Ask Me Help Desk - Right Wing Insanity

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I'm guessing all of them.

Hello again, Steve:

Would you pass that doobie over here?

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Would you pass that doobie over here?

excon

Why would right wingers object to the 6th amendment?

On another note...

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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).

Quote:

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.