Hello:

A while back I heard that the candidate for governor of Florida was advocating drug testing for welfare recipients... I laughed and laughed and laughed... THAT stuff doesn't happen in THIS country... We have a Constitution, for crying out loud.. That guy will NEVER get elected... And, IF he is, they'll NEVER let him do that.

Guess what?

Now we have Newt Gingrich saying that he wants to put the judiciary UNDER the control of congress or maybe the president himself...

I'm not laughing now... These guys MUST be stopped!!

excon

Drug testing for Politicians?
Some appear wacked out on something?

That isn't what he's saying . He is saying the same thing I've said about the Judiciary . They are but one equal branch of the government. But since Marbury v Madison they have acted as a superior branch and 'final arbiter ' . That is not what the founders intended ,and there are Constitutional remedies if the Executive decided to exercise them.

The problem is that most roll over and play dead whenever SCOTUS decrees .
Andrew Jackson said it right (although he never acted on it ) when he said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".
Lincoln correctly ignored the Dred Scott Decision because SCOTUS was just plain wrong .

I am not supporting Newt for the nomination . But I applaud him for bringing this important issue into the debate .

By the way... most right wingers do not support Newt. His criticism of Romney's work in the private sector borders on Obama leftist populist clap trap .

Hello again, tom:

I suppose, then, if the Supreme Court rules AGAINST Obamacare, the president could just IGNORE it.

excon

I suppose . But he would probably need Congress to back him up. It is obviously not as simple as that . But... look back in history. Roosevelt's initial reforms were over ruled by SCOTUS ,and he came very close to adding Associate Justices to the court to change the equation.

The fact is that judges can be removed and whole districts can be added and removed . The only thing set in stone in the Constitution is that there will be a Supreme Court that is an equal branch. The rest is for Congress to decide . (Article 3 sec 1)

by the way ;a better example than Obamacare (which will probably pass the judicial test) is the Kelo decision.
This decision was universally panned by both the left and right . Congress voted 365 to 33 in support of a resolution expressing 'grave disapproval' at the court decision.”

There has to be a remedy from a wrong court decision beyond a new Amendment . We can both cite cases where SCOTUS has blown it . Bottom line is the judicial branch has a disproportionate share of the power in America, and too many judges have proven that they are not up to exercising that power with restraint or responsibility.

Hello again, tom:

We have had this discussion many times over the years. As uncomfortable as I am with the status quo, if congress could decide the Constitutionality of the laws they pass, the Bill of Rights is toast. Same thing with the pres...

It may be toast anyway. I suppose we should be glad it lasted 200 years.. I can feel my freedoms slipping away.

excon

And you think a panel of 9 judges should be the sole arbiters ? (actually it usually comes down to one judges decision)
If you think that then your freedom slipped away long before now.

And you think a panel of 9 judges should be the sole arbiters ? Hello again, tom:

No.. But, who's better? Congress?? Which one of the Bill of Rights do YOU think would pass congress?

excon

Good... let' s agree then that no one in a nation that relishes liberty should have either an elected ,or an appointed lifetime position of power. The founding fathers never intended to have judges be kings.

Critiquing the courts in his memoirs ,Jefferson wrote .
The Constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
That should not be ;but that is how judicial power evolved in a short time in our Consitution's history ;and it has become ever imperial since.
Would you agree to the basic premise of billls Congress considered like 'The Constitution Restoration Act', which would order federal courts to not rely on foreign laws, administrative rules or court decisions ?
That if the court decides a law is unconstitutional it has NO authority to impose a remedy ?


Let's face it.. if there is a proposition that all the branches are equal ,then both the judiciary and Congress have the ability to block the Executive ;BUT.. there is no blocking action inherent to stop an out of control judge in the current evolution beyond impeachment from the 2 houses of Congress ;and /or the time consuming amendment process. Both are not immediate responses to judicial over-reach like even lesser courts have on the President or Congress ,although often the decisions are so wrong that immediate action is required . And the only control the President has on the judiciary is through the appointment process .(at least that is the only one the Presidency except Lincoln has chosen to exercise. )

You ask about Congress. Well why not have SCOTUS decisions subject to a 2/3 over ride ? That would bring balance to the branches.

You ask about Congress. Well why not have SCOTUS decisions subject to a 2/3 over ride ? That would bring balance to the branches.Hello again, tom:

It's a BETTER solution than the one we've got. But, no cigar.

As a sovereign citizen, my rights are NOT subject to a vote. Your proposal puts them up for a vote. The Amendment process put 'em in, and it's the Amendment process that needs to take 'em out.

I'd think you'd want to guard your gun rights better than that.

excon

OK I see your point on that . But what is more likely to take out your rights is a judiciary with unlimitted and unchecked power of interpretation ;especially one that has the protection of life time appointment. How was a court decision to uphold the interning of Japanese Americans in concentration camps protecting their liberty ? And yet SCOTUS upheld that law 6-3 ,with liberal stalwart Hugo Black writing the majority opinion.

Doesn't sound insane to me. Let's go to the tape:

YyJNyZSy_NY

P.S. For some real right wing insanity, how about those Big Bad Donuts?

Dictatorship is next cab on the rank

Doesn't sound insane to me. Let's go to the tapeHello Steve:

I'm STILL not sure who Newt thinks should be in charge of the Supreme Court - the president or congress. But, in either case, would you be willing to risk your gun rights to that body?

You would? Dude.

What's insane is the two right wingers fighting it out for the league championship while the more enlightened bunch grovel for 3rd or worse.

excon

I'm STILL not sure who Newt thinks should be in charge of the Supreme Court - the president or congress. But, in either case, would you be willing to risk your gun rights to that body?

Depends on which side had control. I believe he said something about the judiciary being equal, not more powerful - which is exactly as it is supposed to be.


What's insane is the two right wingers fighting it out for the league championship while the more enlightened bunch grovel for 3rd or worse.

What will be even worse is if tom wins.

Seems someone has lost sight of what this is all about. The idea is simple; not give anyone too much power, so the congress makes the laws, the judiciary intreprets them, and the administration enforces them. Seems simple enough, when did it get complicated?

I suppose . But he would probably need Congress to back him up. It is obviously not as simple as that . But ... look back in history. Roosevelt's initial reforms were over ruled by SCOTUS ,and he came very close to adding Associate Justices to the court to change the equation.

The fact is that judges can be removed and whole districts can be added and removed . The only thing set in stone in the Constitution is that there will be a Supreme Court that is an equal branch. The rest is for Congress to decide . (Article 3 sec 1)

btw ;a better example than Obamacare (which will probably pass the judicial test) is the Kelo decision.
This decision was universally panned by both the left and right . Congress voted 365 to 33 in support of a resolution expressing 'grave disapproval’ at the court decision.”

There has to be a remedy from a wrong court decision beyond a new Amendment . We can both cite cases where SCOTUS has blown it . Bottom line is the judicial branch has a disproportionate share of the power in America, and too many judges have proven that they are not up to exercising that power with restraint or responsibility.



I would say that you have this situation because you are a common law country operating under a civil law code. Perhaps there is no answer.

Congress voting on the rightness or wrongness of SCOTUS' decisions is tantamount to interpreting the law according to some type of popular opinion. Voting for judges runs the risk of turning the SCOTUS into a political football.

Tut

when did it get complicated?

Early in our nation's history the Supreme Court did a power grab... in the Marbury v. Madison case, it granted itself the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional.
Nothing in the Constitution gave them such power.

So who are you going to have decide what is within the constitution and what is not. You can't leave that to politicians, too much self interest, you need some one impartial or at least removed from the political process

So who are you going to have decide what is within the constitution and what is not. You can't leave that to politicians, too much self interest, you need some one impartial or at least removed from the political process

Hi Clete,

That's supposably what they have now. Subjecting legal decisions to some type of popular vote is a contradiction of the legal process. Where there is little or no precedent judges will interpret the law.

I don't think there is a satisfactory answer to this problem. But I am a bit of a pessimist when it come to the law.

Tut

Well Tut it has been often said the law is a A$$ but what you going to do, the alternative is anarchy

Well Tut it has been often said the law is a A$$ but what you going to do, the alternative is anarchy

Hi Clete,

I don't know. I'm just glad it is not our problem.


Tut

yeah Clete you are right ...the people shouldn't decide the law

yeah Clete you are right ...the people shouldn't decide the law


Hi Tom,

People can decide the law but in the end it has to be put into words. What the founding fathers intended counts for little. What they actually said is all that matters. Do you recall any SCOTUS decision handed down on the basis of intention? Don't they hand down decisions based on actual wording?

Tut

Too frequently liberal judges expand the meaning of the words. They use this inane theory that the Constitution is "living breathing " . But the founders put in a system for amending so what this is essentially is a judge's intent to inject his/her meaning of the law and to change the Constitution to fit that judges predisposition.

Now I agree that often the words need interpretation and that is a legitimate role of a judge. But ,if there isn't an agreed upon framework on how the Constitution is to be interpreted ,then we are in 'Through the Looking Glass ' territory where words mean whatever an individual decides they mean.
Thus the concept of "original intent" . The words of the Constitution should mean what the framers ,and the people who added the amendments meant them to be. Any other change should be subject to amendment.

Too frequently liberal judges expand the meaning of the words. They use this inane theory that the Constitution is "living breathing " .

Thus the concept of "original intent" . The words of the Constitution should mean what the framers ,and the people who added the amendments meant them to be. Any other change should be subject to amendment.Hello again, tom:

I agree with you, except for the word "liberal". Right wingers too, make up stuff. Here's a good example... I've read the Fourth Amendment. It's INTENT is clear... The government can't search you WITHOUT a warrant... How else COULD you interpret it??

Nonetheless, the right wing - along with help from the left, passed the Patriot Act. IT says they DON'T need a warrant. Now, I don't know about you, but to ME, it's unconstitutional on its face.

Then I read above, how much you believe in "original intent"... You should excuse me if I'm a little confused..

excon

I too have read the 4th and I don't see anywhere that a warrant is required for a search. That is a judges expansion of the amendment and a perfect example of the distortion I speak of .

Here is the text :


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It speaks of a protection against unreasonable searches and warrants issued upon 'probable cause ' . It does NOT say that you can't be searched without a warrant.

What happens is that the two clauses are combined into this misperception that only with a warrant is a search reasonable. You know in fact that is not true because no one has an issue when a cop searches an arrested perp for weapons and other things on their possession. So right off the bat you know that the 2 clauses are separate .

I too have read the 4th and I don't see anywhere that a warrent is required for a search. That is a judges expansion of the amendment and a perfect example of the distortion I speak of .Hello again, tom:

Without having a Constitutional argument right here, it's instructive to note that YOUR interpretation of what the amendment says is STILL an INTERPRETATION... Because when I read it, I have a DIFFERENT interpretation.. I don't think MY view is a distortion.

The key is that the document IS interpreted. I believe MY interpretation is what the founders intended. You believe YOURS is. Now, I COULD accuse YOU of distortion, but I'm won't. I'll stick with accusing you of having a different interpretation than I do.

excon

Yes, you both have different interpretations. But what basis at all is there for this view that the constitution is a "living, breathing" document?

I take my view from reading the debates in Congress leading to the actual language of the amendment. That is what I mean by originalism . By understanding the history ,I know why the amendment was considered . See next response for clarification.

The history of the Fourth Amendment
Provides no support for the view that all warrantless searches
And seizures were condemned by those who framed and ratified the
Amendment. Far from requiring judicial warrants for all government
Intrusions, the framers of the Fourth Amendment viewed judicial
Warrants as an evil and sought to limit their use. Numerous
Statutes, regulations, and common law rules authorizing warrantless
Intrusions, all on the books during the colonial era and after
The adoption of the Constitution, appear to support the claim that
Many early Americans were not concerned with warrantless
Searches and seizures.' The history surrounding the Fourth
Amendment, provides no support for the notion
That the amendment grants individuals a right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures.' On the contrary, the plain language
And original understanding of the freedoms guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment do no more than prescribe that government
Intrusions be limited to reasonable measures.

In other words ; the people who demand warrants for everything have it backwards. The founders were more concerned with the absusive use of warrants issued for unreasonable purposes. That was the oppression they faced from the Brits, and that is what they were guarding against.

In other words ; the people who demand warrants for everything have it backwards. The founders were more concerned with the absusive use of warrants issued for unreasonable purposes. Hello again, tom:

That's an interesting INTERPRETATION... If it were TRUE, surly the Amendment would NOT have been written like it is. Because it says the exact OPPOSITE of what you say it says. In fact, it begins with "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...."

You're asking me to believe that the Amendment means the cops CAN search you WITHOUT a warrant as long as the search is reasonable... But, if the search is UNREASONABLE, they need a warrant. Is that not what you mean??

Really?

excon

I'm going by what Madison said and what the founders were concerned about. What I'm saying is that the question from law enforcement is to show that the search was reasonable. I go again to the idea that a cop can and often searches a person when in the process of an arrest. There is nobody who says that is an unreasonable and unconstitutional search. Yet under what you said ;the cop would by necessity have to stop the arrest and get a warrant to make sure the person being arrested wasn't carrying something like a weapon that could be used against the officer .

I have studied the issue ;and am clear that the debate about the amendment centered on the issue of abusive use of warrants and not the unreasonableness of being searched without one. Indeed ;they found warrants as potent tools of oppressive governmental power,and were more concerned with that than warrantless searches. They were rebelling against the English search and seizure practices ;the general warrants and the writs of assistance utilized by
Colonial customs officers. ;not trying to adopt them.
The preference for warrants is a mid-20th century construct of justices like Frankfurter.

There is nobody who says that is an unreasonable and unconstitutional search. Yet under what you said ;the cop would by necessity have to stop the arrest and get a warrant Hello again, tom:

Nahhh... The right is not absolute. Limiting them while in police custody is NOT an unreasonable abridgment of the right...

I'm not suggesting that you aren't informed on the matter, tom.. As usual, you're better informed about it than I am.

I don't HAVE that history clouding what I read. Yes, it's probably a simplistic approach. Who ever said I was deep? That's why I LIKE the Bill of Rights. They're written in language I can understand.

excon

True ;but given any question I usually defer to James Madison since he was the giant behind most of the Constitution (and thankfully Jefferson was on assignment ,and not around to screw it up) .

Yes, you both have different interpretations. But what basis at all is there for this view that the constitution is a "living, breathing" document?


Hi Speech,

I think you just answered your own question. It extremely difficult to argue for.'original intent' for a number of reasons.

You can argue original intent until the cows come home. No one knows the original intent. The only ones who knows are the authors and we can't ask them because they are long since dead. All we have left are words on documents.

A constitution as a living and breathing entity is probably a reflection of how language works. Words change their meaning over time and continue to do so.

Not that long ago it was thought that if we can analyse language carefully enough it will reveal some type of underlying reality. We now know this is not the case. As we can see language can be a labyrinth of meaning.

Tut

Thus the concept of "original intent" . The words of the Constitution should mean what the framers ,and the people who added the amendments meant them to be. Any other change should be subject to amendment.

Hi Tom,

That would be a surprise because I am sure there would be pages of debate as to what the words, 'original intent' actually means.


Tut

Actually not in this case. Madison proposed the amendment.. there was some minor changes and then it was passed and also passed by the States. There was a general agreement that a "Bill of Rights " was needed ,and was in fact an implied condition of the Constitution being passed. (Alexander Hamilton actually made a point that "rights " were implicit in the Constitution and did not need enumeration but he was over ruled ) .

I am not a Constitutional Scholar ,but I would expect that justices that are making decisions on the Constitutionality of a law would have the backround and brains to be able to read the volumes of writings words and opinions that went into the crafting of the Constitution and the amendments . In short time one can find in the history ;especially in the " Federalists Papers " (Hamilton ,Alexander ,and John Jay's letters to the states arguing the case for ratification of the Constitution ) the EXACT Meaning of the clauses . The debates leading to each amendment are also very easily obtainable .
If a judge can read into the Constitution what the judge wants to read into it AND impose that meaning on the nation then we are not as free as we think.

A constitution as a living and breathing entity is probably a reflection of how language works. Words change their meaning over time and continue to do so.


The founders in their genious gave us a legitimate way to change the document and yet preserve intent. It is called the (under used) amendment process.
It is the preferred method of updating the Constitution to reflect changes . So to say it's a judicial responsibility to impose 21 century values on the law is absolutely absurd and undemocratic .

Hi Speech,

I think you just answered your own question. It extremely difficult to argue for.'original intent' for a number of reasons.

It doesn't change to suit the times. It's not clay that you can mold into whatever meaning you want, it's just not.

Bill of rights

Seems these have been forgotten

Employment, with a living wage,
Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies,
Housing,
Medical care,
Education, and,
Social security

It doesn't change to suit the times. it's not clay that you can mold into whatever meaning you want, it's just not.

Hi Speech,

I am not suggesting that words can mean whatever we want them to.

What I am saying is that words do change to suit the times. In other words, over time words change their meaning and may bear little resemblance. The word, 'passion' springs to mind. Two hundred and fifty years ago this word had a different meaning as to how we now understand the word. Language has evolved and continues to evolve.

In relation to 'original intent'. It is very difficult to argue for original intent when the word, 'intent' itself is difficult to define. Does it mean the founding fathers wrote the constitution deliberately, purposefully or intentionally.

One might think that it doesn't really matter because these words mean the same thing. Well actually they don't. The more we delve into the meanings of words, the less precise they become.



Tut

Yup a 'Looking Glass World'

Judge Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. 'That seems to be done right —' he began.

'You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

'To be sure I was!' Judge Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Judge Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Judge Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Judge Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

If you don't know where you are going any road will take you there

yup a 'Looking Glass World'

Judge Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. 'That seems to be done right —' he began.

'You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.

'To be sure I was!' Judge Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right — though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now — and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Judge Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Judge Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Judge Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'


Hi Tom,

Exactly, The imprecise nature of language is what Carroll is highlighting here. It is a commentary on the variety of ways language can be learnt and the ways it can be used. It's a parody on language as much as anything else

Tut

Hello again, tom:

All your poetry aside, SOMEBODY has to decide WHAT the Constitution says - somebody in the three co-equal branches of government... I'm NOT happy with the Supreme Court doing it, but they're much BETTER equipped than the other two.

Look. The IDEA behind a lifetime appointment is that they'll be FREE from political pressure... In some instances, that happens. In others, it doesn't. But, for SURE, the president and the congress are subject to political pressures.

I'll ask again, do you want to risk your gun rights to the political whims of the day.. I don't think you do. I surly don't.

excon

I'll ask again, do you want to risk your gun rights to the political whims of the day.. I don't think you do. I surly don't.


All it takes is some judge using a 21st century definition of what a 'militia' is to do that . I'll take my chances on the popular will . At least that's democratic .

All it took was a couple judges deciding that a Texas law was wrong to set off a legal genocide of 50 million babies.

All it took was 5 judges to decide that it was perfectly OK to confiscate people's property and hand it over to developers who wanted to build condo's..

All it took was a few judges to say that a free black man was not free anymore. All that did was set off a civil war.

All it took was a few judges to decide that a farmer couldn't grow food on his own land for his own consumption without paying taxes on it as if he had sold it.

I'm not saying we don't need judges . I'm saying their power has grow far beyond what was intended where now they have become a branch with superior powers over the rest of the government . Newt is right on this one . I may not subscribe to some of his over the top rhetoric as to remedies.. But he isn't that far off.

Hi Tom,

Exactly, The imprecise nature of language is what Carroll is highlighting here. It is a commentary on the variety of ways language can be learnt and the ways it can be used. It's a parody on language as much as anything else

Tut

If the Constitution is not to be interpreted in the language and intent at the time it was created then the document is meaningless. Either way ;it is way too much power for an unelected ,lifetime appointed black robed oligarch to decide.

If the Constitution is not to be interpreted in the language and intent at the time it was created then the document is meaningless. Either way ;it is way too much power for an unelected ,lifetime appointed black robed oligarch to decide.

Hi Tom Can you intrept the Magna Carta in the language of the time and put it in today's circumstance. Much of it is meaningless today and no doubt those who framed the Constitution though so at that time. Today your Constitution must be intrepreted for the circumstances of today, otherwise you are contravening it every day, To argue that a 21st Century person must intrepret it according to eighteenth century meaning and customs goes beyond reason.

Anyway I agree with you the supreme court justices have become kings by any other meaning

Hello again, tom:

Let me see. Under your scenario, your gun rights would be safe under a Republican.. But, when a Democrat is elected - down goes gun rights.. But, don't throw 'em away, because you're going to elect a Republican the next time... Unless you get raided by a Democrat lead BATF first.

These days the cops can't torture confessions out of suspects.. But, under a Republican, I'm SURE that'll be cool.. But, after we torture and convict 1,000's, we elect a Democrat who says that we can't torture anymore and lets them all out. Then he prosecutes the torturers. When the torturers are in jail, and we elect a Republican, they'll get out, and the other guys will be prosecuted... and so on, and so on...

And, it'll be WORSE than that, too.

excon

If the Constitution is not to be interpreted in the language and intent at the time it was created then the document is meaningless. Either way ;it is way too much power for an unelected ,lifetime appointed black robed oligarch to decide.



Ah, if you are talking LANGUAGE and INTENT then I would see this is two different issues.

I don't want to be a party pooper but I would see, 'original intent' as a non-starter. I will go along with the claim that one author can have an original intent but I don't see how a large number delegates involved in a drafting can have an original intent. I would say the intent would be a compromise in most cases, There is no original intent in a compromise.

Secondly, I don't think judges are interested in how legislation comes about. It wouldn't really matter if the office lady prompted the delegates with a possible solution. All that matters is that you have a constitution or final product.

Which brings me to my third point. I think it would be more profitable to focus on the language aspect rather than intent. Yes, language has evolved and will continue to evolve. At the moment there is nothing we can do about that. However, it is possible to argue that while a word or phrase means something different today in some cases we can be very confident we know the historical significance of a word. While I think this pursuit would be more fruitful. However, I agree with Clete, in that this poses a problem of contravention.

I also agree on your comment about judges.

Tut

I don't think judges are interested in how legislation comes about. It wouldn't really matter if the office lady prompted the delegates with a possible solution. All that matters is that you have a constitution or final product.

But that my friend is exactly the problem . We don't have an uninterested and impartial judiciary here. We have justices who are selected over their degree of empathy and (although it is denied ) their political leaning . It makes for a bad brew if they are the"final" arbiters in a supposedly intentionally divided government with equal branches .
They are not robots ;they bring the same human weaknesses into the office that everyone else has. They have not locked up wisdom and virtue. With lifetime appointments many of them are feeble physically and mentally . Many have been chosen to serve ;not because of a demonstrated understanding of the law ,but as patronage appointments .
And it is often reflected in their decisions.
Add to that ,the FACT that beyond their decisions ,they have frequently imposed solutions . That makes them more than judges but defacto totalitarian executives and legislators . I find NO evidence that the founders intended them to have such power ;and it's high time their wings were clipped .

But that my friend is exactly the problem . We don't have an uninterested and impartial judiciary here. We have justices who are selected over their degree of empathy and (although it is denied ) their political leaning . It makes for a bad brew if they are the"final" arbiters in a supposedly intentionally divided governement with equal branches .
They are not robots ;they bring the same human weaknesses into the office that everyone else has. They have not locked up wisdom and virtue. With lifetime appointments many of them are feeble physically and mentally . Many have been chosen to serve ;not because of a demonstrated understanding of the law ,but as patronage appointments .
And it is often reflected in their decisions.
Add to that ,the FACT that beyond their decisions ,they have frequently imposed solutions . That makes them more than judges but defacto totalitarian executives and legislators . I find NO evidence that the founders intended them to have such power ;and it's high time their wings were clipped .


Hi Tom,

As as far as your above comments are concerned all I can say from my point of view is that you are preaching to the converted. I know the founding fathers didn't intend things should turn out this way but they have. We live in an imperfect word. What is the answer? I don't really know.

The way things are at the moment someone has to make a call. I know you will be unhappy with this but perhaps you could draw your SCOTUS judges from an international pool of judges who have served on high courts in their countries and are knowledgeable or have qualifications in the area of constitutional law. In other words, merit based selection. Tenure would be limited, but numeration would be high.

Other than that I have no other ideas.

Tut

from an international pool of judges ?? No way!

Here's the deal. If the only people you can count on is an unelected judicial oligarchy and a permanent bureaucratic civil service force then democracy (or Republicanism ) is a failed experiment . We might just as well go back to a system of enlightened monarchs and their princes.


I know the founding fathers didn't intend things should turn out this way but they have.
This is my argument... They may or may not have forseen these days . What they did know is that things change and they therefore gave us a method to change the Constitution. It is a democratic way. It does not depend on anything else than what we think the power of the government should be ;and what our rights are.
If today we think that any of the amendments have not stood the test of time then we have means to change them that do NOT rely on the sole disgression of the wisdom of the only unelected branch. That includes an update to take into account the evolution of language . For that matter there is a provision to scrap the whole thing and start over.
I can state from my reading of history that the most contentious issues in our nation have been inflamed more often than not by the judiciary .

???? no way! Hello again, tom:

But, you want Boehner or Gingrich to do it - maybe even Obama?? They're BETTER?? Dude!

excon

They are elected . I can't help it if you don't trust the electoral process. I know if they blow it they can be removed . I trust them more than Anthony Kennedy's shifting positions.

They are elected . Hello again, tom:

In other words, you're willing to put your rights up for a vote. I'm not.

excon

PS> Can you imagine a Republican debate AFTER your policy is adopted? The first candidate say's if suspects don't confess after 1 hour, he'll beat it out of them.. The next one says, he'll do it in 45 minutes... The next will bid lower still..

The last guy, since he can get rid of our rights to due process, say's he'll just have the cops hold court on the street.

excon

???? no way!

Here's the deal. If the only people you can count on is an unelected judicial oligarchy and a permanent bureaucratic civil service force then democracy (or Republicanism ) is a failed experiment . We might just as well go back to a system of enlightened monarchs and their princes.




Somehow I knew you were going to say that.




This is my argument... They may or may not have forseen these days . What they did know is that things change and they therefore gave us a method to change the Constitution. It is a democratic way. It does not depend on anything else than what we think the power of the government should be ;and what our rights are.
If today we think that any of the amendments have not stood the test of time then we have means to change them that do NOT rely on the sole disgression of the wisdom of the only unelected branch. That includes an update to take into account the evolution of language . For that matter there is a provision to scrap the whole thing and start over.
I can state from my reading of history that the most contentious issues in our nation have been inflamed more often than not by the judiciary .


I guess that happens when you put all of your eggs in a ballot box, so to speak. I know I am not being very helpful but there are certain limitations to what voting can achieve. Sometime voting doesn't provide a solution but will exacerbate the problem.

Tut

Hello again, tom:

In other words, you're willing to put your rights up for a vote. I'm not.

excon



excon

Where do you think the amendments came from in the 1st place? Hamilton argued they were not needed but the rest of the founders decided that it was best that the legislature vote on what the Bill of Rights would be ;as well as EVERY subsequent amendment.

Where do you think the amendments came from in the 1st place? Hello again, tom:

They were passed like any other amendment got passed. If you want to take my guns, you're going to need to REPEAL the 2nd Amendment like you repealed prohibition. I'm NOT going to let Obama or Nancy Pelosi decide if I can own a gun.

excon

Or any judge who thinks your gun rights mean that the individual states can form a National Guard. If your elected officials decide that ;you have the remedy of going to court. If the judge decides that and imposes the remedy that guns should be confiscated what would you do ? Where is the remedy when that judge imposes that ?

or any judge who thinks your gun rights mean that the individual states can form a National Guard.Hello tom:

If you want to criticize the process, at least tell the truth about the process. There's 39 judges who'll consider it. That's the trial judge, the 29 judges in the 9th Circuit Appellate Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Ninth_Circu it), and the 9 Supreme Court Justices.. That's quite a bit different than your characterization of "any" judge.

These are JUDGES who have appointments for LIFE and are NOT subject to political whim and fancy... YOU, on the other hand, want to hand over Constitutional authority to congress or the president, who are ABSOLUTELY subject to political whim.

You think it's BETTER to give politicians that power instead of judges.. I can't imagine HOW you think that will PRESERVE ANY RIGHTS - and I mean ANY. Of course, the only one you care about is the 2nd.. Maybe you HATE the others so much you're willing to sacrifice the one you do like.

You certainly have to know that the Gingrich proposition will END the Bill of Rights - ALL of 'em!

excon

You are the one who brought up the 2nd. Me , I say there was a single judge or a handful of them in SCOTUS that decided a Texas law was unconstitutional ,and imposed a national remedy, that led to the genocide of 50 million + babies that continues today .

You certainly have to know that the Gingrich proposition will END the Bill of Rights - ALL of 'em!


As far as I can tell ,every suggestion by Newt is a Constitutional remedy to rogue judges and their decisions. Tell me the one that isn't .

By the way ex, I watched that debate and when Ron Paul spoke I could have sworn it was you. Are you really Ron Paul?

BTW Watch Iowa . The Ronulans are going to be bused in from out of state and infiltrate the caucuses... just like the Obots did in all the 2008 caucus states (at least according to the claim by the Clintoon campaign) .

every suggestion by Newt is a Constitutional remedy to rogue judges and their decisions. Tell me the one that isn't .Hello again, Steve:

From YOUR viewpoint, Citizens United... Why?? Because you AGREE with it... From mine, it was rogue judges at their finest...

Let me ask you this.. If Obama DID what Newt says he can do, and he decides to gather up your guns, because he doesn't like what some "rogue" judge did, are you going to lay back, or are you going to be screaming about your Constitutional rights?

You don't have to answer. What is it about this that is SOOOOO hard to get? YOU too have an investment in the Bill of Rights.

excon

I have long asseted that judges have way too much power. I don't care who the President we are talking about . The President is accountable to the people and to Congress ;and to the courts . The courts are accountable to no one. Therein lies the real threat to liberty.

Hello again, Steve:

You mean tom, 3rd place guy.

Therein lies the real threat to liberty.Hello again, tom:

I cannot disagree more forcefully. What you advocate will DESTROY the Bill of Rights. You haven't denied it. In fact, it looks like that's your goal.

THAT is the REAL threat to liberty.

excon

You mean tom, 3rd place guy.Hello Steve:

I DO?? You guys look too much alike.

Yes, I'm Ron Paul.

excon

Yes, I'm Ron Paul.

excon

I thought so.

Hello again, tom:

I cannot disagree more forcefully. What you advocate will DESTROY the Bill of Rights. You haven't denied it. In fact, it looks like that's your goal.

THAT is the REAL threat to liberty.

excon

Nonsense. The Bill of rights, if anything ,get watered down by judicial decisions . Let me wear your shoes for a minute. The Courts consistently confirmed the Patriot Act and did not overturn any of it despite the claim you make of it's eroding of your 4th amendment rights . So which branch from your view was the greater threat ? Congress can change majorities and scrap whole legislations with a vote. The Courts lock them in stone ,or reject them ,regardless of the will of the people .

I'll say it again. The Bill of Rights came about only because of the amendment process... which meant they were voted on by the elected representatives of the people .They did not happpen because of some judges decree. And that's the way it is.

I still ask .Which one of Newt's suggestions are unconstitutional... answer... none.. We just have had very few Presidents willing to exercise their constitutional checks over the courts .

Which one of Newt's suggestions are unconstitutional ... answer ...none .. We just have had very few Presidents willing to exercise their constitutional checks over the courts .Hello again, tom:

You forced me to read the Constitution again. Boy, that's a cool read.. But, I'm having trouble finding the part that says the president has a constitutional check over the courts..

I'm sure you can direct me.

excon

1. Tell me where in the Constitution does it say that the President has to enforce Court decisions . As an example ;Lincoln absolutely refused to enforce the provisions of the Dred Scott decision.
Here is what he said about the case:

[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

Example 2 Roosevelt decided to have a tribunal for German saboteures .
He said this :

They will be tried in a military court, they will be executed, it should happen within three weeks, and tell the Supreme Court if they issue a writ of habeas corpus, I will not honor it, and therefore they should not issue it. I am the commander in chief in wartime. They aren't.

So there are 2 distinct examples where the President using inherent Article 2 powers as chief law enforcement officer and Commander in Chief disregarded the rulings of the court .

2. I am puzzled . You don't get that the court is but a coequal branch with the executive and legislature and that if the executive and legislature teamed up that they have remedies against the imperial judiciary?

Ok here is another example . John Adams packed the court full of Federalist judges before he surrendered the Presidency to Jefferson... When Jefferson came in he couldn't overturn the appointments ;so he abolished the judicial seats they were appointed to. Again... perfectly constitutional.

With Congress he can begin impeachments of individual judges ,and remove whole districts if they choose to do so.(Article III, section 2, clause 2 ) Only the Supreme Court is constitutionally mandated..

Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That means legislation can provide that the federal courts would have no jurisdiction, for example, to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Congress has the authority to subpoena judges to explain their decisions . Congress can defund any court it choses except SCOTUS .
That's just a start the top of my head. So yes ;the elected bodies through their checks and balances can limit the power of the judiciary if they choose to do so.

Tell me where in the Constitution does it say that the President has to enforce Court decisions???

Congress has the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. That means legislation can provide that the federal courts would have no jurisdiction, for example, to hear cases challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Congress has the authority to subpoena judges to explain their decisions . Congress can defund any court it choses except SCOTUS .Hello again, tom:

It's SPIN except for the last sentence.

For a moment, though, let's assume congress DID abolish all other courts EXCEPT the Supreme Court. Article 3, Section 2, speaking of the power of the court, says "The judicial power shall extend to ALL cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...."

If the Supreme Court was the only one left, it would STILL be constitutionally bound to hear the same cases a lower court would, IF there WERE a lower court. Constitutionally, congress can't limit their agenda. Plus, the Constitution doesn't give congress ANY power to subpoena judges. Where does it say that?? You made that up..

Specifically, congress, pursuant to Article 3, Section 1, speaking of the inferior courts, "...MAY from time to time ordain and establish." It say's NOTHING about their ability to interfere or subpoena.. It MAY establish, and it MAY DIS-establish. That's it. Everything else, is made up.

So, even if there were ONLY the Supreme Court, congress could NOT prevent it from hearing cases that involve the laws of the land, and that would INCLUDE DOMA.

Finally, your first question... It doesn't SAY the president has to enforce court decisions.. It only ESTABLISHES the court. But, I find it incredulous to the max to believe the authors of Constitution set up a CO-EQUAL branch of government that nobody had to obey.

You're way off base in your constitutional law.

excon

Constitutionally, congress can't limit their agenda. Plus, the Constitution doesn't give congress ANY power to subpoena judges. Where does it say that?? You made that up..


I disagree . The Senate can call all the appointees it confirms through advice and consent . Do you think Judges are somehow members of some super branch above all accounting ? Now there is a good case that could be argued that individual Associate Justices of SCOTUS couldn't be ; or that if it happened could create a constitutional crisis... but that protection certainly ends with the lower courts .
Whether that would be a good political move is a different question . The subpoena power is an inherent power of Congress ;part of the legitimate function of their work and to claim judges are immune creates a superior unequal branch .

I am tired of this image of judges as some kind of ritualistic secular priesthood who's decrees are beyond question . Almost all of them are political patronage appointees who climbed up the ranks from slip and fall status . A good share of them are lazy incompetent and autocratic who often rarely see the inside pages of a briefing book;and even less often do their own independent research. . I don't understand why you would put such faith in them. Most of them are rubber stamps of the local prosecutor . For this effort they are granted greater job security than a tenued teacher ? Give me a break!

As to the Executive's power to ignore court decisions ;that is established by history and confirming judicial precedence . The only way the judges could force the executive to comply would be through the cooperation of Congress and the impeachment process .

Now Newt will not get anywhere with this stand ;but he has brought up a very important issue that the nation should address. If we want and are comfortable with an imperial judiciary then the Constitution should be amended to grant them this power.
The country lasted 20 years before Chief Justice Marshall imposed this system on us and survived .It would've done just as well without Marbury v Madison and probably a lot better .

The subpoena power is an inherent power of Congress ;part of the legitimate function of their work and to claim judges are immune creates a superior unequal branch .

I don't understand why you would put such faith in them.Hello again, tom:

Couple things.. The courts have subpoena power too. Would you like to see a pissing match between the courts and congress? They're a CO-EQUAL branch. I don't think they'll lay down for congress. I surly wouldn't.

Secondarily, I DON'T put my faith in judges, but if the alternative is to put my faith in politicians, I'll stick with judges.

excon

I don't think it's either or . The best is to have the least necessary to protect liberty and preserve civil society.

Yes Tom that equals vigilantes roaming the streets

The Courts lock em in stone ,or reject them ,regardless of the will of the people ..

An important distinction:

The Court acts according to law, and not according to the will 0f the people. Like the Bill of Rights, that is a fundamental concept to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Athos ;that's the theory . But what happens when the Courts impose their will ? Where is the remedy ? Throughout this discussion I have given examples where the court decisions do not protect liberty .

Tomder---

Impeachment is the remedy.

Athos ;that's the theory . But what happens when the Courts impose their will ? Where is the remedy ? Throughout this discussion I have given examples where the court decisions do not protect liberty .

Hi Tom,

Perhaps you should give this one away you are just chasing your tail.

There isn't a non-political solution.


Tut

If the electorate is well informed and does their job with due diligence, we don't have to worry about some rascals getting together and packing the courts with puppets to do their bidding.

Just for the record it was the right wing judges that made the claim that corporations are people two, and the congress can still change the law, and make it illegal to have a super pact, or put limits on what ANYONE can give to candidates. Maybe not with the ninnies you have now, but nothing is stopping us from getting some real candidates for the people who will outlaw lobbyist, or impeach judges who hear cases where the wife works for the side that's bring a case before it.

The process is there, so are checks and balances, and procedures, and remedies to one branch craping on another. Now whether they use them or not is another matter, but we all can prod them with a sharp stick to get what we want.

We can interpret the law any way we want if we started to vote seriously, and start ignoring the far right pandering about making a weaker government. That's when the judges rule, when legislature, and executive branches are weak.

So don't get thrown off by Newts pandering, he is trying to get elected, and I don't see that happening, because he is a crazy old coot who thinks he is smart. I don't, and there are still some smart people in America who dismiss him for the power grabbing nut he is.

We better watch who we vote for this time folks, because it is about defending our rights, and for that we have to have a strong effective congress, and a president to match to keep the balance right as the fore fathers intended. Balance was their intent. Ruled by US, the voters. Anything less is unacceptable.

Ruled by US, the voters. Anything less is unacceptable.

Lovely aspiration Tal but the reality is something else. The voters get to exercise an opinion only every so often and their opinions waver like a flag blowing in the wind. There is no system which says you can't do something that wasn't put before the electorate as policy. So the voters don't rule anything but the ballot box. They don't rule the appointments to the Supreme Court and all they can do is send a message to Senators and the President each other two years. etc. Nothing says they have to head the message

Hi Tom,

Perhaps you should give this one away you are just chasing your tail.

There isn't a non-political solution.


Tut

Since the decisions made are usually political instead of based on the Constitution ,and judicial appointments are almost always political ,I have no problem with political remedies . Was Lincoln's defying of the SCOTUS ridiculous decision in the Dred Scott case wrong ? History supports his call.

I have no problem with political remedies . Hello again, tom:

We've gone back and forth.. Please just answer one question.. IF the system you propose is implemented, do you think the Bill of Rights will survive?

Ok, one more question. Which right winger would VOTE to supply a criminal defendant with an attorney at TAXPAYERS expense??

excon

Ok, one more question. Which right winger would VOTE to supply a criminal defendant with an attorney at TAXPAYERS expense???

I'm guessing all of them.

I'm guessing all of them.Hello again, Steve:

Would you pass that doobie over here?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Would you pass that doobie over here?

excon

Why would right wingers object to the 6th amendment?

On another note...

rbY9ePebWB8

Why would right wingers object to the 6th amendment?Hello again, Steve:

You got me.

Let me rephrase the question.. Let's say that a black guy raped a 3 year old white girl, and burned up her mother. The cops THINK he has an accomplice who is about to rape another 3 year old, and the cops want to find out about it.

But, the guy doesn't want to talk. He wants a lawyer.

Under THIS scenario, which right winger would vote to give THIS guy a lawyer at taxpayers expense? And, DON'T take a hit before you answer.

excon

Steve's response applies in that scenario as well .
Something about that word "shall"
That hasn't changed meaning over the years

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to ... the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

Now ;I think what you are talking about is Miranda . Miranda was an expansion of the 6th Amendment by a judicial interpretation out of whole cloth . It should've been done through a legislative act or another amendment and not by judges deciding it and creating the remedy from the bench.

I'd be more interested in knowing which right winger would refuse the accused counsel, regardless of the crime or his race. Why would we cut off our nose to spite our face? I'd hate to be accused of a crime and be denied my rights as an American, wouldn't you?

Something about that word "shall"
that hasn't changed meaning over the years

Now ;I think what you are talking about is Miranda . Miranda was an expansion of the 6th Amendment . It should've been done through a legislative act or another amendment and not by judges deciding it and creating the remedy from the bench.Hello again, tom: You too, Steve:

Yet, the word "shall" has been in the 6th Amendment from the get go. If right wingers were so constitutionally obligated to adhere to the word "shall", why didn't they for the first 150 years of our existence? Where's the law they passed making it so? How many people went to jail because the word "shall", wasn't enforced?

Perhaps IF they did, the Supreme Court wouldn't have HAD to. But, they didn't, and the Supreme Court did. And, even then, the right wingers on the court voted against it 4 to 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona).

So, if right wingers have a chance to REVERSE it today, and under the Gingrich proposal they can, in my view they absolutely WOULD...

Now, you're trying to tell me that not only WOULDN'T they REVERSE it, they'd vote to AFFIRM it.

Or maybe you're NOT telling me that. I can't tell. In one post you say of course, a defendant should be supplied with a lawyer - the Constitution says so... Then above, it looks like you're saying that Miranda rights AREN'T really rights. Therefore, you WOULDN'T supply the defendant with a lawyer...

I'm confused. Please, please pass that joint my way. It's got be a lot better than the stuff I got.

excon

Then above, it looks like you're saying that Miranda rights AREN'T really rights. Therefore, you WOULDN'T supply the defendant with a lawyer...


That isn't what I said at all .The 6th is violated only if a defendant is refused representation . Miranda expands the 6th to say that law enforcement must tell them they have the right to representation. That is a new right that wasn't in the 6th .

Again ;the issue is that the courts imposed a solution that is legislative perusal . If the courts grab the power to create governing rules from the executive or legislative branches then they are exceeding their constitutional mandate.. period.

We have power over the elected branches; they work for us. If we want the government to pass a particular law, we can urge the elected branches to vote for it. If we don't like a Representative ,Senator or a President, we can vote him out and replace him with someone else who will respond better to our wishes.
We have no such power over judges . The Constitutution does not grant the Court the power to rule via Stare Decisis. And above all it does not grant the Courts legislative authority. The only reason they've gotten away with it this long is so few elected leaders have challeged the premise.

That isn't what I said at all .The 6th is violated only if a defendant is refused representation . Miranda expands the 6th to say that law enforcement must tell them they have the right to representation. That is a new right that wasn't in the 6th .

That's what those right-wingers said at the time (two of which were nominated by Democrats Kennedy and Truman by the way).

The only reason they've gotten away with it this long is so few elected leaders have challeged the premise.

Then it seems logical to conclude we make sure our elected official work for us and give us what we want, under the law of course.

So why hasn't Clarence Thomas recused himself in what APPEARS to be a conflict of interest?

So why hasn't Clarence Thomas recused himself in what APPEARS to be a conflict of interest?

Unlike Kagan, Thomas did not personally participate as counsel regarding Obamacare, and his wife is not on the court.

She isn't on the court but she is in his bed, and works for the ones arguing the case.

Recusal is one of those rules judges get to pick to comply with... I rest my case.

Since the decisions made are ususally political instead of based on the Constitution ,and judicial appointments are almost always political ,I have no problem with political remedies . Was Lincoln's defying of the SCOTUS rediculous decision in the Dred Scott case wrong ? History supports his call.



Hi Tom,

Well how about this...

Judges could be elected by the people for a limited term. Say 4 years or whatever you think is appropriate under your system.

Campaigning for elections by judges has strict provisions. Limited to such things as age, schooling, i.e. where they went to high school and where they obtained their legal qualifications. Other qualifications and relevant work experience making them suitable for the job.

Basically I am suggesting a very boring and limited 'political' campaign by judges. Speculation by the judges themselves and the media in relation such things as," believes in a original intent interpretation of the constitution", or "believes the constitution is a living entity", is strictly forbidden for the duration. You get to vote for SCOTUS judges only knowing their qualifications and work experiences. The amount of money spent on advertising is strictly limited and strictly policed. No donations and the like.


Don't get too upset it is only a suggestion.

Tut

Hi Tom,

Well how about this.....

Judges could be elected by the people for a limited term. Say 4 years or whatever you think is appropriate under your system.

Campaigning for elections by judges has strict provisions. Limited to such things as age, schooling, i.e. where they went to high school and where they obtained their legal qualifications. Other qualifications and relevant work experience making them suitable for the job.

Basically I am suggesting a very boring and limited 'political' campaign by judges. Speculation by the judges themselves and the media in relation such things as," believes in a original intent interpretation of the constitution", or "believes the constitution is a living entity", is strictly forbidden for the duration. You get to vote for SCOTUS judges only knowing their qualifications and work experiences. The amount of money spent on advertising is strictly limited and strictly policed. No donations and the like.


Don't get too upset it is only a suggestion.

Tut

A bit radical Tut and they surely don't need another excuse for an election over there. They do need to remove the political element from the appointments though, whether that is done with fixed terms, say 20 years or appointment by election by members of congress rather than the President nominating them. It seems to me the whole process is a bit like a raffle

Not radical at all... that is the way most local state and local judges are selected and it seems to work.

I'd be happy with term limits .

Not radical at all..... that is the way most local state and local judges are selected and it seems to work.

I'd be happy with term limits .

Hi Tom,


Well there you go the answer was in your own backyard all the time.

I just found this quite by accident.

Sca.cobbcountyga.gov/meet_judges.htm


From the information these judges have provided can you tell which party they favour?


Tut

You may have noticed I did not bring up objections to how states and townships select judges . That system is quite accountable ;and as you point out ,not subject to the objections that people on this discussion brought up about judges needing to be above the political process.

I was critiquing the Federal system only. Quite frankly ;states and locals are free to pick any process they are comfortable with so long as it complies with Constitutional laws and rights . The judges in my town I know by name and they have my full trust and support.

Hello again Tut:

That'll never work. From MY perspective, I'd want to KNOW how a judge felt about capital punishment before I voted for him. I don't want to GUESS.

In any case, how is that NOT putting our rights up for a vote?

excon

Hi Tom,

Well how about this.....

Judges could be elected by the people for a limited term. Say 4 years or whatever you think is appropriate under your system.

We elect our judges in Texas and the detractors say that makes it too political. Hogwash, I say it makes therm accountable.

Hello again Tut:

That'll never work. From MY perspective, I'd wanna KNOW how a judge felt about capital punishment before I voted for him. I don't wanna GUESS.


True, but under the current system of appointment you have no say anyway. Voting in this situation is only a slightly better option.





In any case, how is that NOT putting our rights up for a vote??

excon

As it stands they are up for decree regardless of the political persuasion of SCOTUS . For example, 'traditional intent' interpretation is a political position. 'Living breathing' interpretation is also political. Regardless of the emphasis it will always be a political decision handed down by SCOTUS.

Tut

We elect our judges in Texas and the detractors say that makes it too political. Hogwash, I say it makes therm accountable.


Hi Speech,

Yes, it is political and one needs to be careful not to turn the judicial system into a political football. That's way I suggested using strong guidelines for the candidates. No politics form anyone allowed for a period before and after. That is, until the count is finalized. Especially no comment from the media.

Tut

but under the current system of appointment you have no say anyway

Yup... many of them are stealth even the ones like Kagan and Sotomayor who did their best to obfuscate during confirmation hearings .
Look at Souter appointed by GHW Bush. He never would've been appointed if he didn't hide his politics. Stevens appointed by Ford has trended liberal also.

Hello again,

Rick Santorum says that contraception isn't good for the country, but if he's president, he won't do anything about it.

Do you believe him?

excon

What could he possibly do about it ? He wouldn't be Obama with infinite powers of executive orders bypassing the will of the Legislative branch.

What could he possibly do about it ?Hello again, tom:

Yeah, that's what I thought about your right wing Governor of Florida.. But, WITH a majority in the Senate and the House (which are definite possibilities), I think he could swing it.

More importantly, I think he'd TRY.

excon

I don't believe he would. As a conservative I'm pretty sure he'd take a States power position . I've heard him make that case many times. I've yet to hear him make a case that it is a federal issue.

I don't believe he would. As a conservative I'm pretty sure he'd take a States power position . Hello again, tom:

I do NOT believe that he's a small government conservative. He's certainly for a FEDERAL law against gay marriage. He'd tell the states that passed it to go suck... What makes you think he'd be different about birth control?

excon

LOL, we already know these conservatives only want rules for poor people, but not rich people. That's why they want a small government, but one big enough to tell you what to do in your own home, and with who, and how. But lets corporations do as they please.

Newt was correct with the term right wing social engineering. But corporate sodomy is just fine.

Funny tal since Margaret Sanger the founder of planned Parenthood was an advocate of aborting the poor and black. I'd say it's progressives who in the name of helping the poor keep them in sevitude .

Ex ;the reason that there will ultimately be a national law about marriage is because of the 'full faith and credit' clause of the Constitution which requires states to honor the contracts made in other states.

Rick Santorum says that contraception isn't good for the country, but if he's president, he won't do anything about it.

Do you believe him??

Yes. What I don't believe is why ABC was so preoccupied with contraception when the economy is in the tank, Iran is enriching uranium at an underground facility and posturing in the gulf, we're paying 9 times the price of jet fuel to buy biofuel, gas prices are about to spike, the administration is squirming its way around gun running, making illegal recess appointments and wasting taxpayer billions of social engineering of its own. Who gives a damn about contraception?

Who gives a damn about contraception?Hello Steve:

Rick Santorum, that's who. HE brought it up FIRST. Doncha think it's a viable line of questioning?

excon

It's a strawman. Santorum specifically referenced a SCOTUS decision that overturned a STATE law(Griswold v. Connecticut ). He was clearly making a States power case.
ABC's Clintonista George Stephanopoulos tried to pidgeon hole Romney with that line of questioning and he correctly pointed out that there was zero states that are trying to outlaw contraception. Romney correctly panned the question as silly.. and it is .

Stephanopoulos raised the issue in the debate with Mitt Romney and gave Santorum credit for not recommending states ban contraception. The candidates said it wasn't an issue, Georgie is the one who pressed it, and pressed it and pressed it.


ROMNEY: Should this be done in the case -- this case to allow states to ban contraception? No. States don’t want to ban contraception. So why would we try and put it in the Constitution?

With regards to gay marriage, I’ve told you, that’s when I would amend the Constitution. Contraception, it’s working just fine, just leave it alone.

NO, I don't think it was a viable line of questioning, I think it was an attempt to make the candidates look foolish. It didn't work.

Anyone who is concerned about this should not be concerned about what Santorum would do except perhaps the question of who he would appoint as judges. As we all know ,judicial fiat is the preferred method of social change for progressives.

As we all know ,judicial fiat is the prefered method of social change for progressives.Hello again, tom:

Knowing that that's exactly what President Santorum will do, you STILL have the balls to diss Democrats for doing it. I didn't think you were THAT one way.

excon

Its okay for conservatives to engineer social change through the judiciary, but not progressives??

So how are you liking "corporations are people too"?

Tal ,that's the 1st amendment for you .I know you guys don't like it so much unless you can limit the free exercise clause.

No Ex ,Santorum would appoint judges who are originalists . He would not appoint judges who decide what rights are based on the penumbras of the hidden words in the Constitution.

No Ex ,Santorum would appoint judges who are originalists . Hello again, tom:

And, they would set out right what's wrong by judicial FIAT.

excon

What they wouldn't do is divine rights out of whole cloth ;and then overturn the laws of the states that the people's representatives made , based on these rights that the judges found in the hidden meaning of the words of the Constitution .

Sorry Tom, I forget its okay if the right does it, but no one else. Forgive me please!!

Just like a mandate is a great idea when repubs want it, but when Obama wants it, its crap. Like Sotomayer excusing herself from the decision to come because she argued the case as an GC, but Thomas can't even though his wife is employed by the other side of the case. What a farce. Another righty snow job, just like the primaries. Just like Santorums BLAH people.

I think you mean Kagan .

I don't make a big deal about recusals because there are no firm rules on them. But here is one thought. Kagan orgasmically whoooped for joy when Obamacare was passed . As solicitor General she was intimately involved in the process of getting it passed.
She was involved at a supervisory level with strategizing to defend this law. One could argue that it is a conflict of interest for her to now be making judicial decisions on laws she was involved in creating .

Ginnie Thomas on the other hand is a lobbyist for a tea party affiliated group. I don't see any comparable conflict of interest for Justice Thomas. Now if Ginnie Thomas was involved in her work with filing an amicus brief related to the case then of course Justice Thomas should recuse himself . But that is not the case.

The truth of the matter is that the left knows there is probably a legitimate reason for Kagan to recuse herself ;so they are making a bogus claim about Thomas to try and even the score.

My best guess is that Obamacare will be declared constitutional even though the mandate is clearly unconstitutional.
As ususal the left's claim of expansive powers of the Federal government can be found in their broad interpretation of the commerce clause to include all manners of human activity ;and the 'necessary and proper 'clause and the power of Congress to tax endlessly for any justification it finds in the 'best interest ' of the nation.
The die was cast in this case in the recent circuit court opinion by Judge Laurence Silberman.

Silberman concluded that courts should show great deference to legislation passed by Congress, so long as such laws are designed to address “national problems" that the courts should “presume” that when Congress acts, it does so constitutionally.

It is nonsense of course ;but , he is held in high esteem in conservative circles and I suspect some of the conservatives on SCOTUS will buy his argument. I don't think one or two recusals will change that.

Well what do you know a judge who doesn't want to rewrite the constitution

I just love the comments of Peter Wreith, perhaps the most right wing politician in Australian history. The Australian people don't want to have something vague put in the Constitution, they want the Parliament to make the decisions and the courts to throw it out, they don't want something wishy washy put there forever. The Australian Constitution has only been altered nine times.

Silberman concluded that courts should show great deference to legislation passed by Congress, so long as such laws are designed to address “national problems" that the courts should “presume” that when Congress acts, it does so constitutionally.

It is nonsense of course ;but , he is held in high esteem in conservative circles and I suspect some of the conservatives on SCOTUS will buy his argument. I don't think one or two recusals will change that.


Hi Tom,

I think this is a sign of the times. Very few people will 'buy' original intent because it is nearly always impossible to determine original intent. In the vast majority or cases original intent can mean what ever you choose it to mean.

As you point out the progressives on the other hand will pick words that can be interpreted in a variety of ways and use that to claim the constitution is a flexible document.

The only other alternative I see is a claim to historical language(for the want of a better term). It is of course possible to claim with a reasonable degree of certainty that words used in the historical context of 1700 had a definable meaning. The problem is that we are not living in the 1700's. Perhaps we would be better off if we were, but we're not.


Tut

I won't quibble over the difference between historical language and intent. The fact is that there are copious amts of supporting documents to determine intent.

If you look at the language of a series of decisions by SCOTUS you will see that beginning with a case before Griswold ,and a couple after ,the justices cleverly added words in their decisions that were seen as a 'precedent' for advancing an ultimate goal that came to fruition in the 'Roe v Wade' abortion case the launched the Great American genocide. In all these cases Planned Parenthood ,an organization that makes it's living killing babies and dispensing contraception,was intimately involved .

I won't quibble over the difference between historical language and intent. The fact is that there are copious amts of supporting documents to determine intent.

If you look at the language of a series of decisions by SCOTUS you will see that beginning with a case before Griswold ,and a couple after ,the justices cleverly added words in their decisions that were seen as a 'precedent' for advancing an ultimate goal that came to fruition in the 'Roe v Wade' abortion case the launched the Great American genocide. In all these cases Planned Parenthood ,an organization that makes it's living killing babies and dispensing contraception,was intimately involved .


What you have said is not relevant to my position.This is because I didn't put forward for any position here. I was pointing out the arguments. You should have stuck to supplying the supporting documents. This was the issue at hand.

If you are suggesting that ,a few words interpreted here and a few words added there have resulted in genocide then I am in agreement with you.

Just for the record I am against abortion.

But again, abortion was not the issue. What have you got to support original intent?

Tut

The so called right to privacy was not something the people were demanding ;nor was it implied in any of the amendments except where it specifically banned the government from acting (ie the 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches .Just that wording alone is more than enough proof that the founders didn't think there was a right to privacy.)
Nor was the "people" demanding such a right. There was at best a very few people in Connecticut that objected to the laws of the state regarding contraception. It was Planned Parenthood that twice concocted court cases in conjunction with the ACLU . Their amicus in the 'Poe' case provided the ,language for the majority opinion ;and it was 1st introduced by a dissenting opionion in 'Poe v. Ullman'.
Melvin L. Wulf, a lawyer for the ACLU claims credit for first raising the idea .
He later explained his strategery:
Judges dislike breaking entirely new ground. If they are considering adopting a novel principle, they prefer to rest their decision on earlier law if they can, and to show that the present case involves merely an incremental change, not a wholesale break with the past. Constitutional litigators are forever trying to persuade courts that the result they are seeking would be just a short step from some other case whose decision rests soundly on ancient precedent.

Since the issue of sexual privacy had not been raised in any earlier case, we employed the familiar technique of argument by analogy: If there is no exact counterpart to the particular case before the Court, there are others that resemble it in a general sort of way, and the principles applied in the similar cases should also be applied — perhaps even extended a little bit — to the new case.

In other words they make it up as they go along giving the judges the cover to move the ball along to their ultimate objective of changing the constitution while pretending to uphold it.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority in the Griswold case that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.

Now you talk of clear language ? What the hell was that supposed to mean ? A penumbra is an term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot . Emanation is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay . Somehow he managed to twist the language to make it mean that there are hidden meanings in the words of the Constitution .
In concuring opinions Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a Ninth Amendment justification for the decision .Justice John Marshall Harlan II and Justice Byron White wrote that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
With this twisting of the language and the constitution ,any state ,disregarding what the people's representatives passed (so much for the phony 9th amendment justificiation) ,was forced to end any restrictions on the sale of contraceptives.

Justice Hugo Black,hit the nail on the head in his dissent.He attacked the way Douglas had turned constitutional law into semantics by replacing the language of actual rights with the phrase “right to privacy.” He wrote, “The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities".....

“I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."

It gets better... this case was used as the 'precedent' (in the same playbook as the Melvin L. Wulf strategery ) to advance the cause of the right to an abortion.
In Eisenstadt v. Baird Justice William Brennan added this new expansion .
“If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”
Moving the ball along.
From that it wasn't hard to conclude that the decision whether to bear or beget a child would include the right to snuff out the life of the baby .

I'll throw the argument back to you . You cannot find plain language in the Constitution ;the 4th ,9th ,14th whatever that justifies the taking of innocent human life under any circumstances let alone the convoluted rationale as the "right to privacy" .

Keep it simple, a judge deciding the case of his spouses boss STINKS.

Make whatever argument in any languge you want! It don't look good, and like a fix to me!

You must be holding your nose not to smell what the court is cooking! Like the fox telling the farmer, "I will guard your chickens"!

Tal ,I don't write the ethics laws. Since there doesn't seem to be anything that compels Kagan to recuse then I have no problem with Thomas sitting in on the decision.
Don't worry . For reasons already stated ,I don't see the court overturning the law that will put the final nail into the country's coffin.

Your gloom and doom at a changing world is so noted. The guys on the right running for president scare me the same way.

Lol... have you checked out the new Chief of Staff Jack Lew??

He's a bankster!! Lololol He was chief operating officer of Citigroup Alternative Investments in 2008 . That group was involved in proprietary trading, and was involved in shorting the housing market as the bubble burts!!

The President just screwed up his whole campaign message.

LOL, should be the rights kind of guy, a money man that knows the system.

Nah... the vast majority of the 1% types are northeast Democrats or Hollywierdos .

Lew is replacing William Daley who was himself a Wall Street insider(JPMorgan ).
When he went into OMB from Citi he replaced Peter Orszag;who left for a position in Citi. (the Obama revolving door)
The difference between Lew and Daley is that Daley was brought in for at least the illusion that the President was trying to straddle the middle .

This guy Lew is a lefty to the core. He used to work for "progressive populist" demagogue Senator Paul Wellstone. He should fit in well in the Obama White House... at least if he gets Michelle's seal of approval.

The so called right to privacy was not something the people were demanding ;nor was it implied in any of the amendments except where it specifically banned the government from acting (ie the 4th amendment protections against unreasonable searches .Just that wording alone is more than enough proof that the founders didn't think there was a right to privacy.)


Hi Tom,

Wouldn't this at best be totally impractical? At worst, a very bad idea?

I think there was an obvious realization that to actually specify rights in a constitution is all very well, but what you will end up doing is excluding other rights not specified. Isn't this the reason the 9th Amendment was added? You have certain specified rights, but the 9th also leaves the door open for entitlements.




He later explained his strategery:
Judges dislike breaking entirely new ground. If they are considering adopting a novel principle, they prefer to rest their decision on earlier law if they can, and to show that the present case involves merely an incremental change, not a wholesale break with the past. Constitutional litigators are forever trying to persuade courts that the result they are seeking would be just a short step from some other case whose decision rests soundly on ancient precedent.

Since the issue of sexual privacy had not been raised in any earlier case, we employed the familiar technique of argument by analogy: If there is no exact counterpart to the particular case before the Court, there are others that resemble it in a general sort of way, and the principles applied in the similar cases should also be applied — perhaps even extended a little bit — to the new case.

In other words they make it up as they go along giving the judges the cover to move the ball along to their ultimate objective of changing the constitution while pretending to uphold it.




This is always going to be a problem when common law comes into conflict with constitutional law. If you get a lawyer clever with words then constitutional law will probably win. This is regardless of the fact that a common law has been demonstrated as being a good law.
Don't really see an answer to that one.

As stated earlier I don't believe that any constitution can adequately cover all our 'rights'. To attempt to make it do so would be a very bad idea. This is why we have the prevision of entitlements as well.




Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority in the Griswold case that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections.

Now you talk of clear language ? What the hell was that supposed to mean ? A penumbra is an term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot . Emanation is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay . Somehow he managed to twist the language to make it mean that there are hidden meanings in the words of the Constitution .



To be honest I don't know. It is frustrating. Things might be different if we were doing mathematics. But we are not. We are doing language. Some words,don't have precise meanings. Meanings can change depending on the context we find them.

Tut

Give those founders a break. These are the guys that said all men are created equal, while owning slaves.

Nothing written by man is in stone, but they tried. They probably hoped the next generation of Americans could do better. So it doesn't matter what they meant in the constitution, they covered as many bases as they could, and left room for improvements.

Tal yes give them a break indeed . They craftfully put a timeline on the life of the slave trade even as many of them were slaveholders . The compromise said that Congress could consider the end of the trade in 1808 (giving the nation the time needed to form before the contentious issue tore the new Repubilic apart .)

In addition they added the much mistakenly maligned 3/5th compromise. People today who scoff at this compromise fail to appreciate that this clause significantly weakened the South's ability to use it's population to gain power in the country. Southern states fought for slaves to be counted in terms of representation. The 3/5th compromise had every five slaves counted as three individuals in terms of representation. It had NOTHING to do with a slave being less than a person as the modern history misreads the act.

I assure you ;the founders ,even the slave holders ,were ahead of their time .They foresaw an end to the trade ;and their work in the next 80 years would've made for a peaceful transition... if only SCOTUS hadn't screwed it all up with the Dredd Scott decision which rendered all the careful compromises mute.

Great spin, but totally BOGUS. The south had no intention of giving up big profits through exploitation of free labor, and wanted to spread there influence on new emerging states. Sure they compromised on paper but in reality, they were going to scrap any plan and fight to keep their power, money, and property.

The war was over states rights true enough, the right to own other humans. That's why they felt the need to secede from the country, the law be damned, they had their guns, we had a war. They lost, and we are still moving socially away from slavery. Except now its money in the hands of the few, taken off the backs of the many. That's what the election now is about.

Righties are still flying the fear flag, and think its about their rights, which of course trumps everyone else's.

The war was over states rights true enough, the right to own other humans.
Correct


The south had no intention of giving up big profits through exploitation of free labor, and wanted to spread there influence on new emerging states.

That's where you are wrong. The Missouri Compromise had settled that issue and would've been the eventual death knell of the slave trade as more free states joined the union. The Dredd Scott decision made the Missouri Compromise null and even worse ;made every citizen in the country a criminal if they helped an escaped slave. It was that act of the life time appointed oligarchs that was most responsible for the war.Eighty years of compromising (beginning with the Constitutional Convention) down the drain. In one fell swoop,compromise was found to be unconstitutional. All the hard work by the founders and subsequent members of Congress destroyed by an absolutely suicidal and constitutionally wrong decision.

Nice rant, but doesn't even come close to the reasons behind seccession or the seizing of federal property by the south. Moreover the Missouri compromise nor the Dredd Scott ruling did anything for the slaves themselves, just the legal rights of the masters, and the states right claim that they could make their own rules.

They were wrong. Just as the social engineering by republican governors is wrong. Then as now it was an over reach by conservatives to retain power, control, and MONEY, that adversely affect PEOPLE, and I would submit as evidence the business model sold as capitalism that has been subverted by those that say profits over people, that like slavery, is an unsustainable path forward.

Not against capitalism per sey, but the application, and affects on REAL live people is no better than the socialism practiced in large areas of the world today. Even worse, it's the weakening of the social safety nets by those same people that's the most disgusting and shows the intentions of the 1% to return to the good old days of socio-economic supremacy by the ruling class, on the backs of the new slave class.

It was wrong then, and even more wrong now.

So in other words you don't revere the document created by those 1%er slave holding right winged founders .
That certainly explains why the left treats it like toilet paper.

Wanting to make it mean what it says is hardly disrespectful, but its acknowledging its but a structure to build on as MORE facts become evident.

Not like the self proclaimed righties who wish to use it as a means to get what you want at the cost of others.

I think its you who wrap yourself in god and the flag who are disrespectful to us all by not making room for other ideas that are not your own. That's what the founding fathers envisioned. The growth and evolution of a society that keeps thriving to be more perfect. Not stay stuck in the ways of those who exploit for gain, at the expense of the rest of the population.

Sorry Tom, I won't be dismissed because I ain't got as much money as you, nor be pushed aside while you do your thing, and make rules to make sure I can't do mine. Nor will I worship long gone man as you do.

The founding fathers were flawed humans trying to do the right things, not gods. Nor are we now. But you do whatever you please because that's what I am going to do, no matter who ends up being the Prez, or the laws they pass.

I won't hold it against you for kissing the Romney butt. But when he takes your pension, social security, Medicare, and tells you to go back to washing dishes for a living, don't say I didn't tell you so. When he takes your job, and home unless you are his slave to his system, don't say you weren't warned.

When he leaves all his loot he got off your back to HIS grand kids, don't cry foul. But you guys will holler, and that's the insanity of the right wing. Seen it before, and this time is no different. That's how we got Bush, and if you want to wear a 3 corner hat, and whistle Dixie, fine, do it, but don't get mad if I don't join you.

I ain't crazy enough to join a group that works openly against MY best interest. So go ahead, and vote for the one percent to screw the rest of us. The conservatives are GREAT at using my rights for toilet paper.

Thanks... the idea that Romney is a conservative that I'd butt kiss is the laugh of the week .

Bottom line.. the founders set up a method to change the Constitution. You would rather have life time appointed judges do the dirty deed than through the amendment process or the elected representatives.

LOL, maybe its time to tweak many aspects of the system, you think? And if Romney wins the nomination, you mean you won't support him?

That's what he means if Romney wins the nonimation Toms going to vote Obama or sit in his lounge room whinning

That's what happened in 2008. Boy did the right get pissed, and wa-la, the Tea party gets born, and gives birth to a motley cast of characters.

What's worse, most of the present list of candidates cannot even figure out how to get on the ballots in all the states! No telling what will happen next to the republican party.

One doesn't have to "butt kiss" to support the eventual nominee. I'll support whoever it is before I'd cast a vote for Obama.

Its certainly your right to vote for a guy who made his money leveraging companies for their assets, including pensions, and hoarding it for his grand kids silver spoons. But knowing a guy who is laid off and his job sent to India, is scary and even scarier, is that could be you, but for the grace of the corporations putting profits over people.

Now I am not against capitalism, but don't tell me its just business when you take my lively hood, and promise to take my safety net too, and call me a lazy SOB!!

Just saying.

Dude, I've been unemployed thanks to people who valued money over people. Been there done that more than once. I just picked myself up and moved to the next adventure. I don't care how Romney made his money but I do know in business that's your job, to produce more than you cost. It's life. I'd much rather take my chances in a free, capitalist America than the socially engineered utopia envisioned by the moron-in-chief.

You know it's funny that so many people are sweating over the possibility of Europe imploding but want to take us down the same path. I take that back, it's not funny - it's stupid.

Hello Guys:

When Mitt Romney Came To Town. (http://www.webcasts.com/kingofbain/) Starring the devastated, the foreclosed, and the unemployed..

I'd give it a thumbs up. As a dedicated OWS'er, I couldn't agree with Newt MORE. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

excon

Dude, I've been unemployed thanks to people who valued money over people. Been there done that more than once. I just picked myself up and moved to the next adventure. I don't care how Romney made his money but I do know in business that's your job, to produce more than you cost. It's life. I'd much rather take my chances in a free, capitalist America than the socially engineered utopia envisioned by the moron-in-chief.

You know it's funny that so many people are sweating over the possibility of Europe imploding but want to take us down the same path. I take that back, it's not funny - it's stupid.

That's what the Mittster is selling, but look at the policies of the EU for yourself, and then look at Mitts rhetoric. There is no difference except the right blames it on the left. Haven't you even read the 59 page tax policy he touts? I go with free capitolism, but NOT total extraction. And while you think it's a matter of going to the next adventure, EXTRACTIONISM, severely will limit your options, and opportunities.

But then changing the business model, or any mention of changing anything triggers conservative right wing push back. But Mitt ain't no conservative, he is a businessss man. You will find that out after the primaries are over, and he stops throw you guys the red meat rhetoric you so crave.

I'm not expecting much red meat from Mitt, but a little is a whole lot more than we're getting from the current occupant. Oh, and I'm ready to change the business model. Stop spending what we don't have and make the lazy SOBs get a job instead of sucking the life out of me.

Mitt will never change the business model, and every time he raids a pension fund, the government is on the hook.

Still haven't looked at the tax plans have you? And just who are these lazy people you righties hate so much? How many are there?

Brother, W tried to change the business model for retirement and the country had a conniption fit. Meanwhile, our $2.6 trillion dollar Social Security "trust fund" doesn't exist at all, while Obama has made sure certain union pension funds got taken care of. So, let's talk about raiding pension funds.

Not all companies are worth saving . And I won't be put into a position of supporting Mittens yet.
Except from the ignorant comments of Perry and Newt about his Bain years.
I take the few companies he dismantled and raise you Staples and Home Depot... and the Salt Lake City Olympics.. . and many many others .

http://americaneedsmitt.com/blog/2011/07/01/bain-capital-has-touched-many-lives/

For now I'm still on the Santorum bandwagon

Though I called it for Mitt I'm still hopeful for Santorum. But I'd vote for a tree stump before I'd vote for Obama.

So... Obama just trashed and broke the law with unconstitutional appointments made when the house and senate were NOT in recess...

Compared to that... everything else is minor.

So...Obama just trashed and broke the law with unconstitutional appointments made when the house and senate were NOT in recess...

Compared to that......everything else is minor.



Hi Smoothy,

This begs the obvious question. Why haven't the appoint been made null and void? You don't have judicial review?


Tut

Hi Smoothy,

This begs the obvious question. Why haven't the appoint been made null and void? You don't have judicial review?


Tut
The Congress is actually taking the initial steps required to do just that right now. Its not going unchallenged.

Its Clear Obama thinks he is above the law and not subject to the restrictions in the Constitution.

He's going to declare martial law or appoint himself Emperor before the next election and the dimwit liberals would support him doing it. Because he believes he is a god and entitled to do as he wishes.

Hello smoothy:

Our beloved Constitution says the president may make recess appointments... The Republican congress IS in recess, but in order to THWART the Constitution, they PRETEND they're IN session by declaring it open and closed within 30 seconds...

That's what's happening...

Now, if you BELIEVE in the Constitution, like you wingers PURPORT to do, then you wouldn't go for the okee doak the Republicans are putting over the country...

However, if you Pick which parts of the Constitution you like, which is what you wingers do, then you can PRETEND along with your congressmen, that they're in session. That's part of the right wing insanity this thread is about.

But, don't think you're fooling anybody.. Certainly, the president isn't fooled, cause he made his Constitutionally required appointments.

excon

It will be reviewed when someone makes a formal complaint, and outrage to the press doesn't count.

Back to Romney, I think its perfectly fair to get facts to go along with all the bombs being thrown so we can see how this free capitalism is working, given the collapse of the economy that the banks and wall street have put us through.

Wonder why his tax return is so unavailable? Lots of questions to be asked. Lots of answers and facts to be considered. And since when is asking questions a matter of ENVY. That's class warfare talk.

Hello smoothy:

Our beloved Constitution says the president may make recess appointments... The Republican congress IS in recess, but in order to THWART the Constitution, they PRETEND they're IN session by declaring it open and closed within 30 seconds...



Hi Ex,

If that's what's in the Constitution says then I guess it's open to debate. By that I mean the word,'recess' can have a number of meanings. If you want to claim to be in recess while the benches are still occupied then you could mount an argument for that.

Perhaps another job for SCOTUS?

Tut

Actually it's a result of special rules the congress enacts to block what they don't like. Sort of like the filibuster rule where instead of actually pontificating to block legislation, they just hand in a declaration to filibuster, that shows intent but no actions, and they go play golf, or move on to lunch. Both sides use it, or have. That's why the prez is challenging this technical BS!

They could have voted MONTHS ago, and done away with the lazy parlor tricks.

Hi Smoothy,

This begs the obvious question. Why haven't the appoint been made null and void? You don't have judicial review?


Tut

Obama's Dept of Justice said yesterday it was perfectly legal. He does it then has his lawyers say it's OK.

Hello smoothy:

Our beloved Constitution says the president may make recess appointments... The Republican congress IS in recess, but in order to THWART the Constitution, they PRETEND they're IN session by declaring it open and closed within 30 seconds...

That's what's happening...

Now, if you BELIEVE in the Constitution, like you wingers PURPORT to do, then you wouldn't go for the okee doak the Republicans are putting over the country...

However, if you PICK and CHOOSE which parts of the Constitution you like, which is what you wingers do, then you can PRETEND along with your congressmen, that they're in session. That's part of the right wing insanity this thread is about.

But, don't think you're fooling anybody.. Certainly, the president isn't fooled, cause he made his Constitutionally required appointments.

excon

Ex, the Senate lawfully makes its own rules. If the Senate says they're in session, they're in session. Doesn't matter if it's 30 seconds or 30 weeks.

ex, the Senate lawfully makes its own rules. If the Senate says they're in session, they're in session. Doesn't matter if it's 30 seconds or 30 weeks.Hello again, Steve:

Where I live, the Constitution TRUMPS the Senate rules.

excon

... and it's Congress' Constitutional power to defund the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

BTW ; the Holder Justice Dept . Argued that pro-forma sessions are legitimately session of the Senate and a legitimate procedure to prevent recess apts.

Who in the Justice Dept made the argument ? Yup ;then Solicitor General,and now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan .


“the Senate may act to foreclose [recess appointments] by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period.”
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1457_Respond entSuppLttr.authcheckdam.pdf

Look ;I've said it before that the recess provision of the Constitution is a provision from the horse and buggy day when it took time to muster all the members of the Senate for a vote.
But the provision is there and pro-forma sessions are legitimate moves that both parties have used to prevent the President's use of recess appointments (Kagan cites the pro-forma sessions held by Reid in 2007 when Bush was President).

I already gave the remedy of defunding the agency... But,I'd love to see SCOTUS review the case . I wonder if the left would be upset if Kagan recused herself from that case ?

Obama's Dept of Justice said yesterday it was perfectly legal. He does it then has his lawyers say it's ok.

Yeah.. they issued that opinion TWO DAYS AFTER Obama did it.

And wasn't this the same Justice dept that was supplying the Mexican Drug cartels with Weapons in "Fast and Furious"?

Besides Eric Holder isn't the final word, and he's as corrupt as Hugo Chavez is.

Hello again, Steve:

Where I live, the Constitution TRUMPS the Senate rules.

excon

The constitution doesn't give Obama unlimited power... in fact it REQUIRES the Congress to be in actual recess before nObama could make a recess appointment... and it wasn't.

....and it's Congress' Constitutional power to defund the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

BTW ; the Holder Justice Dept . argued that pro-forma sessions are legitimately session of the Senate and a legitimate procedure to prevent recess apts.

Who in the Justice Dept made the argument ? Yup ;then Solicitor General,and now Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan .


http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1457_Respond entSuppLttr.authcheckdam.pdf

Look ;I've said it before that the recess provision of the Constitution is a provision from the horse and buggy day when it took time to muster all the members of the Senate for a vote.
But the provision is there and pro-forma sessions are legitimate moves that both parties have used to prevent the President's use of recess appointments (Kagan cites the pro-forma sessions held by Reid in 2007 when Bush was President).

I already gave the remedy of defunding the agency ... But,I'd love to see SCOTUS review the case . I wonder if the left would be upset if Kagan recused herself from that case ?

Liberals don't care about those things... unless it's the OTHER party in office. They think they are special and the rules and laws don't apply to them.

Obama is their Messiah... and mans laws don't apply to a god.

Yeah..they issued that opinion TWO DAYS AFTER Obama did it.

Just pointing out the Obama regime's idea of "legal".

He challenged the status quo, GOOD! Why NOT? I would to with those bunch of morons. The idiots couldn't raise the debt ceiling, couldn't meet the super committee dead line, and tried to hold the middle class tax cuts hostage.

They are a do nothing congress and where faking it, I mean the fools couldn't even show up to do there jobs, like they don't have to.

Hello again, Steve:

Where I live, the Constitution TRUMPS the Senate rules.

Excon

UM, I believe it is the constitution that gives them the right to make their own rules.


Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Tal
You make it sound like raising the debt ceiling is a good thing . The debt already surpassed the GDP... Is there any point where you would say we can't spend any more ?

By the way, WaPo, certainly no friend to Republicans, gave Newt's Bain movie Four Pinocchios (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/four-pinocchios-for-king-of-bain/2012/01/12/gIQADX8WuP_blog.html). It doesn't get any more dishonest than that for the WaPo Fact Checkers.

Newt should know better .It's one thing for looney lefties in California buying into the trope that Boxer spun about Fiorina ;and I can see the President mobilizing the Occupier shock troops and plastering ads all across the nation comparing Mittens to Gordon Gecko... But shame on any Republic who uses the same tactics. If their understanding of capitalism is so wanting that they don't know the value of venture capital and private equity in business growth and our overall economy , then they can go join the Dems.

He challenged the status quo, GOOD!! Why NOT? I would to with those bunch of morons. The idiots couldn't raise the debt ceiling, couldn't meet the super commitee dead line, and tried to hold the middle class tax cuts hostage.

They are a do nothing congress and where faking it, I mean the fools couldn't even show up to do there jobs, like they don't have to.

Lets see if you like it when the next president who will be a Republican does it... since if its OK for Obama, its OK for every other president to do in the future... INCLUDING Republicans.

Smoothy, I have survived many republican presidents, governors, legistlatures and mayors, and their policies, and no doubt, GOD willing, I will survive even more, (I do live in TEXAS), NO BIG THANG, cause I do what I do no matter what they say. Republican, Democrat, Consevative, Progressive, it doesn't matter.

I like keeping you righties jacked up because you take any view but your own as a call to the devil, and gloom, and doom. Oh woes is YOU. When the sky falls on my head then I will say ouch, but I ain't going to run in a circle looking for a reasson to cry about it. Until that happens, I thrive, and survive, and do my thing. Please bury me when I'm done.

Need help coping with reality, be glad to, its free, just ask, as you know, I am a people person, but its factually incorrect that THIS president caused all this crap you complain about, it's been happening for more than 30 YEARS! And sorry, Ain't no saviors on the right either! Hell, Ain't none on the left! Save your own a$$, or forever hold your peace, just sayin'

And you think a panel of 9 judges should be the sole arbiters ? (actually it usually comes down to one judges decision)
If you think that then your freedom slipped away long before now.



I think Supreme Court Justices should not be affiliated to any party . That way there is no agenda to muddle up decisions. We are founding Fathers divided so greatly by partisan politics?? No and look what they created.

tal
you make it sound like raising the debt ceiling is a good thing . The debt already surpassed the GDP ... Is there any point where you would say we can't spend any more ?

Tom when you say the debt exceeds the GDP is that because GDP has fallen, or has not kept pace with the growth needed to ensure a strong economy. The two things are not connected other than an indication used by rating agencies of the nation's ability to pay its debts. The question of whether you spend more is what your politicians are there for, to make reasoned decisions, to balance the budget, or find ways of reducing debt. That they seem incapable of this is unfortunate