> Who Bork ? Can I have the commie RR version
Bork was a Reagan judicial nominee that the Democrats targeted on the ground that he believed in interpreting the Constitution according to what the framers said about it. The problem with that position is that the Supreme Court made up constitutional law in Roe v. Wade. (Actually, that's not quite right; they resurrected constitutional law that FDR bullied the Supremes into overruling. But it is practically the same thing.) Thus, his broad philosophical position about constitutional law was construed as opposing Roe v. Wade (which, in fairness, it necessarily must to be consistent). The Democracts went to unprecedented lengths to defeat his nomination, which created a new precedent. The result is that over a quarter of the federal bench sits empty. The Clarence Thomas nomination hearing were part and parcel of the new precedent.
It is an awful situation. I suspect many Democrats have the same feeling about it as I do about the Davis recall: yeah, we won the battle, but did we really want this war?
> > Second, nothing illegal has happened.
>
> I'm sorry, but when the USA proves itself
> incapable of organising a SIMPLE RECOUNT of
> cast ballots, then it's just blindingly obvious
> that democracy has taken the back seat.
Perhaps, but that is incompetence, not illegality, driving the car.
> Not to mention the fact that the unelected
> Supreme Court decided that its powers were superior
> to the Electoral College (that "fine" "democratic"
> institution) in matters of, well, elections ...
The Supremes are correct about this. Our constitution makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter in all matters set out in the constitution, since about 1800. It seems to work pretty well. Better than the Congress does, for sure. And some decisions are always made by people appointed by elected representatives.
> Not to mention the fact that, constitutionally,
> Florida ought to have either a) recounted (duh !)
> b) returned a 'contested' decision if outcome
> remained uncertain (as it was) and
> therefore have sent no electors to the College
(a) is not a bad argument, but (if I read the final articles on it), no such recount would have changed the result. The problem was that the local election officials were re-interpreting the ballots arbitratily to come to the result they wanted. That is just as awful as the Supremes calling a halt to it.
I don't think (b) is constitutionally permitted. The state legislature gets to send the electors if the electorate fails.
> > What we're talking about here is the
> > perverse adaptation of legitimate
> > constitutional mechanisms to deal with
> > matters not intended by the mechanism.
>
> Frankly, your Electoral College system is outmoded,
> outdated, and just plain SUCKS !!
>
> Face facts !
Fair argument. It does, though, reflect a genuinely confederal system.
> > Finally, Bush won Florida, which meant he won the
> > electoral college. Yeah, it was close,
>
> Goddamn close : next time 'round I hope his
> brother will be more skilful in organising
> prison sentences for the pinko riff-raff
> (with accompanying removal of voting rights)
> and more effective anti-nigger road blocks on
> election day.
Not to worry. The cemetaries and mental institutions full of active Democratic voters make up for it. Besides, at least in the case of felons, you are talking about people who are legally barred from voting. They got their due process.
> In fact, the "new" EU Constitution is basically a
> compilation of texts from previous EU treaties.
Which makes its presentation as a new constitution even more awful.
> The one contentious proposal is that decisions
> be made by a qualified (2/3rds I believe)
> majority (AKA democracy) instead of requiring
> unanimous agreement (AKA paralysis).
I.e., each nation would be required to hand over its sovereignty to a central institution on those matters, rather than keeping it subject to national control. Sounds like a pretty important decision not to ask the people about.
> I understand that the Bush administration is keen
> to have the new constitution blocked. Hmmm. Wonder
> why ?
Because it calls for a military headquarters to be set up independently of NATO (rather than next door as some have suggested), thus threatening the transatlantic alliance that has been the basis of peace and prosperity in western Europe for the last 55 years?
re: ballot fraud
> Omigod, you guys are sooooo screwed.
>
> Unfortunately, you have all the WMDs, and so are we.
> :-(
Nah. The cheaters cancel each other out, by and large.
> Because you guys routinely veto any international
> treaties you dislike, and also unilaterally
> denounce any past treaties that may become
> personally irksome to your present
> commanders-in-chief ?
It's good to be the USA. Must suck not to be. That said, every other country on earth does it. No one complains about them.
> Not signing the treaties you dislike doesn't
> make your chemical and biological weaponry
> any less illegal.
Huh? What law do we then break?
> Using your rationale, Saddam's old US-financed
> arsenal (that he destroyed) was perfectly OK
> according to Iraqi law, and so is North Korea's
> nuclear one, for similar "legal" reasons.
Saddam did sign stuff (the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, frex) and there were relevant UN resolutions.
Unfortunately, North Korea is actually on solid legal ground because they refused to sign in the first place.
Which brings us back to Bush's point: because the UN is a bunch of weak-wristed commies, we're gonna take out whoever we have to, whenever we have to. If not, what's the alternative? Living with a nuclear-armed North Korea? Given that they have enough artillery dug in north of Seoul to reduce it to rubble (i.e., they already have one WMD, it's just conventional weaponry), there's nothing military we can do, but threats might get them to the bargaining table.
> > You are too easy a target.
>
> It takes one to know one ... :-)
Touche!
> Seriously, what pisses me of most about Bush
> (and Blair) is that they didn't have the brains
> to say the simple truth : they wanted Saddam
> removed NOT because of any non-existent WMDs,
> but because he was a blood-thirsty dictator who
> ordered a genocide or three, and needed punishing
> and removal.
>
> If _this_ had been given as the reason for the
> war, well, I think far more people would be
> supporting you now.
Hmm. I don't think so, because that rationale would apply to half of the countries in the world. E.g., China, almost all of Africa, etc.
The winning argument is oppresion plus the apparent intent to develop weapons that, like North Korea's, puts him beyond the reach of American military might. (And yeah, so we didn't find weapons. Lay aside the partisanship for a moment: go back to the time just before the invasion and assume it is OK to attack if you really think he has WMD. To what conclusion would you come given his history and given his then-current obstructiveness? I think we made the right assumptions about his intent; the assumptions just turned out to be wrong. So, oops, we rid Iraq of an evil despot on our own nickel. No harm, no foul.)
Powered by hypermail