Originally posted by bekiekeI agree with the general thrust of what you said, and also respect your opinions and your defense of them -- however, I would only add that it is a common premise of how the courts are run that respect is what keeps their decisions obeyed and enforced.
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 ...[text shortened]... are also not attorneys, so I and most others look at things from more of a layperson viewpoint.
There's a lot of history to this. The Nixon case is one of the best examples, as mentioned above. Brown v. Board of Education (which recently had its 50th anniversary) and the other desergegation decisions were another. All the major desegregation decisions from Brown (1954) through the early 70s were unanimous. This was deliberate: the Justices knew that only with unanimous decisions would they have the credibility to have such controversial rulings enforced. This is so despite the fact that the Court's ruling is "the letter of the law" on a simply majority, and unanimity has no legal effect. Unanimity affects the decision's credibility, and the Court felt that was important enough in the desegregation cases, as well as the Nixon case, to achieve it, knowing their decision may not be obeyed otherwise.
For an enlightening view of the Nixon case, as well as some of the desegregation cases, I highly reccommend the book "The Brethern" by Bob Woodward.
The other pole, where the Supreme Court was not obeyed, when the people in the "political branches" feels its decision is illegitimate, has existeds too. The Cherokees had, by 1830, tried to establish a separate state in Georgia, and the Supreme Court recognized it. The legendarily populist President, Andrew Jackson, told the Cherokees to move nonetheless. In his words: "The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it." Hence, the Trail of Tears.
Obedience to the Supreme Court has always rested on a delicate foundation, and much of that foundation is the perception of the Court as an independent, nonpartisan "temple of the law." That perception is threatened by blatantly political decisions.
Unanimity in a decision defintely causes that decision to carry more weight. You are absolutely right re: the civil rights issue;it would have come even closer to undermining the very core of the country if the Court had ruled with less than a common goal. More impetus would have been given to those segments of our society who were opposed. I'm sure you can cite numerous rulings which were changed in a later session. It is my bet that those original decisions were not unanimous.
I lived through the turbulent late 60's and early 70's(was a professional college student at the time 😀), so I'm well acquainted with the Nixon era and what it almost did to this country.
As far as President Andy "by God" Jackson is concerned, he clearly overstepped his authority and the Congress deserves a swift kick in the butt for not living up to it's obligation under the law to do something about it. Unfortunately for the native Americans, they didn't garner much support in those days.
absolutely. that's the thing, though, isn't it. the supreme court vs. the other branches of government = the supreme court loses in a test of force. congress controlls the bucks, the president controlls the bombs... all the supreme court controls is the hearts and minds of the people who believe in good faith in their objectivity and learning and dignity.
You guys should brush up and read some Noam Chomsky.
Then you would realise that it is the multinational conglomerates, not the president who run the country of America. (and curently the world thanks to your military investment).
Do you really think that retards such as W Bush and Reagan (b-grade movie actor) COULD run a country?
Just look at the Kyoto treaty U-turn by Bush. Ordered by his paymasters in the Oil refining industry to avoid the billions of dollars clean-up cost.
All your aid to 3rd world countries is pissing into the wind too! Cos the WTO passes legislation banning African nations from refining their coffee beans. Price paid per kg for raw beans = 7cents. Value at Starbucks = $35.
Of course the interest charged by the banks on development loans doesn't help them either.
Once you learn that "The Whole Taxation System is a welfare state for the rich" (Noam Chomsky), then you are half way there to understanding how USA is literally destroying the world.
Originally posted by howardgeeI assume you have proof that he was "ordered by his paymasters in the oil refining industry"...oh wait, I'm sorry, I forgot. A good conspiracy is one that's impossible to prove. At least when the USA destroys the world, you'll be in good company on the way down.
You guys should brush up and read some Noam Chomsky.
Then you would realise that it is the multinational conglomerates, not the president who run the country of America. (and curently the world thanks to your military investment).
Do you really think that retards such as W Bush and Reagan (b-grade movie actor) COULD run a country?
Just look at the Kyo ...[text shortened]... homsky), then you are half way there to understanding how USA is literally destroying the world.
Originally posted by usmc7257You two still act as if critisism on the president is critisism on America itself. My opinion is that Bush needs to go...fast. He started a war without proper reasons to do so, he ignored the UN and made a complete mockery of himself. Give the other guy a chance, i highly doubt that things could get worse then Bush...
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 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 ...[text shortened]... sured me that all americans dont take what good things they have for granted. thank you.
mike
Alot of people see the president as THE face of America, wich he is actually supposed to be. It's a shame that that face isn't exactly what you want as representative...
Originally posted by TheMaster37I would appreciate it if you could show me where in the Constitution of the United States, it says that the U.N. runs this country.
You two still act as if critisism on the president is critisism on America itself. My opinion is that Bush needs to go...fast. He started a war without proper reasons to do so, he ignored the UN and made a complete mockery of himself. Give the other guy a chance, i highly doubt that things could get worse then Bush...
Alot of people see the president ...[text shortened]... y supposed to be. It's a shame that that face isn't exactly what you want as representative...
It doesn't, but the US is a member of the UN. There is a little agreement about starting wars in there wich Bush conveniently ignored.
I must admit that i doubt my words now. Either he actually ignored that agreement, or on the last moment the rest of the UN gave green light, what would have made no difference if they hadn't.
The UN doesn't run America, but America doesn't rule the world, never forget that.
the U.N. is a joke. its about time we stopped listening to them. bush went to war based on the intellegence provided to him. was intellegence wrong? most likely. but to blame it entirely on him is wrong. congress approved it correct? the blame solely rests upon the shoulders of the government as a whole.
Watch the videos of hijacked American planes being crashed into buildings on American soil, killing thousands of people, not just Americans, but citizens from all over the world.
If the intelligence community provides evidence to my government(and in this case it wasn't just the US intelligence community, but those of other nations as well) indicates that there is a threat of equal or greater danger, then I, as an American, not only expect, but demand that my government take the necessary steps to ensure the safety and security of me and my fellow citizens. I don't care what some of the other governments(some of whom supplied the aforementioned intelligence) of the world say to promote their own agendas.
If the intelligence is incorrect and errors are made, that is indeed a tragedy which we as Americans and our leaders who made the decisions will have to live with, and I pray daily for any innocent people who are harmed right along with my prayers for our young men and women who are in harms way fulfilling their honorable duty in the armed services, but I stand on what I say.
If 9/11 had happened in another country, believe it that the US would have been 1 of the first to be called on to "take care of things". Unfortunately I got to experience in my lifetime, the same horror and anger that my father's generation experienced on Dec. 7, 1941.
Originally posted by TheMaster37The US argued for years about having UN inspectors in Iraq but, as usual the UN didn't do diddly squat. To hell with the UN and the sooner the US gets out of the UN the better.
It doesn't, but the US is a member of the UN. There is a little agreement about starting wars in there wich Bush conveniently ignored.
I must admit that i doubt my words now. Either he actually ignored that agreement, or on the last moment the rest of the UN gave green light, what would have made no difference if they hadn't.
The UN doesn't run America, but America doesn't rule the world, never forget that.
Originally posted by slimjimWe got a typically ignorant, dumb-ass Bush fan here. Idiots like you have made this world a dangerous place. S'pose you don't believe Michael Moore either?
Anybody who has these knee-jerking Liberals, Socialists, and America haters spewing all this bile must be doing something right. Go BUSH.
Originally posted by howardgeeI will refrain from calling you any names, but if Michael Moore is the best that anti-Bush people can come up with, November will be a cakewalk.
We got a typically ignorant, dumb-ass Bush fan here. Idiots like you have made this world a dangerous place. S'pose you don't believe Michael Moore either?
Who's the next hero? Bill Maher? Whoopi Goldberg?
I have to admire Michael Moore for one thing though. He can produce a documentary(and I use the term loosely because documentaries are supposed to deal with facts to formulate any premises) that is rife with unsupported claims and allegations and managed to convince many people he speaks only the truth. As a result, let's face it, he won't ever have to work on an assembly line again. I personally think he's a closet Republican. I'm just sorry I didn't come up with the idea first, so I could move out of this crappy little apartment I live in and buy a mansion.
Originally posted by bekiekeI think I will buy up swamp land in Louisiana and will market it to Moore-heads as waterfront property. I should make a killing
I will refrain from calling you any names, but if Michael Moore is the best that anti-Bush people can come up with, November will be a cakewalk.
Who's the next hero? Bill Maher? Whoopi Goldberg?
I have to admire Michael Moore for one thing though. He can produce a documentary(and I use the term loosely because documentaries are supposed to deal with ...[text shortened]... he idea first, so I could move out of this crappy little apartment I live in and buy a mansion.