posted
Yesterday President Bush signed the new "No Call List" bill into law.
I thought that was a good thing.
However, at that time I thought he said something, a bit aggressive, as if challenging the courts to overrule this law. It was something to the effect of, "The Legistlative Branch overwhelmingly supports this law. The Executive Branch overwhelmingly supports this law. Over 15 million of the people support this list. Lets see what the Judicial has to say about that."
I was ready to get on line and fry President Bush for this agressive stance. I was ready to point out machivelian plots against the one branch of Government he does not have in his pocket. I was ready to roll.
Now I can't find these comments anywhere.
Did I make them up in my mind? If they were such a plan, wouldn't he have said even more?
quote:"The do-not-call registry is still being challenged in court," Bush said. "Yet, the conclusions of the American people and the legislative branch and the executive branch is beyond question."
That's all I can find right now.
Posts: 1777 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would taking such a challenging stance be anything more than an attempt to get this law through? He could just be saying to the courts that *on this issue* they have enough support to amend the constitution if necessary, so go ahead and block this law if need be. Why is that a threat to the power of the court system, especially generally and across the board?
I didn't see the speech so I don't know if you heard correctly or not...
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
He does not challenge the specific judges or courts that are challenging this law. He seems to be challenging the entire judicial branch. For a pro-life president the courts represent the main obstacle from stopping abortions. If he can sway the American people that the Judicial Branch is out of touch and un-American or whatever because of this law, then he can change our opinion of the courts rulings on other things, from upholding questionable parts of the Patriot Act, to the entire Abortion question.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
You might use 'to' if you were trying to arrive at a place called 'Paranoid.' However, I don't think this can be derived from the context of your post.
No. I don't think you're getting too paranoid.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't go too Danton on us, Dan But that statement certainly does seem unprofessional...
I've got it! Bush hired a team of special non-track-leavers to press the "Delete" button on every site they see mention of that statement on and as a whole they are paid 1/20 of everyone's annual salary! Don't look now, but I think we're next!
Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
First off, convincing the public that the courts are out of touch doesn't affect the courts because federal judges aren't elected. He could maybe argue "elect me and I'll straighten out the courts" but that's one of the reasons we elect a president anyway, so that's not really a new or different message.
Secondly, there's no issue that's anywhere near amendment-level support where he needs the courts to back off. The closest would be a partial birth abortion ban, but there's not enough support in the legislature for that.
If this is a plot, it's and outright stupid an impotent one. whatever else has been said about Bush, he is regarded as politically shrewd and that would just be politically idiotic...
Unless there's some weird freaky constitutional loophole that no one is voicing?
[ September 30, 2003, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: T. Analog Kid ]
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But that statement certainly does seem unprofessional...![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
Don't look now, but I think we're next!
