on contraception or abortion happen to be, the right way to put those views into law is through Congress, not by pretending the constitutional clause about unreasonable government searches of private homes has anything to do with either contraception or abortion. While this tactic gets many people the policies they want, it does so by abandoning the rule of law.

343586[/snapback]

 

That is, at a very basic level, totally stupid and ignorant. The Constitution outlines government powers, not civil rights. The assumption is, was, and should always be that anything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution is not permitted the government, not that it's allowed by implication of ommission. Enforcing that standard is NOT making law, it's following 200 years of legal precedent. Regardless of what your views on abortion or contraception happen to be, the Constitution by ommission excludes those from the federal government's purview, and the courts have ruled as such for decades.

 

And of course, you've demonstrated a very basic ignorance of every other single topic you've ever posted on under whatever name you've made the post. Why change now?

[Pac_Man]

Allow me to dissect this post piece by piece.

 

That is, at a very basic level, totally stupid and ignorant.

In other words, you're not happy that I didn't allow myself to get sidetracked into a discussion about race and mixed marriages. Fine.

 

The Constitution outlines government powers, not civil rights. 

Actually, it does both. There is the habeus corpus provision, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the right to peaceable assembly, the right to bear arms, the freedom of the press. All these things are outlined in the Constitution and its amendments.

 

The assumption is, was, and should always be that anything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution is not permitted the government, not that it's allowed by implication of ommission. 

You are sort of right about this. The Constitution states that any rights not specifically set aside for the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.

 

Enforcing that standard is NOT making law, it's following 200 years of legal precedent.

True, but not relevant. How can 200 years of legal precedent be used to justify a completely new interpretation of a constitutional provision that's been around for 200 years? You're no longer skating on thin ice here, you're skating where there's no ice at all.

 

Regardless of what your views on abortion or contraception happen to be, the Constitution by ommission excludes those from the federal government's purview, and the courts have ruled as such for decades.

According to this line of thinking, Roe vs. Wade was a mistake, because it turned what was a state issue (abortion) into a federal issue. The chief effect of Roe vs. Wade was that the states no longer had control over their own abortion policies, because this was dictated from Washington.

 

And of course, you've demonstrated a very basic ignorance of every other single topic you've ever posted on under whatever name you've made the post.  Why change now?

343642[/snapback]

Based on the errors you've made above, it would be easy for me to make some remark about the pot calling the kettle black. But to be honest, I'd rather engage in an intelligent debate about the issues at hand than fight a useless flame war. Most people are at least somewhat reasonable; which is why disagreements can often be resolved by exposing people to new information and new ways of thinking. This is the style of debate I will continue to try to follow. If you have any interest in this type of discussion, I may continue to respond to your posts.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But to be honest, I'd rather engage in an intelligent debate about the issues at hand than fight a useless flame war.

343690[/snapback]

 

That would be a HUGE step for you.

[Pac_Man]

That would be a HUGE step for you. 

343696[/snapback]

At least your response wasn't, um . . . . . . . a flame or anything!

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

At least your response wasn't, um . . . . . . .  a flame or anything!

343700[/snapback]

 

You're not worth much more. Are you going to share your views on race with us again anytime soon, or do we have to go to find back issues of Der Stuermer for it?

[Pac_Man]

You're not worth much more.  Are you going to share your views on race with us again anytime soon, or do we have to go to find back issues of Der Stuermer for it?

343705[/snapback]

You appear to have taken my refusal to discuss race at all as meaning I'm some kind of Nazi. This "attempt" at a flame war is absolutely pathetic.

 

What bothers me most about this discussion is that nobody has even attempted to advance an intelligent reason why it's okay for the Supreme Court to ignore the rule of law. Despite this lack of intellectual justification, people seem quite content to attack myself and my views anyway.

 

Campy dodged the issue of judicial legality by saying that he agrees with the position the Supreme Court took on abortion, and that he disagrees with what he assumes my abortion views are. I specifically chose not to discuss my own views about abortion, instead focusing on the legal mechanisms by which any given view of abortion should be put into practice. Maintaining the rule of law is, in the long run, more fundamentally important to maintaining a democracy than achieving a short-term victory on an issue like abortion.

 

If it's okay for liberal justices to legislate from the bench, it's okay for conservative justices to do the same. The Constitution prohibits the government from maintaining a state religion. Well, conservative justices could (if they were activists) stretch this prohibition into something which would prohibit the government from doing anything which might influence people's religious views. So if the National Endowment for the Arts sponsored anything which might possibly have anything to do with Christianity (urine mixed with religious images comes to mind) this organization would immediately lose all federal funding. Judicial activism is all good and fun (for liberals) when it's being used to promote liberal causes. But if conservative judges started pulling this stuff, the liberals would be up in arms. Let's just be glad that at least conservative judges still believe in the rule of law.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The fillibuster is important in times like today. You have a spilt almost down the middle... Yet, one party controls all three houses.

 

The difference between this is under 10 million people.

 

I would never want to see it go, even if things were the other way.

 

There are what 50 some million constituents that need it?

 

If things were lopsided... I could not see the fillibuster actions.

 

Too much is at stake for an evenly divided country.

[ExiledInIllinois]

That is, at a very basic level, totally stupid and ignorant.  The Constitution outlines government powers, not civil rights.  The assumption is, was, and should always be that anything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution is not permitted the government, not that it's allowed by implication of ommission.  Enforcing that standard is NOT making law, it's following 200 years of legal precedent.  Regardless of what your views on abortion or contraception happen to be, the Constitution by ommission excludes those from the federal government's purview, and the courts have ruled as such for decades.

 

And of course, you've demonstrated a very basic ignorance of every other single topic you've ever posted on under whatever name you've made the post.  Why change now?

343642[/snapback]

 

Somebody took ethics training?

 

[Campy]

What bothers me most about this discussion is that nobody has even attempted to advance an intelligent reason why it's okay for the Supreme Court to ignore the rule of law.

343763[/snapback]

Simply put, your argument just isn't conducive to intelligent debate because it's not based upon an opinion but upon a false premise.

 

As I've tried to explain in previous posts, the Supreme Court interprets law. If there is no specific law relevant to a case they are hearing, they take the framework provided by existing law and apply it to their opinion/decision/judgment. You or I may not always like the outcome, but considering that the only thing they do is to interpret law, it is impossible for them to "ignore the rule of law" is it not?

 

To me it sounds like you're either confusing the role of the judicial branch with that of the legislative, or that you are simply unaware of the roles that the legislative and judicial branches play in that whole checks and balances thingy.

[Campy]

The Constitution outlines government powers, not civil rights.  The assumption is, was, and should always be that anything not specifically permitted to the government by the Constitution is not permitted the government, not that it's allowed by implication of ommission.  Enforcing that standard is NOT making law, it's following 200 years of legal precedent.  Regardless of what your views on abortion or contraception happen to be, the Constitution by ommission excludes those from the federal government's purview, and the courts have ruled as such for decades.

343642[/snapback]

The above should be considered mandatory reading.

[Pac_Man]

Simply put, your argument just isn't conducive to intelligent debate because it's not based upon an opinion but upon a false premise.

If you want something based on a false premise, I suggest you reread the CTM post you just got done praising. I already pointed out the flaw in that post once, so I suggest you go back and read what I had to say about it.

 

As I've tried to explain in previous posts, the Supreme Court interprets law.  If there is no specific law relevant to a case they are hearing, they take the framework provided by existing law and apply it to their opinion/decision/judgment.  You or I may not always like the outcome, but considering that the only thing they do is to interpret law, it is impossible for them to "ignore the rule of law" is it not?

Too bad nothing in this paragraph addresses the issue of the Supreme Court creating a Constitutional "right to privacy"--by which they meant the right to contraception and abortion--out of whole cloth.

 

To me it sounds like you're either confusing the role of the judicial branch with that of the legislative,

To me it sounds like you're confusing me with an activist judge.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

You appear to have taken my refusal to discuss race at all as meaning I'm some kind of Nazi. This "attempt" at a flame war is absolutely pathetic.

343763[/snapback]

 

On the contrary, I've taken your previous discussions of race as meaning you're a Nazi...

[Pac_Man]

On the contrary, I've taken your previous discussions of race as meaning you're a Nazi...

345070[/snapback]

You really are a lot better at labeling people than at intelligent discussion, aren't you?