Political Roundtable Cosmic String of Cataclysm - Part V

[hands11]

As usual you make some good points Zonk. You are quite a bit more amenable to an open (what you refer to as changing attitudes, common sense) interpretation than I am. I believe you would agree that as time passes and attitudes evolve then the original meaning of the constitution can/will be breached without virtue of the mechanism embedded within it to seek the approval of citizens (through the amendment process). It is a strategy of the left to appoint justices that will legislate those policies they desire rather than seek change through the amendment process. As a result, the founding law is becoming malleable and perverse in a way that surrenders individual and state rights in order to grow the power of almighty govt. and those elected to administer it.

I'll provide two examples. Nothing in the constitution allows congress to appropriate money for their favorite charities. Yet, most govt. spending now does exactly that. They appropriate whatever they want to whomever they want: green energy projects, food stamps, medicare, university research, etc. If a constitutional amendment were introduced making it legal for congress to spend unlimited amounts on whatever their favorite charity is I doubt it would pass. But a left leaning, customized Supreme Court can make that happen.

The handful of left appointed Supremes decided that they would decide who is, and who is not, a person worthy of constitutional protection. The majority opinion is a bizarre thing to behold. With that authority, they can now determine that the old and sick are not persons, or that you and I are not persons for whatever reason. Had that authority been sought through an amendment there is no way the states would have approved it.

I could go on and on but I hope I've made my point.



Asw

How is it that you look at government spending for "their favorite charities" as a left issue? Like, there is no basis for that view. The Bridge to Nowhere was not sponsored by a Democrat. Nor was the Star Wars program. Massive military spending programs that are long since irrelevant are supported by both parties. Extreme Pork barrel spending traditionally has been enacted by people who have been in congress a long time, regardless of party. What evidence do you have that liberal judges advocate this type of thing more than conservative judges?

Not sure where he gets that stuff. The 2nd Amend is a good example. If you read it in whole, its clear they are talking about arming a militia. Now via judges ruling, it is commonly excepted that individuals have the right to arms regardless of the community militia responsibilities.

The meaning has changed from what the Constitution had written in it. And I doubt it will change back.

But this idea that you can't regulate arms is unfounded. You can't own anything you want. We set limits all the time. There is nothing unconstitutional about saying you need a permit, a background check, liability insurance or training to own a weapon that fits with in allowed specifications. Hell, you need a bumper on your car, and head lights that work. And the car can't emit but so much carbon. And you can only drive so fast in different areas. One states drivers license work in the other states. We do this stuff all the time.

If you really want to get up in arms about how F'd things are, how about this. Did you know congressional member can inset stuff in to bills without putting their names on it ?

So we have gerrymandering so you they don't have to respond to what the people want. They are funded by corporations and a handful of super rich. They can insert things into bills without putting their name on it. Then they jam through a bill with this stuff in it. The senate filibusterers not to debate but to stop debate.

So while people are all up in arms over same sex marriage, corporations have taken over our government and there isn't much you can do about it.

We went it alone and rushed into a war that will end up costing trillions then complain we don't have the money to pay SS. Not because SS is bankrupt. No. Because the government spend the surplus on these stupid wars. And what did we get for them. Iraq on the loose ?

Add to this blunder the War on Drugs that has been going on for 35 years. Who won that war ? The drug dealers and the private prisons. More wasted money and human capitol.

These are the big issues.

[Zonkerbl]

Thanks, Pine. This thread inspires me. I use it as a kind of crucible to develop ideas that I end up using later in my job. I can safely say that much of the success that I've had at work is a direct result of the discussion inspired by this thread.

[Zonkerbl]

As usual you make some good points Zonk. You are quite a bit more amenable to an open (what you refer to as changing attitudes, common sense) interpretation than I am. I believe you would agree that as time passes and attitudes evolve then the original meaning of the constitution can/will be breached without virtue of the mechanism embedded within it to seek the approval of citizens (through the amendment process). It is a strategy of the left to appoint justices that will legislate those policies they desire rather than seek change through the amendment process. As a result, the founding law is becoming malleable and perverse in a way that surrenders individual and state rights in order to grow the power of almighty govt. and those elected to administer it.

I'll provide two examples. Nothing in the constitution allows congress to appropriate money for their favorite charities. Yet, most govt. spending now does exactly that. They appropriate whatever they want to whomever they want: green energy projects, food stamps, medicare, university research, etc. If a constitutional amendment were introduced making it legal for congress to spend unlimited amounts on whatever their favorite charity is I doubt it would pass. But a left leaning, customized Supreme Court can make that happen.

The handful of left appointed Supremes decided that they would decide who is, and who is not, a person worthy of constitutional protection. The majority opinion is a bizarre thing to behold. With that authority, they can now determine that the old and sick are not persons, or that you and I are not persons for whatever reason. Had that authority been sought through an amendment there is no way the states would have approved it.

I could go on and on but I hope I've made my point.



Asw

Popper, I absolutely do not agree with you on any of your points.

To clarify:

1. Unless a court decision permits something explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, or forbids something specifically permitted by the Constitution, no court decision can be considered a "breach."

2. The judicial process contains a series of checks and balances that ensure, to the best extent possible, that all decisions are consistent with the Constitution. Court decisions must be guided by the Constitution and current legislation. Without such guidance, courts use logic (precedent ensures that it is applied in a consistent manner) and common sense. In making decisions, courts must often choose one of many possible interpretations permitted by the Constitution.

3. We don't get to decide what is consistent with the Constitution -- your disagreement with a few cherry picked decisions does not make it a breach. We have made a social contract with other U.S. citizens to trust the system of checks and balances created by the founding fathers. In that system, the Judicial branch determines what is consistent with the Constitution. If we, the people, disagree with an interpretation, we may, and often do, pass legislation (or in very, very extreme cases, constitutional amendments) that clarifies which interpretation we want the courts to use. However, we may not force the courts to make decisions that can be proven, using the application of logic used in the court system, to contradict the constitution.

4. The system, representational democracy, intentionally allows judges to be picked through a political process, which means that it was the founding fathers' explicit intent that the interpretation of the Constitution be influenced by public opinion.

5. Representational democracy is deliberately designed to reduce the tendency of politicians and judges to be captured by elite interests (it doesn't 100% succeed, of course, but it arguably reduces elite influence more than any other political system). Since the Republican party represents the business elite (consisting mainly of old white men), it is no surprise that many court decisions contradict Republican orthodoxy.

Furthermore, using the word "breach" is tantamount to accusing liberals of treason. Please stop. It's baldly inaccurate and unnecessarily prejudicial. Furthermore, all of the arguments you make apply equally to the judicial appointments made by Bush. Just because you agree with the judicial activism of conservative judges doesn't make their decisions any less political than liberal ones.

Just to reiterate, the founding fathers had no illusions about the political nature of court decisions. To the extent that you must rely on "common sense" to pick one interpretation out of many that are consistent with the logic of the constitution, court decisions are necessarily political. The idea of the Constitution as a platonic ideal is a means of protecting court decisions from undue influence from a politically powerful, elite minority -- e.g., to keep dictators from arbitrarily changing the constitution to fit their purposes. It is not meant to (and can not possibly) shield court decisions from political influence entirely -- it is only meant to tilt political influence away from one group (the elite) in favor of another (the majority).

[dobrojim]

Interesting read. Political Correctness, IMO, is a technique promulgated by the left to eliminate dialectic. If true dialectic were to take place then the left's agenda would be threatened. Luckily for the left, their almost total control of public education, 90% of university professorships. and the MSM render the masses intellectually incapable of engaging in rational discourse (participant's on this thread are respectfully excluded from my general conclusions as I have had many great and illuminating discussions here).

The comment I related to most in Harris' response was --- "Multiply this kind of malicious treatment a thousandfold, and you will understand why many writers, scientists, and public intellectuals who agree with me about Islam and about the failure of the Left have decided that it is simply too much trouble to make the case in public."

I concur with the above. It gets to a point where one simply wears out and instead moves money and assets offshore to insulate as best one can from the coming conflagration.

"Unfortunately, in the case of Islam, the bad acts of the worst individuals—the jihadists, the murderers of apostates, and the men who treat their wives and daughters like chattel—are the best examples of the doctrine in practice. "

Gotta pick a nit here. You know, the Old Testament has some crazy a$$ nuttiness in it. You could argue that a crazy extremist whack job who stones people for wearing the wrong clothes would be considered the best examples of the Jewish doctrine in practice.

I haven't read the Koran and I have no idea what Harris is talking about. What I have done is talk to Muslims, and they tell me the most central, important tenets of Islam are about peace. All people who follow Abrahamic faiths have to ignore the crazy stuff in Leviticus -- and it is part of "The Bible" with a capital B for all three of them. Harris makes a case that what he is doing (in my mind, possibly misrepresenting, deliberately, the central tenets of a religion that has done a tremendous amount of good throughout the world) is not racism but simply questioning a set of hypotheses set forth by the logical arguments in the Koran. Fine, you're not a racist -- you're just a jerk, whom no one should listen to or believe.

If Harris thinks Christianity is somehow fundamentally less violent than Islam, he is a fricking idiot, deliberately ignoring LITERALLY CENTURIES of Church-sponsored murder and mayhem WORLDWIDE. Just shut the hell up. Moron.

I'd say you need to more completely read Harris. That said, one of the debating points
he discussed in the link was a challenge that he would put up cartoons on his website
mocking aspects of Christianity if his 'opponent' (for lack of better term) would put up
cartoons mocking Islam. Not surprisingly, no one appears willing to do that.
Harris is no moron. Historically, both religions have had their followers behaving badly.
Harris is fully willing to concede that. What was the LDS response to The Book of Mormon?
What do you think the Muslem response to an analogous play on a given sect of Islam would be?

Try reading The End of Faith or Letter to a Christian Nation.

[dobrojim]

[huge snippage] But a left leaning, customized Supreme Court can make that happen.

I'm sure I know a large number of libs/progessives that would be pretty surprised
to learn that we have a left leaning SC.

Nice post back there SFAM on aspects of America which we often take for
granted. But I'll take issue with your approval of term limits. I think
gerrymandering is much more serious problem. Term limits are fundamentally
anti-democratic. We need reforms that would curtail the benefits of
incumbancy and create a more level playing field for challengers.

My biggest fear at the present for the way things are being run is what I see
as a diminishing true representational democracy. Regarding a large number
of issues that are important to me, I feel that I stand with significant majorities
but a gerrymandered HouseofReps (dems got more votes) and a fundamentally
undemocratic Senate (41 senators from States representing less the 20% of the
total population can block whatever legislation they happen not to like) stands
in the way. The People's will is not being done.

Thanks for the shoutout Pine.

[Zonkerbl]

Interesting read. Political Correctness, IMO, is a technique promulgated by the left to eliminate dialectic. If true dialectic were to take place then the left's agenda would be threatened. Luckily for the left, their almost total control of public education, 90% of university professorships. and the MSM render the masses intellectually incapable of engaging in rational discourse (participant's on this thread are respectfully excluded from my general conclusions as I have had many great and illuminating discussions here).

The comment I related to most in Harris' response was --- "Multiply this kind of malicious treatment a thousandfold, and you will understand why many writers, scientists, and public intellectuals who agree with me about Islam and about the failure of the Left have decided that it is simply too much trouble to make the case in public."

I concur with the above. It gets to a point where one simply wears out and instead moves money and assets offshore to insulate as best one can from the coming conflagration.

"Unfortunately, in the case of Islam, the bad acts of the worst individuals—the jihadists, the murderers of apostates, and the men who treat their wives and daughters like chattel—are the best examples of the doctrine in practice. "

Gotta pick a nit here. You know, the Old Testament has some crazy a$$ nuttiness in it. You could argue that a crazy extremist whack job who stones people for wearing the wrong clothes would be considered the best examples of the Jewish doctrine in practice.

I haven't read the Koran and I have no idea what Harris is talking about. What I have done is talk to Muslims, and they tell me the most central, important tenets of Islam are about peace. All people who follow Abrahamic faiths have to ignore the crazy stuff in Leviticus -- and it is part of "The Bible" with a capital B for all three of them. Harris makes a case that what he is doing (in my mind, possibly misrepresenting, deliberately, the central tenets of a religion that has done a tremendous amount of good throughout the world) is not racism but simply questioning a set of hypotheses set forth by the logical arguments in the Koran. Fine, you're not a racist -- you're just a jerk, whom no one should listen to or believe.

If Harris thinks Christianity is somehow fundamentally less violent than Islam, he is a fricking idiot, deliberately ignoring LITERALLY CENTURIES of Church-sponsored murder and mayhem WORLDWIDE. Just shut the hell up. Moron.

I'd say you need to more completely read Harris. That said, one of the debating points
he discussed in the link was a challenge that he would put up cartoons on his website
mocking aspects of Christianity if his 'opponent' (for lack of better term) would put up
cartoons mocking Islam. Not surprisingly, no one appears willing to do that.
Harris is no moron. Historically, both religions have had their followers behaving badly.
Harris is fully willing to concede that. What was the LDS response to The Book of Mormon?
What do you think the Muslem response to an analogous play on a given sect of Islam would be?

Try reading The End of Faith or Letter to a Christian Nation.

I didn't have to read very much, though, did I, to get to the part where he says "Muslims are inherently more violent than Christians. Let me explain why." Not sure what point there is to reading beyond that, because the premise is fundamentally flawed. Want to know why Muslims are angry and violent? Because they still remember the crusades! I'd be po'ed too -- wouldn't you? Religion's got nothing to do with it. To try to argue that one religion is fundamentally more likely to lead to violent behavior than another, using Christianity as the example of the less-violent religion, is so preposterous that it's simply a waste of my time to read any further.

[sfam]

[huge snippage] But a left leaning, customized Supreme Court can make that happen.

I'm sure I know a large number of libs/progessives that would be pretty surprised
to learn that we have a left leaning SC.

Nice post back there SFAM on aspects of America which we often take for
granted. But I'll take issue with your approval of term limits. I think
gerrymandering is much more serious problem. Term limits are fundamentally
anti-democratic. We need reforms that would curtail the benefits of
incumbancy and create a more level playing field for challengers.

My biggest fear at the present for the way things are being run is what I see
as a diminishing true representational democracy. Regarding a large number
of issues that are important to me, I feel that I stand with significant majorities
but a gerrymandered HouseofReps (dems got more votes) and a fundamentally
undemocratic Senate (41 senators from States representing less the 20% of the
total population can block whatever legislation they happen not to like) stands
in the way. The People's will is not being done.

Thanks for the shoutout Pine.

I couldn't agree more that Gerrymandering is the root of all that is evil in our democracy. This is THE big problem that takes away representative democracy. Regarding term limits, do you consider a two term limit on the Presidency anti-democratic? If not, why would you have issue with term limits on congress?

[dobrojim]

I didn't have to read very much, though, did I, to get to the part where he says "Muslims are inherently more violent than Christians. Let me explain why." Not sure what point there is to reading beyond that, because the premise is fundamentally flawed. Want to know why Muslims are angry and violent? Because they still remember the crusades! I'd be po'ed too -- wouldn't you? Religion's got nothing to do with it. To try to argue that one religion is fundamentally more likely to lead to violent behavior than another, using Christianity as the example of the less-violent religion, is so preposterous that it's simply a waste of my time to read any further.

So are you saying that every religion is the same?

What about Harris' challenge that he'll put up anti-christian cartoon
if his opponents will put up anti-muslim cartoons? Who do you think
is in greater danger as a result of their expressions of opinion?

Are all muslims bad/evil/terrorists? No. I don't believe that for a NY minute.
But when was the last time an apostate in a Christian country had to live in
fear of their life from their fellow citizens who are christian?
Citing the Crusades as an excuse for bad behavior RIGHT NOW
is a really poor rationalization. I say that as someone who is sympathetic to
the notion of reparations for slavery in the US. I grant that it's possible for the
bad acts of some muslims in some countries to get more bad press in THIS country for
what they are doing so if I am losing an appropriate grip on proportionality,
I will concede that. I hear too many reports of rape victims being persecuted
as adulteress to believe that all religions/cultures are the same. I might be
mis-informed. Or not. Demonstrate for me why I am wrong.

[dobrojim]

[huge snippage] But a left leaning, customized Supreme Court can make that happen.

I'm sure I know a large number of libs/progessives that would be pretty surprised
to learn that we have a left leaning SC.

Nice post back there SFAM on aspects of America which we often take for
granted. But I'll take issue with your approval of term limits. I think
gerrymandering is much more serious problem. Term limits are fundamentally
anti-democratic. We need reforms that would curtail the benefits of
incumbancy and create a more level playing field for challengers.

My biggest fear at the present for the way things are being run is what I see
as a diminishing true representational democracy. Regarding a large number
of issues that are important to me, I feel that I stand with significant majorities
but a gerrymandered HouseofReps (dems got more votes) and a fundamentally
undemocratic Senate (41 senators from States representing less the 20% of the
total population can block whatever legislation they happen not to like) stands
in the way. The People's will is not being done.

Thanks for the shoutout Pine.

I couldn't agree more that Gerrymandering is the root of all that is evil in our democracy. This is THE big problem that takes away representative democracy. Regarding term limits, do you consider a two term limit on the Presidency anti-democratic? If not, why would you have issue with term limits on congress?

To be honest, I hadn't thought about that aspect. I think it probably is.

I see term limits as creating more problems than it solves. How would it curb
the power of special interests? How would it improve institutional memory?
How would having CongressPersons with limited experience in the job they
are doing improve their ability to do that job?

[popper]

As usual you make some good points Zonk. You are quite a bit more amenable to an open (what you refer to as changing attitudes, common sense) interpretation than I am. I believe you would agree that as time passes and attitudes evolve then the original meaning of the constitution can/will be breached without virtue of the mechanism embedded within it to seek the approval of citizens (through the amendment process). It is a strategy of the left to appoint justices that will legislate those policies they desire rather than seek change through the amendment process. As a result, the founding law is becoming malleable and perverse in a way that surrenders individual and state rights in order to grow the power of almighty govt. and those elected to administer it.

I'll provide two examples. Nothing in the constitution allows congress to appropriate money for their favorite charities. Yet, most govt. spending now does exactly that. They appropriate whatever they want to whomever they want: green energy projects, food stamps, medicare, university research, etc. If a constitutional amendment were introduced making it legal for congress to spend unlimited amounts on whatever their favorite charity is I doubt it would pass. But a left leaning, customized Supreme Court can make that happen.

The handful of left appointed Supremes decided that they would decide who is, and who is not, a person worthy of constitutional protection. The majority opinion is a bizarre thing to behold. With that authority, they can now determine that the old and sick are not persons, or that you and I are not persons for whatever reason. Had that authority been sought through an amendment there is no way the states would have approved it.

I could go on and on but I hope I've made my point.



Asw

Popper, I absolutely do not agree with you on any of your points.

To clarify:

1. Unless a court decision permits something explicitly forbidden by the Constitution, or forbids something specifically permitted by the Constitution, no court decision can be considered a "breach."

2. The judicial process contains a series of checks and balances that ensure, to the best extent possible, that all decisions are consistent with the Constitution. Court decisions must be guided by the Constitution and current legislation. Without such guidance, courts use logic (precedent ensures that it is applied in a consistent manner) and common sense. In making decisions, courts must often choose one of many possible interpretations permitted by the Constitution.

3. We don't get to decide what is consistent with the Constitution -- your disagreement with a few cherry picked decisions does not make it a breach. We have made a social contract with other U.S. citizens to trust the system of checks and balances created by the founding fathers. In that system, the Judicial branch determines what is consistent with the Constitution. If we, the people, disagree with an interpretation, we may, and often do, pass legislation (or in very, very extreme cases, constitutional amendments) that clarifies which interpretation we want the courts to use. However, we may not force the courts to make decisions that can be proven, using the application of logic used in the court system, to contradict the constitution.

4. The system, representational democracy, intentionally allows judges to be picked through a political process, which means that it was the founding fathers' explicit intent that the interpretation of the Constitution be influenced by public opinion.

5. Representational democracy is deliberately designed to reduce the tendency of politicians and judges to be captured by elite interests (it doesn't 100% succeed, of course, but it arguably reduces elite influence more than any other political system). Since the Republican party represents the business elite (consisting mainly of old white men), it is no surprise that many court decisions contradict Republican orthodoxy.

Furthermore, using the word "breach" is tantamount to accusing liberals of treason. Please stop. It's baldly inaccurate and unnecessarily prejudicial. Furthermore, all of the arguments you make apply equally to the judicial appointments made by Bush. Just because you agree with the judicial activism of conservative judges doesn't make their decisions any less political than liberal ones.

Just to reiterate, the founding fathers had no illusions about the political nature of court decisions. To the extent that you must rely on "common sense" to pick one interpretation out of many that are consistent with the logic of the constitution, court decisions are necessarily political. The idea of the Constitution as a platonic ideal is a means of protecting court decisions from undue influence from a politically powerful, elite minority -- e.g., to keep dictators from arbitrarily changing the constitution to fit their purposes. It is not meant to (and can not possibly) shield court decisions from political influence entirely -- it is only meant to tilt political influence away from one group (the elite) in favor of another (the majority).

I'd like to address your points but first consider where we are today. The govt. can legally tax every penny you earn. The SC decides who is and is not a person. The country is, for all intents and purposes, bankrupt. If the Fed stops printing money the economy will tank overnight - interest rates on auto and real estate loans will necessarily skyrocket and tens of thousands will be laid off. A significant percentage of voters are functionally illiterate and an even larger percentage of voters have no appreciation for history (confirming the axiom that "each new generation must relearn the lessons taught to previous generations"). How did we get to this point?

1. You say a breach cannot happen in law if a court bestows its imprimatur. Supreme court decisions have been reversed because they did, in the opinion of justices, breach the constitution.

2. No argument with this point except that you assume that all justices act in good faith. I have a lesser opinion regarding the nobility of mankind. History proves that many political leaders and the justices they appoint are corrupt.

3. My understanding of the constitution is that the founders were careful to lay out the enumerated powers of the govt. (I don't recall whether it was 18 or 20 altogether). They wanted the powers of govt. to be limited and few. Those powers not enumerated were reserved to the states or individual. Compare that original intent with what's happening today and I believe you will agree that constitutional breaches (those usurped powers outside or in conflict with the enumerated powers) are numerous.

4. The purpose in granting life-tenure was supposed to insulate justices from the temptation to be influenced by public opinion.

5. Interests that influence politicians are both "elite" and "non-elite". Regarding your assertion about who and what R's represent I recommend you study the civil rights movement more carefully.

I accuse both parties of "constitutional breach" and agree with you that Bush and other R's are not without blame. The reason I pick on D's more than R's is because the ideology of their leaders and the relentless pursuit of statism necessitates that they render the constitution "living" and therefore meaningless.

[Zonkerbl]

Oh, no. If I believed all justices acted in good faith, I wouldn't believe the appeals process would be necessary. It's precisely because we have such an extensive appeals process that I have a lot of confidence in our legal system.

[Edit: And in fact I was thinking of this example as I wrote my post:
http://www.fcc-fac.ca/newsletters/en/ex ... 0729_e.asp

"The appeal court's written decision was released this week and it rebukes Cebull for blindly swallowing the arguments presented by the protectionist group known as R-CALF."]

Anyway, you look at today's political situation through the lens of, is the government doing what I want it to or not? And you see it doing a lot of stuff you don't want it to. I look at today's gridlock, the inability to pass climate change legislation, the inability to pass gun control, the inability to legalize marijuana, and I think, huh, maybe the founding fathers were a little bit too effective in limiting the power of the government to act. Actually I'm not sure the filibuster was one of the founding fathers' ideas.

Popper, I, personally, would gladly trade you $5 trillion worth of deficit reduction by reforming social security and medicare, eliminating corporate welfare, and cutting our military budget if I could get those other things done.

[sfam]

I couldn't agree more that Gerrymandering is the root of all that is evil in our democracy. This is THE big problem that takes away representative democracy. Regarding term limits, do you consider a two term limit on the Presidency anti-democratic? If not, why would you have issue with term limits on congress?

To be honest, I hadn't thought about that aspect. I think it probably is.

I see term limits as creating more problems than it solves. How would it curb
the power of special interests? How would it improve institutional memory?
How would having CongressPersons with limited experience in the job they
are doing improve their ability to do that job?

I'm personally Ok with limiting democracy with term limits, even if it involves amending the constitution as was the case with the 22nd amendment. I don't argue this is a panacea, but it does remove the bad actors. Special interests right now literally have decades to bribe officials by offering them fact finding trips,campaign contributions and lots more unsavory approaches. Politicians tend to go off the rails after they see themselves as above the rest of us.

Bottom line, we're in complete stalemate right now. The system has to change on a structural level to fix this. Gerrymandering is clearly the main change needed. But so too is this idea of lifetime politicians. Institutional memory, while important, hasn't been leading to better outcomes. Instead we get entrenched interests in everything from health care, gun control, military spending and the rest that have long since bought and paid for their votes. Special interests get a long and continuing return on their investments right now. This, almost as much as Gerrymandering has to change.

[sfam]

Popper, just so I understand, who would you like to be the arbiter of who we call a person if not the SC? Personally, I might choose science. A zygote may have the potential to be a person at some point, but clearly it is not at the moment. It doesn't feel, think, isn't able to sustain life on its own, etc. I doubt science would consider frozen embryos people either.

[popper]

Oh, no. If I believed all justices acted in good faith, I wouldn't believe the appeals process would be necessary. It's precisely because we have such an extensive appeals process that I have a lot of confidence in our legal system.

[Edit: And in fact I was thinking of this example as I wrote my post:
http://www.fcc-fac.ca/newsletters/en/ex ... 0729_e.asp

"The appeal court's written decision was released this week and it rebukes Cebull for blindly swallowing the arguments presented by the protectionist group known as R-CALF."]

Anyway, you look at today's political situation through the lens of, is the government doing what I want it to or not? And you see it doing a lot of stuff you don't want it to. I look at today's gridlock, the inability to pass climate change legislation, the inability to pass gun control, the inability to legalize marijuana, and I think, huh, maybe the founding fathers were a little bit too effective in limiting the power of the government to act. Actually I'm not sure the filibuster was one of the founding fathers' ideas.

Popper, I, personally, would gladly trade you $5 trillion worth of deficit reduction by reforming social security and medicare, eliminating corporate welfare, and cutting our military budget if I could get those other things done.

I actually look at today's political situation through the lens of, is the govt. operating within the law. I can swallow things I disagree with as long as they are constitutional. For instance, I don't like the fact that govt. can tax every penny of our earnings but there was a constitutional amendment duly passed that allows for that. So be it - I'll just have to grin and bear it.

I enjoy the conversation Zonk and appreciate your $5 trillion offer - I'll take it and call it a day. Miller time.

[sfam]

Popper, as I understand the term, "bankrupt", it is the legal status of a person or organization that cannot repay the debts it owes to its creditors. Aside from recent attempts by the insane clown posse we call the republican house, there has never been a fear of the US repaying their creditors. So why do you label the US as bankrupt? If the US is bankrupt, then what do you call Japan? Or most of the G20 economies for that matter?

[popper]

Popper, just so I understand, who would you like to be the arbiter of who we call a person if not the SC? Personally, I might choose science. A zygote may have the potential to be a person at some point, but clearly it is not at the moment. It doesn't feel, think, isn't able to sustain life on its own, etc. I doubt science would consider frozen embryos people either.

sfam - I would like the arbiter of person-hood to be the entity authorized in the constitution to do so - the individual or the state govt's. If people feel strongly that they would like the federal govt. to do so then they should pass a constitutional amendment in that regard. If that were to happen, then you would get no complaint from me. The insidious and lawless encroachment on the constitution will doom us all and emboldens those that want to destroy the heritage that many have lost their lives to defend and preserve - that is "of, by and for the people".

[Zonkerbl]

Oh, no. If I believed all justices acted in good faith, I wouldn't believe the appeals process would be necessary. It's precisely because we have such an extensive appeals process that I have a lot of confidence in our legal system.

[Edit: And in fact I was thinking of this example as I wrote my post:
http://www.fcc-fac.ca/newsletters/en/ex ... 0729_e.asp

"The appeal court's written decision was released this week and it rebukes Cebull for blindly swallowing the arguments presented by the protectionist group known as R-CALF."]

Anyway, you look at today's political situation through the lens of, is the government doing what I want it to or not? And you see it doing a lot of stuff you don't want it to. I look at today's gridlock, the inability to pass climate change legislation, the inability to pass gun control, the inability to legalize marijuana, and I think, huh, maybe the founding fathers were a little bit too effective in limiting the power of the government to act. Actually I'm not sure the filibuster was one of the founding fathers' ideas.

Popper, I, personally, would gladly trade you $5 trillion worth of deficit reduction by reforming social security and medicare, eliminating corporate welfare, and cutting our military budget if I could get those other things done.

I actually look at today's political situation through the lens of, is the govt. operating within the law. I can swallow things I disagree with as long as they are constitutional. For instance, I don't like the fact that govt. can tax every penny of our earnings but there was a constitutional amendment duly passed that allows for that. So be it - I'll just have to grin and bear it.

I enjoy the conversation Zonk and appreciate your $5 trillion offer - I'll take it and call it a day. Miller time.

lol -- /me clinks glasses with Popper

[Zonkerbl]

Popper, just so I understand, who would you like to be the arbiter of who we call a person if not the SC? Personally, I might choose science. A zygote may have the potential to be a person at some point, but clearly it is not at the moment. It doesn't feel, think, isn't able to sustain life on its own, etc. I doubt science would consider frozen embryos people either.

sfam - I would like the arbiter of person-hood to be the entity authorized in the constitution to do so - the individual or the state govt's. If people feel strongly that they would like the federal govt. to do so then they should pass a constitutional amendment in that regard. If that were to happen, then you would get no complaint from me. The insidious and lawless encroachment on the constitution will doom us all and emboldens those that want to destroy the heritage that many have lost their lives to defend and preserve - that is "of, by and for the people".

Yeah, thing is, if somebody sues somebody else over abortion, and the court can't wriggle out of seeing the case, they are in fact FORCED by the Constitution to make a decision. This is one of those cases where the SC is forced to pick one of many, many different possible ways to interpret the Constitution (which is essentially mute on this issue), and since Congress won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole, there's no legislative guidance either.

[popper]

Popper, as I understand the term, "bankrupt", it is the legal status of a person or organization that cannot repay the debts it owes to its creditors. Aside from recent attempts by the insane clown posse we call the republican house, there has never been a fear of the US repaying their creditors. So why do you label the US as bankrupt? If the US is bankrupt, then what do you call Japan? Or most of the G20 economies for that matter?

Technically you are correct sfam. Sovereign governmental entities, by law, cannot declare bankruptcy. That is why NY had to be bailed out by the federal govt. many years ago and why IL will have to come begging for a federal handout when they go belly up. States, like the federal govt., are sovereign entities and have no choice in the matters. When Argentina was insolvent approx. 15 years ago they simply stopped paying their creditors - they could not discharge the sovereign debt and therefore cannot borrow in int'l markets anymore (with some narrow exceptions).

I meant bankruptcy in the sense that our expenses far exceed our revenues and will do so in perpetuity unless something is done. The Senate budget never balances and continues to borrow forever, and so, instead of seeking bankruptcy, we will just continue to print money to pay our bills. Eventually, the dollar will succumb and we will look like a third world country.

[sfam]

Popper, just so I understand, who would you like to be the arbiter of who we call a person if not the SC? Personally, I might choose science. A zygote may have the potential to be a person at some point, but clearly it is not at the moment. It doesn't feel, think, isn't able to sustain life on its own, etc. I doubt science would consider frozen embryos people either.

sfam - I would like the arbiter of person-hood to be the entity authorized in the constitution to do so - the individual or the state govt's. If people feel strongly that they would like the federal govt. to do so then they should pass a constitutional amendment in that regard. If that were to happen, then you would get no complaint from me. The insidious and lawless encroachment on the constitution will doom us all and emboldens those that want to destroy the heritage that many have lost their lives to defend and preserve - that is "of, by and for the people".

But surely you see that there are competing interests. A woman by definition is a citizen now, with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Forcing a woman to bring a zygote to term negates those rights. The role of the SC is to arbitrate competing interests like this. Deciding this on a state by state basis breaches equal protection under the law.