Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > California  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 84
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?Page 4 of 44    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
McConnell highlights yet more evidence of Supreme Court nominee’s alarming disdain for the First Amendment

Senator: Kagan Argued Government Could Ban Books

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Mitch McConnell pointed out that Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan once argued that the government should have the power to ban books and censor political pamphlets, as yet more alarming information on Kagan’s hostility towards the First Amendment comes to light.

During the Citizens United vs. FEC case, Kagan’s office was asked by Chief Justice John Roberts if the government could ban publications it they were paid for by a corporation or labor union.

“If it’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, ‘and so vote for x,’ the government could ban that?” Roberts asked, to which Kagan’s deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said the government could censor such information.

Justice Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument at the time, reports Newsmax.

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.

“Solicitor Kagan’s office in the initial hearing argued that it would be OK to ban books,” Senator McConnell said. “And then when there was a rehearing Solicitor Kagan herself in her first Supreme Court argument suggested that it might be OK to ban pamphlets.”

McConnell called for a full investigation of Kagan’s First Amendment stance in light of her “troubling” position on free speech, adding that classic political pamphlets like Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and the Federalist Papers could be banned under Kagan’s logic.

Under Kagan’s definition of the government’s role in policing free speech, the state would also have a remit to censor things like newspaper editorials, as well as the political opinions of radio talk show hosts or television reporters.
This is alarming given the fact that Obama’s information technology czar Cass Sunstein has called for the re-introduction of the “fairness doctrine,” which would also force political websites to carry mandatory government propaganda.


Obama’s Supreme Court nominee also thinks certain expressions of free speech should be ‘disappeared’ if the government deems them to be offensive. On the surface that’s any opinion on racial, sexuality or gender issues, but since criticizing Obama is now deemed racist, where will it all end?

In a 1993 University of Chicago Law review article, Kagan wrote, “I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation.” (emphasis mine).

“In a 1996 paper, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine,” Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government,” reports World Net Daily.

Kagan’s standpoint on free speech, that it is subject to regulation and definition by the government, has no place in America, completely violates the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, that even unpopular speech should be protected, and would be better suited for countries like Iran, Zimbabwe or North Korea.

Little surprise therefore when we learn that in her undergraduate thesis at Princeton, Kagan lamented the decline of socialism in the U.S. as “sad” for those who still hope to “change America.”

If Kagan is approved she is going to find an eager ally in White House information czar Cass Sunstein, who in a January 2008 white paper entitled “Conspiracy Theories,” called for the government to tax and outright censor political viewpoints it deemed unsavory.

Kagan’s repulsive take on the rights enshrined in the Constitution is not just limited to free speech.

The Supreme Court nominee outlined her belief that Americans can be guilty until proven innocent, or in fact just plain guilty without even the chance to be proven innocent, when she was quoted as saying, “That someone suspected of helping finance Al Qaeda should be subject to battlefield law — indefinite detention without a trial — even if he were captured in a place like the Philippines rather than a physical battle zone.”

Kagan is also hostile to the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. She has habitually come down on the side of gun control in claiming the state has the right to impose restrictive gun laws and said that she disagrees with the language of the Second Amendment.

Despite accepting the 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent on gun rights, Kagan added that the Constitution “provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” thus leaving the door open for future regulation.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 85
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/17/2010 9:21:06 PM
^^^^Sunstein and Kagan also both believe that the Constitution is not a "charter of negative liberties"--i.e. that it gives the United States government only certain limited and enumerated powers, and directly prohibits it from doing a number of other specified things. They think, instead, that it gives the U.S. government "positive rights" to grant people certain things. The obvious problem with that interpretation--whatever the basis for it may be--is that it destroys the Constitution by giving government unlimited powers.

People like them really don't belong in America. Their ideas are completely at odds with the design of this government. The only way to put those ideas in practice is to nullify the Constitution and the rule of law. Sunstein doesn't want to admit that, nor does Kagan. But that would be the end result of doing what they favor. For all their intelligence, being high-minded has made them foolish. They think government control is the royal road to a utopian society--a heaven on earth--and that pipe dream intoxicates them.

In contrast, the Founders took a much dimmer view of human nature--they didn't believe any government could perfect it. They knew we had to have some central government, but most of them saw it as a threat to freedom. And as such, it should have no more powers than necessary. Looking at the horrors totalitarian governments were responsible for in the 20th century, I say they had it right, and Sunstein, Kagan, Obama, and all the rest who think like them are either misguided or malicious. Either way, they are a menace to this country and to our individual freedoms. Anyone who thinks these people's intelligence makes their ideas sound should remember that some very intelligent and learned people also helped create the statist regimes in Italy, Germany, Japan, China, and Russia, which among them killed a couple hundred million people.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 86
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/18/2010 5:24:31 AM
Skooch? How do you imagaine the economy is better with 10% unemplyment, 18 using U6 measures, and all that after spending $2 trillion. That boggles credulity you can find anything positive about the economy. That debt will hamper growth for decades, and if you ever held a belief in keynesian econ you should be disabused.

Obama turned a normal business cycle downturn into a deep and toxi recession much like Jimmy Carter gave us. If spending money solved problems there would be no poor countries.

On a personal note I have done very well through this recession by investing in government favored business but that option was not open to most people.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 87
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/18/2010 8:17:07 AM
Just point me at where the economy is better? California unemployment is 12.6% and rising. Where is it better? be specific. No libtard sleight of hand.

Profits are up from extensive cost cutting but the top line is not growing. When the top line grows I will consider it a sea change, this mornings news has top line revenue shrinking.

The dollar is getting stronger as other world markets stumble, mostly from Obama-like economic policies. The stronger dollar may delay our own reckoning but will also increase the cost of our products again pushing down jobs and economic growth.

Show me the good news Skoochie the world awaits your book lol.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 88
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/18/2010 9:13:36 AM
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what "unemployment has done a 180" means when the rate rises from 9.7% to 9.9%. Now I understand more people came back seeking emplyment, and I understand NEW claims fell from 460K to 445K in recent months, but that's not a 180 in a sane world.

The truth about employment is in normal times we need to add 125K jobs per month just to stay status quo. Since we are somewhere north of 15 million unemployed, we would need to add 125K plus 500K for the remainder of Obama's term in office to absorb those folks. Well maybe we could form a permanent census project, that would take care of maybe 40K jobs one time lol.

I read the green jobs forecast, mmmmm, thats gonna leave a mark on some old hippie libtards. It's not coming. in fact there is a glut of solar and windpower product worldwide, mostly from China...ouch. maybe Obama can go give the Chinese some economic advice since they have lifted 400 million people from abject poverty into the middle class in 10 years while our arc is in descent.

Banks are profitable? Yes they are, borrowing money from the fed at .25% and lending to governments at 4% is a great business ...for banks. Funny money profits. Nothing sustainable. Nothing job or wealth creating. I covered profits, it's all one time cost cutting ...yawn God how I hate teaching skoochie daily.

Noodle around some with the attached employment charts and get back to me on employment did a 180, it may be set to california so click all when that Obama recovery sinks in lol.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate#met=unemployment_rate&
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 89
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/18/2010 11:20:47 AM
Thanks for the assist PH sometimes i forget I'm speaking to children unable to see the consequeces of any act. I'll bet these guys go to LV and think they are winning when they churn chips to cash to chips ad naseum. When GM paid back it's "loan" from the government a month ago with other money they'd borrowed from the government I'll bet old Skooch's crew had a "shout out for the Messiah".

Seriously Skoochie you need a tender.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 90
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/18/2010 12:11:46 PM
Skooch you probably don't spend a lot of time on pondering "what's next?". Suppose instead of bailing out banks with first direct bailouts (which in some cases banks refused but Obumbler made them take the money) they'd have given citizens cash grants to allow them to pay the banks back mortgages and consumer loans. Do you think that might have had positive effects to 1. citizens, 2. banks, 3. consumer products the citizen would be buying at this time based upon reduced total indebtedness. Sound good?

Instead the government gave money to banks in the form of direct payments, and this latest .25% rate is allowing banks to profit while serving as a pass through of fiat money generated by the money printing press.

Back to my first point, imagine rather than having the government touch the money, and gift it to anyone, they would have simply not collected this money via tax reductions. ya think foreclosures would be as high? Consumer spending in trouble? Business's generating jobs as a result of incentives, or more appropriately an absense of disincentives?

You lefties are all about control. There is nothing in your thinking except punishing the competent and elevating the clueless.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 91
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/18/2010 4:31:19 PM
It was Obumbler policy, they were his employees, you give him the good, he's got to take the bad.

I think history will treat all participants in the bailout, Bush to date very badly. I give Bush a bit of the benefit of the doubt given the circumstances and timing of the message. Then again if Bush were a true conservative like your thoughtful writer it's likely he would have told them to go stuff their GS, AIG, etc. figure it out, give me an alternative.

Obumbler/Rahm were knee deep in glee "never let a good crisis go to waste" and they've run roughshod on everyone in their efforts to continue this slushfund of money they've passed around.
I've suggested this before, maybe you can accept it now. Why would we bail out European banks then and now? Answer: the government, but mostly Dem's underwrote deadbeat loans and promised the buyers of these financial instruments the government stood behind them. No other anser makes sense. UBS, Deutsche, etc. ignored common sense risk management principles in buying this junk.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 92
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 8:26:10 AM
I blame them both that's where we need to come together we have all been screwed.

This issue now goes far beyond the mortgage blues of some lenders. There is no way that crazy wild-eyed mortgage brokers with lax standards could cause worldwide problems like this. President Bill Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which had prevented the coupling of investment banking and lending. To be exact, on November 12, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal is it allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Economists have criticized the action.

Of course economists criticized the way in which the Bush administration manufactured money by allowing anybody and everybody the opportunity to buy or refinance homes. Economist Robert Kuttner has criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 93
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 8:50:17 AM

Stealing from Peter to pay Paul does not increase overall economic health.


That depends on what Peter vs. Paul would do with the money. If Paul is going to invest in productive infrastructure that will have a strong multiplier effect (the inverse of leverage) over its lifespan, while Peter will just spend it on consumption (including home purchases, which technically aren't investments as they do not generate income), then Paul would be a much better bet.
 fzrhusker
Joined: 10/8/2005
Msg: 94
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 9:31:03 AM
Ace I have to agree on that note. Only 5% of the Stimulus will go to infrastructure. If you get a chance watch the entire show on the history channel, but here is a clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBSPcIGGcIc

According to GAO we use to spend 12% of our budget on infrastructure, now we only spend 2%. According to the GAO we need to spend 12 Trillion (yes trillion) just to get our infrastructure back up to a C rating.

We should have spent 700 billion on infrastructure.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 95
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 9:43:29 AM
I totally agree with you. By not doing so, we are spending money on people who clearly do not have our interests at heart.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 96
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 12:00:48 PM
^^^^^Someone in government should have a right to take Smith's property and give it to Jones, because that someone's decided Jones will use it more productively? Where, exactly, does this someone get any right, legal or moral, to make that decision? It's just another way of saying someone in government has a claim on Smith's property that's superior to Smith's claim on it. You can't have a free society where no one can call anything his own, and no one else's.

There's a good reason the Declaration assumed that our rights derive from nature and our creator. That makes us sovereign over them, rather than our government. The only legitimate powers the federal government has over any of us are those the states first granted it in the Constitution, and those they've granted it since through amendments. The very idea that the government has innate rights that it bestows on us as it sees fit is anti-American. It belongs in a totalitarian state. But Cass Sunstein, this President's "regulatory czar," believes just that. So does our next Supreme Court Justice.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 97
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 12:04:29 PM
No, PH. I did not mistake your implication, which was that giving money to the government is always a bad idea. I say it depends on how the government is going to spend the money.

You might want to claim that all the government does is spend it on consumption--the part that doesn't leak away as corruption--but that's a separate argument. The claim that it is theoretically impossible for the government to spend money well is simply nonsense. Traditionalists argue that such money is well spent on defense and the war on drugs, so you can't have it both ways. We still benefit from the public works projects that were built in the 1930s. If we were to undertake a government-sponsored weatherization program for every residential and commercial building in the country, it would be a huge investment. It would also be worth every penny.

Match, the government has the power to tax incomes. That's the law. You can argue that it shouldn't be the law, but if you do, you have to cite an underlying principle. As soon as you do that, you're on my territory with respect to all of your other arguments that claim the law is the law and that's that.

Do you really want to go there?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 98
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 1:08:54 PM

Match, the government has the power to tax incomes. That's the law. You can argue that it shouldn't be the law, but if you do, you have to cite an underlying principle. As soon as you do that, you're on my territory with respect to all of your other arguments that claim the law is the law and that's that. Do you really want to go there?


Of course it's the law, as to income. And if Congress wants to pass a tax law, as it has, that takes most of large incomes and uses it to support 45% of the population which pay no net income tax, it can. But no one specified that they were talking about the income tax.

That amendment's on my hit list, as is the one which removes the states' power to choose U.S. senators. It really wouldn't surprise me to see an effort, at some point, to amend the Constitution to somehow limit the income tax. If people are concerned about creating a national government that would make a lot of the Constitution meaningless (and which could easily destroy this country before long) the most direct way to prevent it might be to reduce the amount of revenue Congress could spend.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 99
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 6:08:29 PM

That amendment's on my hit list, as is the one which removes the states' power to choose U.S. senators.


I'm fine with a cap on income taxes. I'm not fine with a Prop. 13 situation in which corporate and large incomes wind up being taxed less than family and lower incomes.

Considering the nature of both legislatures and governors, are you sure you want to hand the Senate back to them?


If people are concerned about creating a national government that would make a lot of the Constitution meaningless (and which could easily destroy this country before long) the most direct way to prevent it might be to reduce the amount of revenue Congress could spend.


That's the Reagan doctrine in a nutshell. Regardless of what the people voted for previously, get in there and monkey-wrench as much as possible. Fine when the administration does it, although not so fine when a Court, whose job it is to invalidate laws that are unconstitutional, does so. Can you explain why you see it that way? Or is it just that you think you like the results of gutting all those agencies responsible for protecting the environment, etc., so that business can operate with impunity.

I'm thinking that someone from BP ought to be going to jail for claiming their blowout technology was proven, when in fact they now claim it wasn't tested. Criminal fraud, as pollution so often is.
 213history
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 100
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 7:39:49 PM

They want to come to the U.S. illegally and change it into a socialist country so they can receive MORE HANDOUTS.

Then they want the SAME people whom they lovingly refer to as "racists" to give them yet more handouts.

Is there any limit to this hypocrisy?


I would argue that the "handouts" are also part of the plan to oppress and marginalize minorities. Notice how these clowns associate public safety nets with "illegals." Most federal "handout" programs are taken advantage by Caucasian Americans. There are complete towns along the Appalachian dependent on these handouts.

"Handouts" cripple and coddle the population. It robs individuals of their drive and purpose.

 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 101
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/19/2010 8:41:07 PM

Regardless of what the people voted for previously, get in there and monkey-wrench as much as possible. Fine when the administration does it, although not so fine when a Court, whose job it is to invalidate laws that are unconstitutional, does so. Regardless of what the people voted for previously, get in there and monkey-wrench as much as possible. Can you explain why you see it that way?


Of course. When people vote for something, they don't have any guarantee it will stay that way. Constitutions by nature are fixed and very hard to change, but the people can and do change laws all the time. They can add, repeal, or change the laws of their state through their representatives in the legislature, and in states like this one, they can also make law directly by initiative or referendum. And the people can add, repeal, or change federal laws through their representatives in Congress.

But courts are not legislatures. When they start making laws by shortcut, they're undermining democratic rule by diluting people's votes. And when they make unprincipled decisions to achieve a predetermined result, they also undermine the rule of law. Courts aren't supposed to decide political questions--that's the job of legislatures. But in recent decades, many of our elected representatives have developed the bad habit of avoiding tough decisions that would put them on record on controversial issues. They care mostly about getting re-elected. So they leave those issues unresolved, which invites federal courts to do part of their job for them. That erodes the separation of powers built into the Constitution.

I also don't believe in judicial supremacy as the Supreme Court's interpreted it since the late 1950's. Before that, the Court never claimed it was the sole arbiter of what the Constitution means, rather than the President or Congress. Laurence Tribe, maybe the most famous constitutional scholar in the U.S., noted several years ago that “presidents have never taken so wholly juricentric … a view of the constitutional universe—a view that certainly isn’t implied by the power of judicial review as recognized in Marbury v. Madison.”

He's right. Marbury, the famous 1803 decision which first established the principle that the Supreme Court can review the constitutionality of laws--and which supposedly established the judicial supremacy of the Court--didn't go nearly that far. What the Court held there was just that a law is unconstitutional if it authorizes the Court to do something the Constitution doesn't authorize it to do.

In one part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress had authorized the Court to issue writs of mandamus (orders to officials to perform their duties) to any "persons holding office under the authority of the United States." John Adams had appointed Marbury and several other men justices of the peace for D.C., but Jefferson's administration refused to deliver the commissions. They sued in the Supreme Court (in its "original," or "trial court" jurisdiction) to issue writs of mandamus ordering James Madison, Jefferson's Secretary of State, to do his duty and deliver the commissions.

Article III, sec. 2, cl. 2 says the Court "shall have original jurisdiction" in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or where a state is a party. Nothing in there about U.S. officials. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, held that the section of the Judiciary Act authorizing the Court to issue these writs for federal office holders expanded the Court's original jurisdiction beyond these limits. Therefore, the law was invalid, and the would-be justices of the peace were out of luck.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 102
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/20/2010 6:59:31 AM
Skooch big Homer Simpson OOPPSS! this morning. new jobless claims up shockingly, continuing jobless also rises.

You gotta quit listening to your union steward tell you the Good News of Obama and listen to ol' Golfcoast get ya right with reality its ownself.

The stock markets worldwide in free fall, not a single good sign in any sector. Right now you're probably asking yourself "what does it mean?" Well son I'm here to explain it to you, it means Obamao is a failure, the Keynesian policy of creating demand is a loser, big government is a loser, unions are a big loser. You want a safe and sane world? Make government as small as possible, allow individuals to work toward their own self-interest and quit subsidizing deadbeats.

No offense libtards but this is exactly what the early news of the Great Depression looked like and we didn't have the economic skills, or a president that understood the power of capitalism, and so look for many years of bad, bad news.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 103
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/20/2010 7:09:43 AM
But courts are not legislatures. When they start making laws by shortcut, they're undermining democratic rule by diluting people's vtotes.


Well let's see. Seems to me that courts don't make law, but instead rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by legislatures. Even in the abortion case, what they ruled out were laws restricting access to abortion in the first trimester and later beyond. But that's not making a law, that's telling the legislature where the line is to be drawn with respect to women's individual rights.

I don't think a legislature has the power to vote away my rights, even for a week. Do you?

And by citing that example, are you saying you're fine with an administration whose policy is one of deliberate malfeasance?
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 104
view profile
History
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/20/2010 8:04:54 AM
^^^^^That is a pretty idealized view of courts. And a good argument can be made that the Constitution doesn't authorize the Supreme Court to take nearly the liberties it does in deciding whether a law complies with it. It's made law many times, and it's tended to get a lot less principled about doing that since WWII.

Roe is just one example of that. The Court dropped the trimester scheme in Casey in 1992, but a federal right to abortion on demand remains. Roe is a "substantive due process" case, which the Court decided by the hundreds between 1904 and 1937, before piously stating, in case after case, that it had abandoned SDP. (How a process is substantive, anyway, who knows?)

In SDP decisions, the Court is saying, more or less, "This law is not objectionable because it denies people adequate notice or hearing in some way, which is the usual claim in "procedural" due process challenge. Instead, we're invalidating it because we find it unfairly deprives people of liberty just by the nature of what it does."

If the Court told state legislatures where to draw the line as to how long they could require people to wait at red lights, would it be making law? Don't I have an important liberty interest in freedom of movement that the state's infringing by making me wait a minute or two at signals? If you don't think the Court made up the law in Roe, you may want to read it and see if you can find the reasoning behind the revelation that the Constitution guarantees abortion as a fundamental right. If the Court said the Constitution recognized that people have a fundamental right to relieve their bladders, and that state laws prohibiting them from doing it in public violated that right, would it be making law then?

I've never heard anyone call Jefferson's and Madison's refusal to deliver Marley's commission "malfeasance." It was just a President exercising his legitimate power to have the officials he wanted, and not those his predecessor was trying to force on him. I don't see a thing wrong with that. But I didn't discuss Marley because of the personages involved. I mentioned it because it's always cited (mistakenly) as support for judicial supremacy.

As for legislatures voting away rights, it's in the nature of almost every law imaginable to enforce the rights of some people at the expense of others. For example, laws against theft discriminate against thieves, tax laws discriminate against unfavored groups to benefit other ones, and laws against clotheslines in front yards discriminate against people who'd like to put them there. Most laws can infringe most rights, as long as they serve any legitimate purpose at all. When laws infringe on fundamental rights, or when they discriminate against certain groups the Court's specified, the government needs to have better reasons for them.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 105
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/20/2010 11:01:48 AM
Foreclosures and missed payments affects housing stocks which affects lumber, etc.

Euro dropping means they won't be buying many of our products

Oil and commodities dropping means even China sees a poor economic outlook.

Unemployment claims up significantly over estimates, estimates ObaMao's people (guys like you lol) said employment was coming back.

Congress flailing about with a room full of community organizers and attorneys and lobbyists discussing financial markets...zzzzz

Inability to determine the cause of May 6, financial drop. Some rumors hackers from places run by leftist thugs are manipulating events.

States coming clean they will need bailouts, to the tune of a $100B.

Pensions will need a $trillion baliout to meet current estimates

Gulf oil mess.

9 of the past 12 days the market has dropped.

Markets down 10% in 2010.

Skooch, it's kinda like the job market has done a 180, it depends upon how simple your programming is. These are bad signs for a sapient human.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 106
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/20/2010 12:10:19 PM
You know, Match. It would really further the discussion if you could answer the questions that you've been asked:


I don't think a legislature has the power to vote away my rights, even for a week. Do you?

And by citing that example, are you saying you're fine with an administration whose policy is one of deliberate malfeasance?


Those are simple, yes or no questions. Shouldn't be too hard.


As for legislatures voting away rights, it's in the nature of almost every law imaginable to enforce the rights of some people at the expense of others. For example, laws against theft discriminate against thieves, tax laws discriminate against unfavored groups to benefit other ones, and laws against clotheslines in front yards discriminate against people who'd like to put them there. Most laws can infringe most rights, as long as they serve any legitimate purpose at all.


Those examples are specious and you know it. In every case there is a competing right or claim that gives the state a compelling interest in mediating the conflicts in the least intrusive way.

I'd rather have an idealized view of what the Court is supposed to do than a cynical one. We should definitely hold the Court to high standards based on our founding principles.

So, are you OK with conservatives monkey-wrenching the ability of the government to provide services that the People have voted for--just because you happen to disagree with them on the need or the agency the People have picked to provide them?

If so, then you've got no basis for griping when you think its the Court doing it.
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 107
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/20/2010 5:43:28 PM
I heard this reference in regard to Arizona immigration enforcement. I wonder it Obama-Holder realize this is settled law?

http://otd.oyez.org/cases/2004/muehler-darin-v-mena-iris-03222005
 GolfCoast
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 108
What has gotten you concerned with Politics?
Posted: 5/20/2010 6:12:24 PM
Did you hear Calderon's comments? This guy was admitting that in mexico they ship you home, or to prison in a flash. You can be sent back to the USA for being impolite ( afriend of a friend, homeowner in cabo was rude to his gardener...he complained they sent him home lol).
Show ALL Forums  > California  >