| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2007/7/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:47425 Activity:high |
7/25 He's right.
"Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into
a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly
ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the
constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the
statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.
If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into
precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be
permanently changed."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015836.php
\_ "Without going into all the specifics" is pretty damn stupid.
Isn't this guy supposed to be a smart dem?
\_ Did you just arrive from Mars or something? Have you been
ignoring the news for the last 6 years?
\_ I have been following the news extremely closely.
\_ And none of FISA, Gitmo, Geneva Convention, War Crimes
Act, Justice Department firing and ignoring subpeanoas
rings a bell? At all?
\_ Bah, the constitution got thrown out decades ago when courts
started making their own laws from whole cloth on a long list of
topics. We're already and have been for a long time nothing like
the founder's vision for how government should work.
\_ ...what exactly do you see as the purpose of the courts?
\_ Courts apply the law. In the case of SSC and USSC they are
also empowered to overturn laws that violate the State/US
constitutions. They are not to make up laws the legislature
has not passed. What do you think courts are for?
\_ Adjudicating grievances between parties; interpreting the
law as legislated by the Legislative branch and signed by
and/or executed by the Executive branch; determining the
constitutionality of those laws and the actions of the
other two branches. In the course of determining the
constitutionality of certain laws and in the interest of
not wasting taxpayer time and money with legislation that
is doomed to be deemed unconstitutional, I see no reason
why a court could not suggest an example of the sort of
legislation that would not be considered unconstitutional.
This suggestion is not, in and of itself, legislation.
\_ ob more hunting trips with mr. scalia and mr. cheney
\_ Ok so we basically agree. Now then, are you opposed to
courts legislating from the bench, even in such cases
that you agree with the outcome?
\_ Please indicate where you see the courts legislating
from the bench?
\_ You're kidding, right? The classic is Roe v Wade.
\_ Awesome wingnut logic. Roe V Wade justifies
the current administration's destruction of
checks and balances.
\_ What? I said no such thing. You're also
way over stepping assuming you know my
opinion of if abortion should be il/legal
or not simply because I think RvW was a
bad ruling based on bad law. I figured you
would get personal if I tried to discuss it
intelligently with the best known example.
I was right. Thanks for not disappointing.
\_ I am not the guy you were talking to
ealier, but I think that the problem of
judges legislating from the bench pales
in comparison to the problem of the
Executive legislating all the time
when it is not their job to do it.
But they are both problems, imho.
\_ Just because another branch may be
abusing their authority, does not
mean what the courts have been doing
for decades hasn't made a complete
mockery of our constitution. The
system is supposed to have checks and
balances. I see none anymore. I see
courts making laws. I see the exec
branch (and not just this one, kids)
making laws. "Stroke of the pen, law
of the land, cool!" Go look that
quote up. And congress is sitting on
their collective thumbs apparently
concerned about nothing important
and certainly not doing their jobs.
\_ Am rereading Roe v. Wade right now, and while
I don't agree with a lot of it, I'm still not
seeing the legislating you're referring to.
Can you be more specific about this, please?
\_ It's conservative dogma that judges are
legislating from the bench, and as such,
cannot be examined or questioned.
\_ Thanks for contributing nothing. Come
back when you'd like to have a discussion
instead of a smear fest. Thanks again.
\_ Ok, let's get right to it. What is the
basis underlying RvW? Once we agree on
that I'll go to the next step. |
| 5/17 |
|
| talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015836.php Josh Marshall As regular readers of this site know, I've always been against the movement to impeach President Bush. I take this position not because he hasn't done plenty to merit it. Minor reasons are that it's late in the president's term and that I think impeachment itself is toxic to our political system -- though it can be less toxic than the high officials thrown from office. My key reason, though, is that Congress at present can't even get to the relatively low threshold of votes required to force the president's hand on Iraq. So to use an analogy which for whatever reason springs readily to my mind at this point in my life, coming out for impeachment under present circumstances is like being so frustrated that you can't crawl that you come out for walking. In various ways it seems to elevate psychic satisfactions above progress on changing a series of policies that are doing daily and almost vast damage to our country. Find me seventeen Republican senators who are going to convict President Bush in a senate trial. But in recent days, for the first time I think, I've seen new facts that make me wonder whether the calculus has changed. Or to put it another way, to question whether my position is still justifiable in the face of what's happening in front of our eyes. This was the exchange in which Gonzales simply refused to answer one of Sen. Schumer's questions -- didn't say he didn't remember, didn't invoke a privilege, just said, No. It's not that this one incident is a matter of such consequence in and of itself -- though I would say it's pretty consequential. But it captures pretty fully and in one small nugget the terrain the White House is now dragging us on to. As I explained in that post, testifying before Congress is like testifying in a court of law. You can invoke a privilege and the court's will decide whether the argument has merit. note: TPM Reader GK suggests that with a closer viewing of the testimony Gonzales actually does implicitly invoke executive privilege. After several times refusing to answer to the question and having Schumer state his understanding that no privilege has been invoked, Gonzales says that the question "relates to his time at the White House" and thus he won't answer. But I don't think it changes the thrust of what I said in the post. They're really not even going through the motions of invoking the privilege. The difference between invoking a flimsy claim of privilege and simply refusing to answer has little immediate practical difference, but it's constitutional implications are profound. Though other events in recent months and years have had graver consequences in themselves, I'm not sure I've seen a more open, casual or brazen display of the attitude that the body of rules which our whole system is built on just don't apply to this White House. Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them. If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed. Whether because of prudence and pragmatism or mere intellectual inertia, I still have the same opinion on the big question: impeachment. But I think we're moving on to dangerous ground right now, more so than some of us realize. And I'm less sure now under these circumstances that operating by rules of 'normal politics' is justifiable or acquits us of our duty to our country. |