A good criticism of the Bush administration from the right

[illman]

It's a bit of stretch to claim that the judicial process is "undemocratic," even if you disagree with the political viewpoints of the judge. Furthermore, just because a judge was appointed by a Democrat does not automatically mean that they will choose to usurp the the law at any opportunity.

The checks and balances ends at the Federal Bench. The only way to get rid of a federal judge is to impeach them, which involves extra-judicial conduct (i.e. felony). A judge cannot be removed for writing unconstitutional opinions .... it has to be a crime.

The only "check" is the initial appointment. The federal judges are appointed for life. How many federal judges are impeached ?

You end up with the court making moral judgments, in place of the legislature, who has to answer to the voters. There is noone for the judges to answer to ....

Which may sound all well and good, if the judge's share your view. When they don't ....

[kgb]

It's a bit of stretch to claim that the judicial process is "undemocratic," even if you disagree with the political viewpoints of the judge. Furthermore, just because a judge was appointed by a Democrat does not automatically mean that they will choose to usurp the the law at any opportunity.

The checks and balances ends at the Federal Bench. The only way to get rid of a federal judge is to impeach them, which involves extra-judicial conduct (i.e. felony). A judge cannot be removed for writing unconstitutional opinions .... it has to be a crime.

The only "check" is the initial appointment. The federal judges are appointed for life. How many federal judges are impeached ?

You end up with the court making moral judgments, in place of the legislature, who has to answer to the voters. There is noone for the judges to answer to ....

Which may sound all well and good, if the judge's share your view. When they don't ....

Well, that's America. Love it or leave it.

[illman]

Well, that's America. Love it or leave it.

So you agree with me. No more of your brilliant "shove it up your ass" remarks after you made an idiot of yourself ???

Or is it simply because you know I'm correct ?

[kgb]

Well, that's America. Love it or leave it.

So you agree with me. No more of your brilliant "shove it up your ass" remarks after you made an idiot of yourself ???

Or is it simply because you know I'm correct ?

That post was absolute brilliance: the image of PW sign rammed up someone's rectum is just too funny to bear. I'm in stiches just thinking about it.

Anyways, yeah, I suppose I'd agree with you. But I don't want to hear conservatives whining about how unfair the system is. Makes em' sound like a bunch of bead-sucking hippies.

[illman]

But I don't want to hear conservatives whining about how unfair the system is. Makes em' sound like a bunch of bead-sucking hippies.

Actually, it is a description of the system. I'm not whining about it ; it is what it is. Judicial activism has been the rule since the Warren Court, but it is cyclical. I think conservatives now see what liberals knew for a long time.

[Tarkan]

It's a bit of stretch to claim that the judicial process is "undemocratic," even if you disagree with the political viewpoints of the judge. Furthermore, just because a judge was appointed by a Democrat does not automatically mean that they will choose to usurp the the law at any opportunity.

Absolutely not. The judicial process, at least with Federal judges, IS undemocratic and is used by Democrats to carry out agendas they are unable to pull off at the ballot box. Maybe Republicans do it as well, but I'm at a loss to come up with something comparable to the striking down of Proposition 187, banning the Ten Commandments in courthouses, removing the cross from the City of Los Angeles seal on the Republican side. The liberal side of the equation has the ACLU and a whole bevy of sympathetic lawyers. I can't think of a similar organization on the conveservative side.

Finally, if NYC and CA are so intent on forcing their vision of utopia on the the rest of the country, why is it that Bush is pushing for a Constitutional amendment on same sex marriage?

Ah, but a Constitutional ammendment has to go through the democratic process and is a very difficult process. There is no "pushing through" of an Ammendment, and is the proper way for changing the Constitution, rather than just redefining what you think it means when it suits you. And the whole reason for that is to prevent states like Massachusets from defining marriage for the rest of the country.

[Renard]

The liberal side of the equation has the ACLU and a whole bevy of sympathetic lawyers. I can't think of a similar organization on the conveservative side.

Weren't the ACLU the guys who supported Oliver North in his 5th amendment rights? As for the ACLU taking it to religion, it is basically taking a hardline on the separation of Church and State, a very strict reading of the First amendment, a provision from which flows the prohibition of anything ressembling an official State religion, an issue your main man Barry Goldwater would no doubt have sided with the ACLU dudes on.

Ah, but a Constitutional ammendment has to go through the democratic process and is a very difficult process. There is no "pushing through" of an Ammendment, and is the proper way for changing the Constitution, rather than just redefining what you think it means when it suits you. And the whole reason for that is to prevent states like Massachusets from defining marriage for the rest of the country.

A lot easier to "push through" when one party holds power in the three divisions of government and runs the Supreme Court.

Tarky, baby, you put waaayy too much stock in the Constitution. I mean this was the same constitution that prohibited alcohol for a decade until that Amendment - the 18th - was finally repealed.

Not an expert on the common law, but don't decisions by one common law court bind the other courts of lesser and equal stature? Didn't Massachusetts set a precedent?

[illman]

Not an expert on the common law, but don't decisions by one common law court bind the other courts of lesser and equal stature? Didn't Massachusetts set a precedent?

No. There are 2 court systems, state and federal. The Massachusetts decision sets no precedent for any federal court or any state court, other than the lower state courts of Massachusetts.

It can be cited as "secondary" authority in other courts, as an argument, but Massachusetts state decisions are not really respected.

The decision to ban the pledge of allegiance was a federal decision, for the 9th Circuit court of appeals (Federal, ....Washington,Oregon, California). This decision is binding in those states. It is being appealed .. if the US Supreme Court, the only federal court with more authority (absolute authority) were to uphold it, it would set precedent for the entire country.

[Tarkan]

Tarky, baby, you put waaayy too much stock in the Constitution. I mean this was the same constitution that prohibited alcohol for a decade until that Amendment - the 18th - was finally repealed.

Yeah, but one could argue that the 18th Ammendment was a direct result of giving women the right to vote and the Constitution has been on a downward slide since then.

[sparrow]

AND

[docwatson]

Actually the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing is a fairytale. It would more correct to say Hellenistic with a dab of Christianity here and there. The founding fathers were more influenced by John Locke, Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Cato, and Socrates than by Jesus, St. Paul, or St. Peter. It is a dillusion of the Christian Right that this was founded as a "Christian Republic" rather then a by a bunch of secular Deists. A real Judeo-Christian law would be stoning adulters or not letting people work on Saturday.

This is a whole thread unto itself but it highlights the points I was trying to make. The folks in my camp are told that we are wrong and are mocked despite our scholarship in this matter as well as the other hotbuttons I listed.

[Renard]

Tarky, baby, you put waaayy too much stock in the Constitution. I mean this was the same constitution that prohibited alcohol for a decade until that Amendment - the 18th - was finally repealed.

Yeah, but one could argue that the 18th Ammendment was a direct result of giving women the right to vote and the Constitution has been on a downward slide since then.

Zing!

[el3so]

Actually the whole "Judeo-Christian" thing is a fairytale. It would more correct to say Hellenistic with a dab of Christianity here and there.

Nope, Captain_Solo, ain't nothing imaginary or fraudulent about it.

When you wrote "Hellenistic" you ment ideas about how society should be organsied as frst though up by the bearded philosopher-kings of the Greek city-states, correct?

Judeo-Christian isn't as much about about political systems or even about the 10 commandments or the Bible but about the total worldview which is the foundation of the religion(s) and it's wordly implications and effects.

The idea of the Original Sin and how Man everafter must actively toil, strive and suffer to live a good life (and be eligible for the after-life) isn't (atleast to my very limited knowledge) present as much in Islam (thus differing from the two other main Monotheistic beliefs - Insh'Allah kinda says it all) or Eastern religion (where our physical body isn't much more than the plaything of powers unknown).

Good parable to illustrate it is the one about 3 dudes which God each gave some gold coins. Conveniently, the local monetary unit was called the "talent" at the time...
One dude used his to go into trading, lost most of it and ended up with less than God gave him.
Other one used it to begin a farm and made a little bit of profit.
The third one just buried his treasure.

The only one who got criticised was the guy who buried his coins since it isn't about the number of coins but about the effort in the end.

It takes little imagination why the judeo-christian mindset can and did serve as the base for a very aggressive but succesfull struggle against both nature and natives/heathens.
It goes IMO a very long way in explaining how come "the white man" came out on top.

Think the protestants (not my favorite christian subspecies btw) put even more than others an emphasis on the toiling and suffering part. Us catholics are allowed to actively enjoy the product of their labor plus we've got the confession get-out-of-hell-for-free thing going.
The USA's founding fathers included quite a contingent of protestants. They never were very popular in Europe.

Don't take this personal, docwatson, but I don't think the "re-borns" should claim to speak on account of all Christians. It is a rather new movement and let's just say not everyone is convinced about the sincerity of sinners turning to the Good Lord again.

[svizzerams]

Tarky, baby, you put waaayy too much stock in the Constitution. I mean this was the same constitution that prohibited alcohol for a decade until that Amendment - the 18th - was finally repealed.

Yeah, but one could argue that the 18th Ammendment was a direct result of giving women the right to vote and the Constitution has been on a downward slide since then.

Is this where I get to say: "if we can send a man to the moon....why can't we send them all...."

[el3so]

Yeah, but one could argue that the 18th Ammendment was a direct result of giving women the right to vote and the Constitution has been on a downward slide since then.

Is this where I get to say: "if we can send a man to the moon... why can't we send them all..."

Some of us were secretly hoping for a thorough analysis of the role of the female electorate on US policy and some scathing remarks of how men have caused most of current-day misery, concluded by an ironic self-deprecating pic kinda like this ...
but then again, life isn't perfect.