"restore the constitution to what it was before unelected jurists changed it five to four." He went on to say, "Five lawyers decided 48 states were wrong."Those five lawyers were the top jurists in this country, the equal of our president and the senator as well. Those five lawyers are justices of the Supreme Court. And for the record they did nothing to "change" the constitution.
With what sychophantic "conservatives" are likely to call a liberal activist ruling, by the Supreme Court yesterday on Hamden - we find they are again doing their job - protecting us from the excesses of an administration run amuck with power. Providing us with soemthing lacking these last five years - checks and balance.
What is frightening is that this was a close ruling. If Roberts hadn't needed to recuse himself it would have been a 5-4 ruling. One vote away from a true imperial presidency. Now in this specific case, of course, Roberts recused himself having already ruled on it while on a lower court - but in future cases (of which there will be at least a few) involving this tyrranical theory of the unitary executive we can be fairly confident where his vote will go.
Being a man of faith I am praying hard, for the remaining "liberal" (3 of whom are republican appointees) justices good health and well-being.
Also, I am looking forward to hearing the right calling for more violence against judges. . .
11 comments:
Only liberals can turn something positive into a negative. DuWayne, your comments are so riddled with specualtion after something GOOD happened that it just annoys the heck out of me. Rejoice in the goodness of the action! Don't make assumptions of negativity! See, even Conservatively appointed judges are fair, so you need not fear any more of them being appointed. Save your prayers for more pressing things, such as victory over evil in the War on Terror.
If by speculation your speaking of the phantom cries of activist judges coming from the right - it was speculation, until I heard those cries for real in clips on the radio.
If on the other hand you are talking about my supposition on how Roberts would hav voted - he already did on a lower court.
Conservative appointees can be fair but that seems to wane when they are appointed by a republican president and confirmed by a republican senate. At least when it comes to the theory of the unitary executive.
Prayer is never wasted. And keeping the current justices in action until the end of our current regime is important to our country. If bush appoints any more ideologues who believe in this insane theory of dictatorial powers for the president we are in real trouble. Note, I don't want any president to have these powers. I don't care if the president believed in everything I do - they should not have that kind of power.
And believe me, I am thrilled by this ruling. And I am celebrating.
I failed to mention that I do not agree with calling for violence against any judge, ever.
The speculation was in you worrying about needing the three liberal judges for whatever reason you worry about them not being there.
Actually, there are only two "liberal" justices on the Supreme Court. I worry about all five ofthe judges that voted against the unitary executive notions of the current regime. The reason I worry about them is that this was only the first time this notion has been put in front of the court - it won't be the last. And it is not speculation - if this regime gets one more justice that does as teh other justices appointed by this president we will be in serious trouble. For a conservative you should fear it more than I - do you want Hillary or Edwards or whatever democrat becomes our next president to have the same dictatorial powers this one claims?
Of course I do not want any president (especially Hillary) to be a dictator, but I just don't see where you think Bush is one.
In my opinion, Duwayne is so blinded by his anger with Bush that whatever the president does, he'll hate it. And to claim that there are only two "liberal" justices on the SCOTUS is beyond the pale of rationality. Being appointed by a Republican does NOT make one conservative--or even moderate for that matter. But it's a common logical fallacy used by many to claim that the high court is too conservative, so I shouldn't be surprised. There are, in fact, four liberal justices on the court: Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Souter. Early in his career, Souter could have been considered a moderate. No longer is this the case. He is, for the most part, a staunchly liberal vote on the high court. As for Kennedy, early in HIS tenure, he could have been considered something of a conservative. Also no longer the case, he is the consumate "swing vote", with what seems to be a bit more sympathy toward the left side of the aisle. Just my $0.02 on the issue.
Kevin, please tell me what bush has done right in your opinion. Please don't think I'm trying to be a dick, I'm just curious.
And note that I put quotes around liberal and conservative in the comment above yours. I was not clear with the comment - nor did I make the point I should have.
When we have an opposition government the president has to appoint a justice that can get confirmed - he cannot appoint an extremist. Even then it is a crap shoot - being on the nations highest court often changes a person, or at least their judicial philosophy.
The problem with bush appointed justices, especialy Alito, is that they are ideologues with an agenda - above and beyond the rule of law. The idea of justices who actively wish to undermine the constitutional role of the courts and the seperation of powers. Their insane theory of the unitary executive seeks to make the legislatrive brach beholden to the president and the courts beholden to them. In our "quaint" constitution these are co-equal branches of government - under this theory of the unitary executive we would have a dictator instead.
By the way, I hate no one, not even bush. I hate what he has and continues to try to do to this country.
The justices are also confirmed by Congress and yes, the Republicans hold the slight majority right now. But in my opinion, President Bush won in '04 and the Republicans gained seats because quite frankly the majority of the country wants their leadership in power with national security and other big issues happening, and they trust their judgment on things such appointing fair judges. It will be interesting in '06 to see if the Democrats can gain some seats.
Pres. Bush has cut taxes, reformed education, at least TRIED to reform social security, taken a somewhat progressive approach on illegal immigration, appointed two judges with SPECTACULAR minds (they're only "ideologues" to those who would rather have soft (though bright) minds like Kennedy's added to the court), and taken our country through one of the most difficult times in recent memory. The global war on terror will ultimately be what defines his presidency. I think he has prosecuted the war in ways that he felt were in the best interest of the country, and has refused to sit back and do nothing after America was hit on 9/11, unlike the previous administration (which I voted for) in similar, but smaller-scale situations.
Let me ask you - both Kevin and Beth - do you want our government restructured so that we no longer have co-equal branches of government? Do you want one person, the president, to have no oversight, no checks and be the final arbiture of what laws he will choose to follow?
Taxes - Yes, for the first time in the history of thi country we have a president cutting taxes in the middle of a war. Subsequently he has borrowed more money than all previous preidents combined - a hell of a feat when you consider that Reagan did the same in the eighties and his deficit spending is included with all the others - and bush has still outspent all of them - combined. But then, maybe you like our country to be beholden to China.
The social security reform didn't go anywhere because it was simply bad policy.
I have some faith in Roberts when it comes to many legal questions but he is an ideologue when it comes to executive power. Alito is absolutely an ideologue with an agenda. Having a brilliant legal mind doesn't mean anything - Bork has a brilliant legal mind but still manages to be a raving ideologue entirely unsuite for our countries highest court. When justices would rule to provide the president with the authority to subvert our constitution and everything this nation stands for - they are acting like ideologues, very dangerous ones.
As for sitting back and oing nothing. The difference between bush and Clinton (keeping in mind I think Clinton was a bad president too) is that under Clinton we stopped terrorist plots, under bush we got hit hard. He was warned by the Clinton administration that the biggest threat we faced was terrorism and specificaly Bin Laden. He chose to ignore every warning of that impending threat and we lost over three thousand lives.
You ask:
"[D]o you want our government restructured so that we no longer have co-equal branches of government? Do you want one person, the president, to have no oversight, no checks and be the final arbiture of what laws he will choose to follow?"
I'm sure you know what a "strawman" is. You have set one up with this question. No one wants this. No one. Does a president prosecuting a war have broader scope--and NEED broader scope--to his authority? Yes. I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would say if asked that question? What about FDR? Or are just concerned about Pres. Bush exercising this broader scope of authority because you don't like him, and differ strongly from him ideologically?
As for taxes, you DO realize that cutting taxes actually increases revenue, right? It seems counterintuitive, but it's true. The argument about "cutting taxes during wartime" is a red herring, pure and simple. You're not for cutting taxes ideologically, and that's fine, but don't try to couch it in the "during wartime" prose.
You assert that "The social security reform didn't go anywhere because it was simply bad policy." This is your opinion, and nothing more. Social security reform is a necessity, and yet those who opposed the president didn't put forth any viable alternatives to his plan.
As for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, your ideological bent prevents you from viewing them rationally. Being conservative--which I am not--does not equal being an "ideologue." Are both men conservative? Sure. But if you want to disqualify people who have a distinct political philosophy about them, you must kick off Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer as well. You'd be left with a court that included only David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, who probably have the softest minds of any members of the court. The fact of the matter is, the duly elected president gets to appoint the members of the SCOTUS. They appoint people who agree with them ideologically. That's just how it happens. You want to change who gets appointed, win an election.
As for the issue of terrorism, please tell me you're joking. Pres. Clinton kept the CIA from killing Bin Laden, refused to take custody of him, and didn't respond in any measurable way to WTC 1993, or the bombing of the USS Cole. The only "attack" you could possibly be crediting his administration with "preventing" was when some alert customs agent kept the guy from entering America with some explosives when they'd planned some kind of Y2K attack, I believe it was. That's just laughable. With all that's come to light about how lax the Clinton Administration was with regards to terrorism, it's amazing to me that you can compare his administration favorably to the Bush Administration in this area. Have you forgotten that the majority of the planning of 9/11 even happened during his administration? And remind me again how many terrorist attacks we've had since then? Oh, that's right, it's ZERO! Pres. Bush has made PLENTY of mistakes, and given people a MULTITUDE of reasons to be frustrated with him. His response to 9/11, and the way his administration has dealt with terrorism has NOT been one of those reasons, except to those who can see nothing good in him.
Post a Comment