Originally posted by claretnblueHahahah, yup! The SOB is sure screwing the working family in America. It's too bad that so many people in our great country are followers and can't think for themselves... <sigh>
Speaks the truth at last?
From his speech yesterday
Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we, Bush said. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
George please join W*nkers R Us - we need you
Originally posted by bekiekeYea, but the Supreme Court's opinion was blatantly political. It has next-to-no legitimacy. The "states rights" justices turned around and rejected the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of its own election laws for chrissakes.
According to the Supreme Court, you are in error in your statement.
Originally posted by paultopiaI beg to differ...unless the Constitution has changed since the last time I read it, it is legitimate. We have an uneven number of justices sitting on the Court to minimize the chances of a tie vote. The Vice President,as President of the Senate, has a vote in case of a tie. Our system is set up to function by majority rule. We are not automatons incapable of our own opinions and preferences and our government reflects that.
Yea, but the Supreme Court's opinion was blatantly political. It has next-to-no legitimacy. The "states rights" justices turned around and rejected the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of its own election laws for chrissakes.
And what isn't "blatantly political"? Was it blatantly political to impeach President Clinton during his administration? Of course! Is it blatantly political for members of the House and Senate oversite committees for Intelligence to receive the same info the President did and agree on the need to do something about Iraq, and now that no WMD's have been found to date, to rant and rave about how the administration deceived the American people? Of course it is! That's why it's called politics.
Fortunately the system works in the long run. Whoever is in the minority at a given time is obviously going to feel mistreated and disenfranchised. That's why we have the vote and why in many cases we limit terms of office.
However, the Supreme Court's legitimacy derives from it appearing to be neutral and insulated from politics. That is why people obey its decisions, despite the fact that it controls no enforcement power (ie. people with guns). That's why Richard Nixon, who was sued to turn over oval office recordings, complied then resigned shortly thereafter: because people accept the decisions of a court that does not appear to be blatantly political. If he hadn't, it would have been the last nail in his coffin on impeachment, and only for the reason that the people and the Congress would have demanded that an order of the legitimate-appearing Court be obeyed.
Making blatantly political decisions weakens that legitimacy. When all the republicans vote for the republican and all the democrats vote for the democrat in a decision that, and I'm speaking as a lawyer here, is barely coherent, legal reasoning-wise, the Court loses respect. All of its power is based on that respect.
Read it yourself:
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-949.html
It reverses the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of Florida state law. That has never, ever been done before. They shoehorned that ruling in on a totally nonsensical claim that, although the state of Florida conceededly has the plenary power to decide how its electors are chosen*, the state did so in a way which violated the constitutional of one-person-one-vote. They did so, in a completely illogical fashion, by asserting that the different counties to be counted determined what constituted a vote differently. That's complete illogical garbage, if only because it then turned around and ordered the reversion to a scheme that had counted votes even more inconsistently than the one ordered by the Florida court.** It ordered no recount in the face of known problems, on the theory that a recount MIGHT introduce problems.
*From the opinion:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U. S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution"
** Justice Bryer put it best in dissent:
" Even assuming that aspects of the remedial scheme might ultimately be found to violate the Equal Protection Clause, I could not subscribe to the majority's disposition of the case. As the majority explicitly holds, once a state legislature determines to select electors through a popular vote, the right to have one's vote counted is of constitutional stature. As the majority further acknowledges, Florida law holds that all ballots that reveal the intent of the voter constitute valid votes. Recognizing these principles, the majority nonetheless orders the termination of the contest proceeding before all such votes have been tabulated. Under their own reasoning, the appropriate course of action would be to remand to allow more specific procedures for implementing the legislature's uniform general standard to be established.
In the interest of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intent--and are therefore legal votes under state law--but were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines. It does so on the basis of the deadlines set forth in Title 3 of the United States Code. Ante, at 11. But, as I have already noted, those provisions merely provide rules of decision for Congress to follow when selecting among conflicting slates of electors. Supra, at 2. They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined. Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines. See Josephson & Ross, Repairing the Electoral College, 22 J. Legis. 145, 166, n. 154 (1996).5 Thus, nothing prevents the majority, even if it properly found an equal protection violation, from ordering relief appropriate to remedy that violation without depriving Florida voters of their right to have their votes counted. As the majority notes, "[a] desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees." Ante, at 10."
Originally posted by usmc7257USMC. I proudly support my wonderful country, and the men and women who protect us. Thank you for a job well done.
so renounce it then...if you dont like the way things are run--i.e. flawed voting systems, premature wars, or what ever you guys complain about then renounce and get out. you people dont have it as bad as you mkae it out to be. im not saying Bush is the greatest president or even a very good one, but some americans here are so eager to put down thier country that id as soon rather not defend them. it makes me sick.
I also love the fact that my country is one where we have the freedom to express our views without fear of reprisal. There have been several events in our history where Americans have made their views known on certain political events which have cause a change in the government's policy: Viet Nam, Reagan's Star Wars agenda. I believe public opinion will bring about a change in our presidency in November.
Originally posted by paultopiaAren't the representatives on the Supreme court there because political parties put them there?
However, the Supreme Court's legitimacy derives from it appearing to be neutral and insulated from politics. That is why people obey its decisions, despite the fact that it controls no enforcement power (ie. people with guns). That's why Richard Nixon, who was sued to turn over oval office recordings, complied then resigned shortly thereafter: because ...[text shortened]... ire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees." Ante, at 10."
Or does some objective body appoint them?
Originally posted by elvendreamgirlthank you for your support. its nice to know people still care sometimes. the only thing is i really think Bush will get re-elected. i dont think kerry has what it takes to get us out of our current situation without damaging things even further. im not saying Bush is a great pres, but i think he is the lesser of two evils in the upcoming election. if kerry is elected the country will hate him within a year or so i am sure. if bush is elected again, the forums will be overrun with hate threads saying how the american system doesnt work anymore. either way we will have our critics. i am starting to learn to let it all roll off my shoulders, and your post reassured me that all americans dont take what good things they have for granted. thank you.
USMC. I proudly support my wonderful country, and the men and women who protect us. Thank you for a job well done.
I also love the fact that my country is one where we have the freedom to express our views without fear of reprisal. There have been several events in our history where Americans have made their views known on certain political events ...[text shortened]... r Wars agenda. I believe public opinion will bring about a change in our presidency in November.
mike
paultopia,
I respect your opinions and admire the zealous nature in which you defend them.
You're right, the Court has no enforcement power, that is the job of the Executive branch. Therefore I would differ on your premise that it is only faith in the Court which validates it's opinions. It's the "law of the land", so to speak.
The Court, by it's very nature is always going to exhibit "partisanship". It's made up of human beings who interpret things differently. When an opening occurs during a liberal administration, a liberal will be appointed and if approved will sit and vice versa re: conservatives. Their voting record as Justices will reflect their prior voting records as lower court judges, unless they have a change of philosophy. Fortunately, the sitting Justices are not just liberal & conservative, but there typically is a "moderate" or two thrown into the mix, to help balance things out.
I am not an attorney, so I cannot speak on the same level as you regarding your statements, but then most of the people in the country are also not attorneys, so I and most others look at things from more of a layperson viewpoint.
Originally posted by usmc7257I respectfully disagree. If Bush wins, it will be proof that an American election can now be won by fraud, or, if you will, bought. Turth is, Bush dug us into a hole so deep that NOBODY could dig us out.
thank you for your support. its nice to know people still care sometimes. the only thing is i really think Bush will get re-elected. i dont think kerry has what it takes to get us out of our current situation without damaging things even f ...[text shortened]... nt take what good things they have for granted. thank you.
mike
Originally posted by shavixmirAdmittedly, they're nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but they're supposed to be above all the politics once they get on. For example, traditionally, Supreme Court nominees have resisted saying, in confirmation hearings, how they would rule on particular issues. The Court also regularly refused to deal with "political questions" best left to the "political branches." etc. etc. There's a long tradition in the US of separating the Supreme Court from politics. Some Justices have, indeed, gone wildly away from the political preferences of those who appointed them. The classic example, of course, is the great Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed from a Republican Party background by Eisenhower, who went on to craft a huge number of rulings that, to say the least, were not appreciated by the Republicans.
Aren't the representatives on the Supreme court there because political parties put them there?
Or does some objective body appoint them?
That's also the theory for why they're appointed for life: so they will be isolated from political pressures by, eg. not having to stand for election.