REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

How Perry would change the Constitution

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Thursday, August 25, 2011 13:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2953
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, August 19, 2011 5:14 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-
constitution-131634517.html


Hello,

I am deeply disturbed by the short-sightedness of some of these ideas.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2011 7:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


You and me both.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2011 8:19 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


.....and so much for that campaign!

NEXT!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, August 19, 2011 11:33 PM

DREAMTROVE


I find myself in agreement with Mr. Perry on points 1-5 with some doubts about point 4. Direct election of senators has been a disaster for representation. We get the situation now called senator not-from-here, and we had one recently in sen. Clinton, and as a result, states are completely unrepresented. It has become a national position. The problem with the proposal is that the senate was already corrupt before the 17th. Still, I don't have a serious problem with repealing it. Doing so might rekindle interest in the more important state legislature elections.

As for 6 and 7 I suspect these are added to prove to the people that Perry is really a republican in spite of being an erstwhile democrat.

I am very much in favor of getting rid of the unelected theocracy we call the supreme court.

To understand what's wrong with the idea, you have to look at its origins. The institution was created by the federalists after they lost the battle to strike the bill of rights from US law, and they fully intended to use the measure to take down said rights. Notice as soon as the federalists gain a majority in the court, they start systematically repealing the bill of rights,

I think I'll let Frem take this one from here. I'm sure he'd like a chance to rant at the federalists.


But I think that perry's proposals should be considered seriously, because he's gone to the trouble of sinking his campaign to make the statement, not that he ever had a snowflakesp's chance of becoming president.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 3:02 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I fear the following:

Proposals 1 & 2 (particularly proposal 2) is designed to diminish the power of the Supreme Court in two important respects:

1) Supreme Court officials must now be very concerned with their lives after their tenure is completed, and hence are subject to manipulation.

2) If the Congress can override the Supreme Court on particular popular issues, then the court has no real power to check Congress. While you may worry that the Justices of our highest court will somehow erode our rights with their interpretations of the law, I guarantee you that our Congress would do the same, and faster- since they are highly influenced individuals.

Proposal 4 also disturbs me, because any act which removes power from the people and hands it to politicians is a step in the wrong direction. There needs to be reform in the Senate, but that reform should not include removing the individual citizen from having a voice in their choice of representation in the Senate.

Obviously, Proposals 6 and 7 are a problem, and for reasons transparent to anyone here.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 3:40 AM

DREAMTROVE


What just happened with Justices for life we just saw: presidents pressuring people to resign so they can stack he court.

In Iran, members of the supreme court are elected.

What I would like to see is some sort of proportional reform for all branches of govt. where a certain number of seats are reserved for any party by vote, in part because I think that it would break up the two party system, but in part because it would end the tyranny of the majority.

senators are supposed to represent states, and they don't, they represent parties.

Thesupreme court is currently the most problematic and undemocratic portion of govt. Before the federalists crwated it, and the reason why, is that they wanted to take away from the states the power to interpret the consitution. If I were to place a limitation on the supreme court it would be that the federal supreme court should only be able to affect the actions of the federal govt, ie, they could ban it from torturing, or allow it to, but they should not be able to force the states to grant eminent domain rights to corporations like kelo vs. The city of new london.

At the moment, any push against the supreme court will carry weight because the current court is basically hopelessly corrupt. Everyone knows they appointed Bush in 2000, but few people caught them appointing Bush again in 2004, which they did with the quickest appeal and reversal in court history, a process slated to take a year and a half was reduced to twenty four hours. The decision: to allow partisan representatives of the republican party to determine who could and could not vote in Ohio. The result: the republicans though that the republicans won. That decision was recently overturned, and the result appears to be that in fact the republicans did not take Ohio in 2004, for all the good that it does us now.



That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 3:47 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

While I agree that reform may be necessary, I do not agree that Perry's proposals would be an improvement. I still see them as short-sighted. Or perhaps narrow-of-vision.

The first thing you need to ask yourself when making such a proposal is not, "How would I like this to work" but rather, "How will people twist this into a grotesque shape?"

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 4:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I'm going to go ahead and post the text of the article so we can run down the list one by one, and I'll include my own comments and ideas.

Quote:

Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.
Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.
"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.
"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."



As Anthony pointed out, there's the issue of manipulation to be concerned about. Look at people who go from regulatory agencies (which is really what the SCOTUS is, in a sense) to the private sector, and witness the massive conflicts of interest engendered by those messy entanglements.

Further, TWO YEARS? Man, that is a whole shit-load of federal retirees, isn't it? Talk about larding up the welfare system with a bunch of entitled retirees!

Further, how would a limited term rein in judges? Wouldn't it actually FREE THEM UP even more, if they aren't going to have to be around to deal with the consequences of their decisions?

Quote:


2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.



Why? Congress DOES have the power to override the SCOTUS at present. It's done through a process called "a constitutional Amendment". Rick Perry may not be familiar with the concept. More likely, he thinks Americans are stupid, and don't realize that this is exactly the process the Founders had in mind for overriding the Court's decisions.

Quote:


3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.
Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.



Good luck. I wonder, though - as President of the U.S., where does Mr. Perry plan on living? How will he travel? Will he be paid for being President? Will he have Secret Service protection? Will he have a military of any kind? He does understand that an "all volunteer army" doesn't really mean they're unpaid volunteers, doesn't he?

Quote:


4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.
Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."
"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.



""The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage..." - I believe today that's called a "Tea Party". I find it odd that repealing the 17th is such a litmus test for so-called "conservatives". In their quest for "freedom" and "liberty", they want to free the people of the need to vote. How quaint.

Quote:


5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.
"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."
A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.
Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.



So a balanced budget amendment would be binding, except when it wouldn't? It's also cute that conservatives now think majority rule means only a supermajority should be able to make or change the rules.

Quote:


6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.
In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.


7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."



Of course Perry can offer no reason WHY these last two social issues should be changed to reflect his personal views, only that THEY SHOULD. He claims such things were so important to the "traditional values of our founding fathers", yet can offer zero evidence to support that claim. It seems to me if these issues were truly that important to the founders, they might have seen fit to maybe mention them, perhaps even in some kind of written document that laid out the rights of citizens and the law of the land.

That they didn't do so leads me to believe they weren't overly concerned with such matters.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 5:12 AM

DMAANLILEILTT


I hate to admit it but Perry's right one thing: people should not be judges for life. Just make the retirement age 75 or something like that.

However I believe having the Supreme Court around is crucial as it is designed to act as a voice unaffected by politics.

I also find it a bit rich that Perry criticises the 16th and 17th Amendments for interfering in states' affairs but then proposes two new amendments which would directly impede their ability to self-determine.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 5:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I'm with Anthony for the most part.
Quote:

Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
If this were so, it would destroy the concept of checks and balances, in my opinion. The idea that whichever part is in control of Congress can get something passed which is unconstitutional, and can then override the judicial system if they so can get the votes, means the judicial branch is essentially powerless, and whichever party controls Congress can pass laws which are even unconstitutional.
Quote:

End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment
That would, again, give whichever party is in control of Congress power to appoint Senators from their own party, if they had the votes. It's bad enough that Congress doesn't represent the people as it IS, but this would make it even worse.
Quote:

The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
So he wants to repeal the parts he doesn't like, but REVISE the Constitution to reflect his own beliefs. That is known as having your cake and eating it, and is just plain wrong.
Quote:

Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Again, he wants the Constitution changed to reflect what HE believes all our values should be.
Quote:

Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states.... But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."
No, it's important to him and what he believes, but has nothing to do with the "soul" of this country; it has more to do with the RIGHTS of the individual. In other words, individual rights are okay as long as they agree with what Rick Perry believes, period.

As Dmaan has pointed out, I too find it fascinating that he says "Let's use the people's document--the Constitution", yet wants to repeal so many aspects of it. It is, in essence, a dichotomy. The Constitution was intended, I believe, to be a living document which could be changed as the times change. To live by it exactly as it was originally written is ridiculous...back then black people didn't count...or counted for something like 2/3rds of a person, and that's just one example. I also think limiting the Supremes to some specific age wouldn't be a bad thing; as it is, they can continue into their doddering old age despite being out of touch with the country and, potentially, no longer able to make responsible decisions.

Yes, the man scares the pants off me, as I've said before. I'm PRETTY sure he's so incredibly extreme that he hasn't a chance of being elected, but I find his willingness to repeal, amend, repeal, amend to fit his OWN agenda overreaching at least, hypocritical at worst..



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 8:46 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


It seems Rick Perry is very much the embodiment of so much of the "tea party" and neo-conservative platform, in that he really claims to LOVE the Constitution, but at the same time he really, REALLY wants to exercise his own form of line-item veto on it. "Let's see... outlaw abortion... do away with direct elections and representative government... scratch out that whole section about the courts and the judges... do away with these pesky Amendments... and... THERE! I think we've got something I'd love to support, and I only had to shred about half of the Constitution to get there!"




"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:59 AM

DREAMTROVE


Perry isn't a grass roots figure, he's a democrat turned republican, and a long term politician.

The good behavior thing is idiotic. Either make them elected officials or abolish the court. The thing is, if you have term limits, then each admin. will stack the court.

Here in NY we're not lucky enough to elect the court as many states do, but we do elect attorney general separately and it makes a world of difference.

Congress can't really pass an amendment, it needs the okay of states. States should just have veto power over the courts decisions, but ideally, any justice voting in favor of anything that leaves traditional fed jurisdiction should just be forced out of office. There's no excuse for the three decisions I mentioned above, kelo v nl, bush v gore, and the ohio voting 2004 case. that's just blatant interference by the feds.

The us govt. has plenty of revenue without the 16th. we have 3 trillion in imports. Tariffs, people.

I'm actually iffy on the 17th, I think it's been a disaster in practice because it has made it much easier for corporations to buy senators. OTOH, it was a disaster before. It needs a reform, I'm not sure it needs this one.

The way to balance the budget is remove the power to borrow money from the federal govt.

6&7 prove that Perry is an idiot. The constitution is a document of process, not policy. Anyone who doesn't understand the difference should resign from public office.

Curiously, this single concept was the main mission of the RPUSA, to teach people the difference, so in that regard we were somewhat effective, just as the whole goal of the Ron Paul revolution was to alert people to the dangers of the federal reserve.

Perhaps it really is an infowar, and the thought has occurred to me a couple of times that Perry, who is on the ballot in zero states last time I checked, is not really running for office, but is trying to make a statement, but if so, he should cut loose the baggage and focus.


Quote:

Quote:

Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.


If this were so, it would destroy the concept of checks and balances, in my opinion



Niki

Okay, taken this as an academic process issue, which you are clearly doing, since the court is about as hostile to liberals as it could possibly be, I have to disagree:

The congress has the power to override the president on a 2/3 vote, and no one is suggesting that this is a radical problem for separation of powers. Granting the same power over the supreme court, I don't see the problem.

Consider Kelo vs. the City of New London. This is an incredibly corrupt and hard to defend position, and clearly lacks the support of even a fraction of the electorate. If the people almost universally oppose a policy, shouldn't they have the right to abolish it through their elected officials?

If the supreme court makes a decision which is just, or even one which is controversial, then it won't be shot down by 2/3 of the electorate. But if it makes one that is universally unpopular, why should it be protected?

I mean, yes, I get you don't like Perry, who does? but that doesn't mean he can't have some good ideas. It's not like we're in danger of president perry, who is unlikely to even be a primary choice in an election I suspect the GOP has no chance of winning.

Repealing the 17th we're all iffy on. I think that amending it would be something to consider. It's important to remember that the US got along fine without it for well over a century, including some long periods of peace, the longest in our history.

The direct election of senators in 1914 brought the elected senate which took office in 1915, and almost immediately launched the nation into war, from which we were arguably never extracted.

So, yeah, the argument could certainly be made against it, but it's probably better to move forward than backward.


As to 6 and 7, we're all agreed. this is idiocy. I think that Perry is blatantly pandering to the right to try to prove that he's a real republican, and the result is he ends up looking like an ass.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 12:14 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by dmaanlileiltt:
I hate to admit it but Perry's right one thing: people should not be judges for life. Just make the retirement age 75 or something like that.


Maybe, but I can't get the image out of my head of that one Supreme Court judge (damned if I can remember his name!) gravely and bravely hanging in there despite being not only well into his golden years, but near mortally ill as well, trying to wait out Bush who wanted them replaced with someone a little more pliable to the notion of stripping our rights wholesale.

That quiet, determined resistance really struck a chord with me, and in respect to that I'm not so sure setting a retirement age would be a good idea given that the parties would then work in deliberate fashion to subvert the court by timing certain policies and their enactment with those retirements.

Sometimes trying to fix a thing breaks it worse.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 1:11 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Not much I'd want out of this list.

I would like for it to be a bit easier to remove Federal Judges when their behavior gets noticably bizarre. Now they just sort'a encyst them with saner judges until they die.

Overturning Supreme Court decisions should be done by Constitutional Amendment. Checks and Balances works pretty good to keep things moving slow, which I like.

Direct election of Senators vs. appointment by the State governments is all sixes to me.

Doing away with Income Tax, while it might seem like a good idea, is just cutting the country's throat.

The Marriage and Anti-abortion amendments are just pandering to the Christian Conservatives, and bad ideas all around.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 2:39 PM

DREAMTROVE


Renquist?

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:

Overturning Supreme Court decisions should be done by Constitutional Amendment. Checks and Balances works pretty good to keep things moving slow, which I like.
...

Doing away with Income Tax, while it might seem like a good idea, is just cutting the country's throat.



On the first, I disagree: the court makes lots of corrupt and nonsensical decisions. A sane country should be able to reject these without ending up with a 697 page constitution. The decision upholding indefinite detention, for example. That's absurd. You don't need a new amendment for it because it's already covered by the sixth. The decision should just be rejected, as should the htree I mentioned earlier, and probably at least two or three a year.

On the second. I also disagree, but less strongly. I think income taxes hurt the economy, and we would be better off without them. We should have taxes which generate revenue without hurting americans. Our current tax structure is mainly a disincentive to hire americans. If I were to peg one thing that causes emoires to crumble, it would be taxes.

I have to give Perry credit for thinking on his feet and not being afraid to say it. Also, as it is obvious political suicide, I assume he's not really intending to run for the top office.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 2:44 PM

DMAANLILEILTT


I think the reason that the situation with the Supreme Court is so bad is that the head of government and the head of state is the same person. The appointment of judges becomes political instead of just being about who will be the fairest and possibly longest-serving. If there was a way to seperate the appointment of judges from the political process then there wouldn't be an issue of judges retiring or being forced to remain on despite being infirm.

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 5:34 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove: Either make them elected officials or abolish the court.


Making them elected officials would just means they would be more apt to make decisions based on getting re-elected and not on law.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, August 20, 2011 11:06 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove: Either make them elected officials or abolish the court.


Making them elected officials would just means they would be more apt to make decisions based on getting re-elected and not on law.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



The Supreme Court Justices of most of the 50 states are elected officials.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 21, 2011 3:11 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove: Either make them elected officials or abolish the court.


Making them elected officials would just means they would be more apt to make decisions based on getting re-elected and not on law.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



The Supreme Court Justices of most of the 50 states are elected officials.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.




And at least in Texas, that's been problematic, as you end up with a Court that kowtows to the Legislature at all times, and becomes completely dependent on the prevailing majority in power.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 22, 2011 8:14 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Supreme court: I figure we might as well keep it like it is, I hear very few complaints about it and it might get worse if we mess with it.

6 and 7: I agree with DT that the constitution is a government process document and that moral issues like this don't really belong in there, remember the moral issue of prohibition? That didn't go so well when set in stone in an amendment. I've been getting more and more into states' rights lately. Obviously I think there are some things that the government should decide for the country as a whole, but I'm a bit flexible about what those things should or shouldn't be. That being said I'd be fine with individual states deciding about abortion (at least later abortion) and gay marriage. Just because I think something is totally obvious doesn't mean the rest of humanity gets it.

I think the public should be electing senators and congressfolk, what's the point if we can't elect our own officials?.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

If the supreme court makes a decision which is just, or even one which is controversial, then it won't be shot down by 2/3 of the electorate. But if it makes one that is universally unpopular, why should it be protected?
That's not what Perry said:
Quote:

Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote
IF it required a 2/3rd vote of the PEOPLE, I'd be in favor of it. But Congress? No, thank you.

Frem: Good point. I take back my agreement.
Quote:

Overturning Supreme Court decisions should be done by Constitutional Amendment
I agree with DT; the concept of an amendment to overturn each decision individually seems crazy to me.
Quote:

If there was a way to seperate the appointment of judges from the political process
Don't we all wish (I'm guessing)?!

I also agree with Nick about electing them, but I have to ask: Has appointing them made it any better? If anyone could think of ANY way to appoint judges which doesn't involve politics, gawd I'd love to hear it!
Quote:

The Supreme Court Justices of most of the 50 states are elected officials.
May I inquire as to what is your point? We're discussing the US Supreme Court, I believe, and yes, those who are elected are CERTAINLY at the mercy of politics, as Mike pointed out.

I agree with Riona about the public electing legislators. I shudder to think what we'd get if state legislators decided our Senators...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:06 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,

Hmm. The current anointed theocracy method of the federal supreme court is a disaster though.


Riona,

No complaints? Um, I'm not sure which supreme court you were watching, but I watched one that appointed Bush president twice, and that okay'ed torture, indefinite detention and corporate seizure of private property.

As for the senate, it needs some sort of reform. The house is supposed to represent the people (1 for every 30,000, but now we're at 1 per half a million or so.) but the senate is supposed to represent the states. In reality, it almost never does. We had a senator recently who never lived here: Hillary Clinton. She never sided with the state and always sided with friends, usually with her party, but generally with globalists.

Democracy has been corrupted by partisanship, and the states don't really get represented in government, the national parties do.

That aside, Perry is a dick. But he brings up some interesting things that he himself probably hasn't thought about, he probably borrowed them from some tea party person when he decided to reinvent himself as tea party.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:50 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


DT: The "annointed theocracy" of the SCOTUS is only there because it's allowed to be. There IS a method in place - a process, outlined in the Constitution - by which Supreme Court justices can be removed from power.

That it isn't used often doesn't make it less valid; it just means that Congress is too timid, as we've seen with their abdication of their responsibilities regarding declarations of war.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:02 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,

Hmm. The current anointed theocracy method of the federal supreme court is a disaster though.



See comment above. Now to the rest...

Quote:


Riona,

No complaints? Um, I'm not sure which supreme court you were watching, but I watched one that appointed Bush president twice, and that okay'ed torture, indefinite detention and corporate seizure of private property.

As for the senate, it needs some sort of reform. The house is supposed to represent the people (1 for every 30,000, but now we're at 1 per half a million or so.) but the senate is supposed to represent the states. In reality, it almost never does. We had a senator recently who never lived here: Hillary Clinton. She never sided with the state and always sided with friends, usually with her party, but generally with globalists.

Democracy has been corrupted by partisanship, and the states don't really get represented in government, the national parties do.



Question being, how do you propose to reform it WITHOUT it becoming a partisan slugfest?

Appointment by state legislatures will go right down party lines, first time, every time. Whichever party is in power in the state will select the Senators for the state, who will then make it easier for their state to hold the current majority, ad infinitum. That's not democracy.

Quote:


That aside, Perry is a dick. But he brings up some interesting things that he himself probably hasn't thought about, he probably borrowed them from some tea party person when he decided to reinvent himself as tea party.




Well, according to his spokesperson, Perry doesn't believe those things he put in his book nine months ago, either. After telling people who questioned his policies to "read my book", his camp is now claiming that the book doesn't reflect his view on these issues.

By the way, I just found out the book's title was pronounced "Fed Up"; I thought it was an autobiography, and was supposed to be pronounced "Effed Up". Seemed more accurate that way.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:22 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Good one, Mike. I don't like to even think about Scary Perry, and just hope he folds up his tent and fades away (or has it folded FOR HIM!).


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


He is imploding rather rapidly, it seems. Down here, we're getting more reminders every single day of how big a disaster he's been for Texas, and how much bigger a disaster he wants to be for America.

His porn links, his fund-raising high-jinks, the Gardasil debacle, his public gaffes and misstatements, his alleged marital improprieties... he's looking more and more like a flash in the pan.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 1:57 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Niki: For what it's worth, these are some of the things about Rick Perry making the rounds down here in Texas, and now they're starting to catch on to a wider national audience.



http://weareaustin.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=172327&shr=addthis

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12964

http://www.bnet.com/blog/drug-business/rick-perrys-gardasil-u-turn-her
es-what-actually-happened-back-in-2007/9507




http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/attention-governor-p
erry-evolution-is-a-fact/2011/08/23/gIQAuIFUYJ_blog.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/governor-for-sale/2011/08/23/gI
QAGC3vYJ_story.html?hpid=z3


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2028353/Rick-Perry-comes-inves
tment-Americas-largest-pornography-distributor.html


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/08/22/300479/rick-perry-disavows
-fed-up
/

http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-perry-is-a-dope-michele-bachmann-i
s-a-joke-and-mitt-romney-is-a-fraud-2011-8




As I said, there's still more, but some of it is still being researched and vetted. And some of it gets pretty sordid and might really put off some of his fundamentalist backers.


As Molly Ivins once said, "In Texas politics, it's okay to step on your dick as long as you don't stomp on it." Rick Perry has stomped on his more than a few times.


None of which addresses the fact that his entire "Texas Miracle" was performed almost entirely on the back of the Federal government, which is the largest single employer in Texas. Some of y'all may have heard of a little place down here called "Fort Hood"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_hood

And Perry "balanced" our state budget (which still has a $25 billion shortfall this year and next, sources say) using federal stimulus funds and some "creative" accounting. Meanwhile, his record on job creation is pretty miserable when you break it down, with the majority of jobs created in the state being GOVERNMENT JOBS, which he's allegedly against (but will still run on having a great jobs record despite that not being even close to the case).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 6:21 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Oh, and then there's this study:

http://texaslsg.org/texasonthebrink/texasonthebrink.pdf

which breaks down how Texas stacks up to other states. Bottom line: It ain't pretty.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
He is imploding rather rapidly, it seems. Down here, we're getting more reminders every single day of how big a disaster he's been for Texas, and how much bigger a disaster he wants to be for America.

His porn links, his fund-raising high-jinks, the Gardasil debacle, his public gaffes and misstatements, his alleged marital improprieties... he's looking more and more like a flash in the pan.


*Dances a little jig*
Yanno, I shouldn't, but I just can't resist, especially when it's not about something awful!

I. TOLD. YOU. SO.

But of course, Mikey, you kinda knew about that conga-line of skeletons in his closet, I more mean everyone else - and yes, yes it WAS the porn deal I was referencing back then about the bombs that hadn't dropped yet.

And that ain't the HALF of what I could, personally, do to Romney over his connections with Sembler and Lichfield.
(Again, remember I have certain tax records...)

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 1:55 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Frem, the funny thing is, there are indeed even bigger stories cooking about Perry - some dealing with his personal life, and some dealing with his business dealings and hypocrisy over "welfare" and the like.

What's so hilarious about it all is that there is so much coming out, so fast right now, and Perry has already shown himself to be SOOOO not ready for primetime, since he's already at war WITH HIS OWN STATED POSITIONS, and it only took a hack like Robert Gibbs about two sentences to blow Perry's whole "miracle" out of the water when he talked about it with Savanna Guthrie on "Press the Meat" last Sunday.

Perry has made a career of attacking the positions of others, and has never really had to clarify his own positions, until now, and he finds he's not able to do so.

Of course, it should also be noted that the man has almost never had a job in his adult life - including his college career - that WASN'T paid for directly by that government that he hates so much.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:32 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yeah, I knew about the "jobs" thing he keeps touting...what I heard is the majority of those jobs he "created" are in minimum-wage positions with no health care or much of anything ELSE!

I'll have to read all that stuff--have to get the dogs out--and enjoy it. I'm not dancing any jigs until I'm SURE he's dead in the water, tho', just a bit more hopeful. Thanks for that!

As to Romney--Frem, hold back whatever you might have until he gets the nomination (if he does). He's the most "viable" (I use the term loosely!) candidate they've got, so if he wins the nomination, THAT's when we start . Of course, you already know that...just preaching to the choir here.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:50 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


I'll still be interested to see how Cain squares his tenure at the Federal Reserve with the anti-Fed tea partyists. Of course, the anti-tax crowd doesn't really seem to mind at all that Bachmann's prior job was working for the IRS, so who knows...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2011 6:24 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


No no no, Mike...she just did it to "infiltrate the enemy", remember? Or because she was being subservient to her husband...or, or, or; sorry, I'm having trouble keeping up.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:24 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Oh, I thought she did it to combat the rise of the Soviet Union. ;)

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/19/news/la-pn-bachmann-soviet-201
10819





"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:42 - 4886 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:16 - 4813 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:37 - 427 posts
Pardon all J6 Political Prisoners on Day One
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:31 - 7 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, December 4, 2024 07:25 - 7538 posts
My Smartphone Was Ruining My Life. So I Quit. And you can, too.
Wed, December 4, 2024 06:10 - 3 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Tue, December 3, 2024 23:31 - 54 posts
Vox: Are progressive groups sinking Democrats' electoral chances?
Tue, December 3, 2024 21:37 - 1 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:35 - 962 posts
Trump is a moron
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:16 - 13 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, December 3, 2024 11:39 - 6941 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Mon, December 2, 2024 21:22 - 302 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL