posted
Want to eliminate partisanship, or at least long-standing, partisanship in the Supreme Court?
Let's see how we could do it:
Work the US Supreme Court much like we do with the Jury system.
Take a pool of all Federal judges with 10 or more years experience. Also include all retired judges who are still recognized by the Bar.
Randomly select a Supreme Court from the accumulated pool and have it serve for three months in sequester. As that court finishes up its term and scheduled cases, randomly select the next batch of judges and allow them to make their preparations for their term.
After a judge has served on the Supreme Court for a three-month term, they may not serve again for four years. This would insure a rotating group of judges without a set political ideology (barring a random setting that puts all of one party in) and would also keep judges from holding an incumbency there, preventing, hopefully, "packing" the Supreme Court with one ideology.
Or, simply put, we could stick with what we have. It is a system that has and will continue to work for a long time. Just because the court doesn't strike down the laws you personally don't like doesn't mean that it isn't doing its job.
The Supreme Court decides cases brought before it by the citizens and institutions of the United States. It decides those cases based upon the US Constitution, your personal interpretations may vary from theirs.
But that's what it is all about. Disagree with a law, take some personal responsibility, contact a lawyer and challenge it.
Don't like how laws are being made? Take some personal responsibility and work to have the lawmakers defeated in the next election. But remember, many of these controversial laws have been voted into action by both Republicans and Democrats. Lose your party affiliation and start voting for candidates, not parties.
In this day and age, the difference between the Democrats and Republicans (in reality, not stated ideology)is a very fine line. Both Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Patriot Act and in providing support to Pres. Bush's choice of actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Or, there's the last possibility, perhaps those elected officials are wiser than you. It is, after all, a distinct possibility.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax said: I just don't see why things like the Patriot Act II doesn't bother people enough to vote for someone else - anyone else for that matter!
So you’re on favor of ousting 60% of the House and almost all the Senate? (Although the Senate cleverly avoided responsibility by using a voice vote.) What were your thoughts on drug forfeiture? Did you not vote for Clinton because of his support for the Clipper chip?
posted
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- we've lost important freedoms --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People keep saying this. What specific freedoms have we lost?
Please answer with data, not anecdotes.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- we've had an excessively long economic downturn --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, we haven't. The economy deflated, as it should have, and is now rebounding. If you're planning on blaming poor economic performance on Bush, will you commit to blaming good economic performance on him as well? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Scott - as to freedoms - the issue is that we no longer have to pass the muster of 'innocent' for certain activities to take place - Search and siezure, monitoring of communications, monitoring of personal (previously secure data), confiscation of banking records, and much more. So what does that mean to you? - If I was deemed a respected source to the FBI (this is a for instance) and I believed (wrongly) that you were carousing with the third cousin of the second cousin of the late grandfather of the right hand man to the lowest ranking general in OBL's army, I could report you. If I was deemed by someone as reliable, then you could be put under extremmely heavy monitoring and if you so happen to make the 'watch list' so would all you associations. That may well be a reduction of your freedom and for those that don't see the correlation to our fear of communism is the 50s, you probably still believe there are WMDs in Iraq.
The economy MAY have been on a cycle, but reducing government income and increasing spending explicitly made it difficult to recover. And the common undercurrent of it is OK to run high deficits is simply a case of 'it doesn't affect me directly'. There will be no real long lasting surge in the economy until that deficit is addresed in a postive way. I am scared that some folks in charge think that bankruptcy is a viable option.
And before the mantra of 'we can't reduce government spending because of the war on terrorism' take a fact based look at the government's budget. Other than HEW stuff all other areas budgets increased - reversing a trend of government in the 90s to balance the books (Oh yeah - remember the 90s - real tough economic times).
My apologies folks - this is a simple comment and definitely doesn't adress all the nuances that would argue against my statements, but that is the unfortunate nature of these forum based discussion.
Man my fingers are tired - sorry for the lengthy response.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The economy MAY have been on a cycle, but reducing government income and increasing spending explicitly made it difficult to recover.
Please explain how reducing government income and increasing spending over the short term made the eocnomy weaker. A typical Keynsian(usually democrat too) response to downturns is to increase spending, artificially increasing demand.
quote: reversing a trend of government in the 90s to balance the books (Oh yeah - remember the 90s - real tough economic times).
I would remind you that the 90's boom was not created in washington. Washington did not start thousands of new companies and employ millions of new workers. If anything, it is a good example of how a republican congress actually did something good for a change and fought Clinton to balance the budget.
quote: If I was deemed by someone as reliable, then you could be put under extremmely heavy monitoring and if you so happen to make the 'watch list' so would all you associations.
So those suspected of being members of Al Quada should not be observed? The key difference between the current situation and the red scare, is public opinion. If there were public hearings about people's patriotism, and people were accused of being terrorists, those people would become folk heros, not villans.
And lets not forget, while the red scare was taken to an extreme, beyond legality, there was a basis for the fear. The largest country in the world had just stolen the secret of the atom bomb from the US by using american spies. Archives released from former soviet offices show that the communist party in america was run from moscow. Many of those who were suposedly persecuted, were infact former soviet spies, although many had ceased their relationship with moscow after WWII.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Please explain how reducing government income and increasing spending over the short term made the eocnomy weaker...."
The short term, eh? When do you think Bush plans to reduce spending, Robespierre? Will it happen next year? The year after next? His budget doesn't actually include a year in which the federal government spends less -- or even increases its spending less, which is what's normally called "cutting" by the government.
He certainly appears to have increased spending over the long term -- or are you a "starve the beast" guy?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: When do you think Bush plans to reduce spending, Robespierre?
Probably never, he lacks the political spine to cut the programs that should be cut. My point was that HenryW seems to be blaming bush for the Clinton economic downturn, which ended in '01. I want to know how anything Bush did, corrolates with the economy going down.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People keep saying this. What specific freedoms have we lost?
As Henry said, "Search and siezure, monitoring of communications, monitoring of personal (previously secure data), confiscation of banking records, and much more." I might add Due Process to that list, as there have been many reported cases of both foreigners and Americans being held without formal charges for long periods of time. See the Patriot Act and your local paper for more.
quote:No, we haven't. The economy deflated, as it should have, and is now rebounding. If you're planning on blaming poor economic performance on Bush, will you commit to blaming good economic performance on him as well?
I'm not blaming it on him. I generally assume the President has little effect on the economy regardless of what he does. I'm just pointing that he can't claim to the economy as any kind of victory. After all, although a downturn was to be expected, it was also one of the most prolonged downturns in recent history - despite tax cuts that have sent us into massive debt.
And it seems to me that he must have had some success in some significant aspect of helping this country before we even think about reelecting him.
quote:So you’re on favor of ousting 60% of the House and almost all the Senate?
Definitely - more if I could! But I also think they'll get the message and fall in line if we simply sack Bush.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Probably never, he lacks the political spine to cut the programs that should be cut. My point was that HenryW seems to be blaming bush for the Clinton economic downturn, which ended in '01. I want to know how anything Bush did, corrolates with the economy going down.
A couple of things Robespierre -
First, when I make specific allegations I will tend to be explicit. I haven't posted enough here for that to be clear, but over time it should. I did not place blame for the economic downturn, however, it is clear I am not a Bush fan.
Please explain how reducing government income and increasing spending over the short term made the eocnomy weaker. A typical Keynsian(usually democrat too) response to downturns is to increase spending, artificially increasing demand.
I did not 'blame' Bush for the recession. You repeated my writing accurately - If you look at it again, without bias, you may see it is blaming this administration for making the recovery more difficult (and you are of course 'free' to argue that I am wrong). Keynes theory is build around the circulation of money and the distribution of wealth and is a bit of a different point to make (although it can, in a small way, be inferred from my note). The value of a new dollar introduced to the economy is best judged by the 'churn' of that dollar - therefore introducing a dollar to someone that turns $.70 back directly into the economy (and of that .70 another .50 turns)is the most effective way to spur economic growth. So you are right - I should have been clearer in saying that too little of this administration's spending to spur the economy made the grade as 'churn' dollars, therefore delaying recovery.
I would remind you that the 90's boom was not created in washington. Washington did not start thousands of new companies and employ millions of new workers. If anything, it is a good example of how a republican congress actually did something good for a change and fought Clinton to balance the budget.
I make no claims on the creation of the 'boom', I merely wanted to reference the pro'boom' climate.
As to the congress bit, your representation does not match recorded history - sorry to be so blunt. It was quite different, The budget delivered to congress in 7 of the 8 years of the Clinton administration was for reduced government spending and increased government revenue - things that are 'easy' to pass and generated fights only on pork belly subjects. The point here is the these are actions that 'encourage' strong economic growth. I tried to disclaim my note but to be more specific - there are too many factors involved to 'blame' or 'acclaim' a specific issue as the reason for a broad economy move - you can only (legitimately) talk to the pieces and how they interact with the whole.
Lastly, I'll try to be clearer on my analogy of the Patriot act to the Red Scare - I have to agree with you that this is a tough thing, how do you fight something as secretive as terrorism without being clandestine in return. I really don't have the sound bite answer for this and would be interested in my own actions if I had to be a major decision maker on how to handle this. That doesn't mean that the Patriot Act is not a threat to our freedom in the same way as the what happened in the 50s - the power to make the call on interruption of assummed freedoms resides in few hands and the probability for abuse is greatly increased. That is something I (and, of course, I think others should) view with extreme caution and a bit of distaste - especially when the folks in charge are ideologically different from me (this was the main ingrediants of abuse with the McCarthy hearings).
quote: the power to make the call on interruption of assummed freedoms resides in few hands and the probability for abuse is greatly increased.
We agree on this point. In addition, I am of the opinion that the patriot act is trash. We have the apparatus to investigate terrorists etc already inplace.
quote: I should have been clearer in saying that too little of this administration's spending to spur the economy made the grade as 'churn' dollars, therefore delaying recovery.
I brought this up to point out an apparent contradiction, which you have cleared up. I am of the opinion that Keynsian ideas on economic growth are as much a pile of trash as is the patriot act. The theory that money must be injected into the economy where it will be passed on the most, forgets that the dollar must first be taken away from someone before it can be redistributed by the gov. This initial grab negates any stimulation that might be had. Perhaps on a local level one can see improvements, say in defense contractors who get that dollar, but on a national level, it in fact weakens the nation's buying power.
As per the clinton vs congress issue, I have no sources available right now, so I will cede that point to you.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specific Freedom's we have lost, and how they may effectus in the future:
Enemy Combatant Designation, or whatever the name they used to arrest the suspected Dirty Bomber in Chicago last year. Someone in the Federal Government declared this person an enemy of the state. He was put in prison and interrogated without judicial review, a lawyer, a chance to contact family or the press. He was wisked away.
Sure this man is most likely guilty of planning a very deadly attack. On the other hand, how do we know this? Because the people in the federal government told us this. If we let this go unchallenged what is to stop some future leader to use this as a precedent to arrest others--including political opponents--quietly and permanately.
This Patriot Act II that is mentioned here represents another danger to our political system. It gives the FBI permision to track and gather financial information on US citizens without thier knowledge and without judicial review. The FBI can pry into anyone's credit card history.
What is to stop them from gathering information on people like Politicians? The FBI Budget is up for review. Congressman Joe wants it cut. FBI goes to their files and finds 1-900 calls to Ms. Spanks-A-Lot coming from Congressman Joe's 16 year old son. Or FBI Agent Linda discovers that some big CEO is buying stock in a small unknown company--bad-a-bing--insider trading. Or every possible questionable monetary decision made by everyone in one political party is broadcast to the news around the world, while the members of the opposing party are not checked or ignored.
Its not like the FBI has ever done anything like that before, unless you count their pro-American but highly illegal dossiers on Martin Luther King, Malcom X, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, etc.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, you are very correct in your analysis. We don't often agree, but I am with you on this issue.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
