03-08-2013 07:40 AM
51 123
tools
  1. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    It was around the turn of the last century that the Republican and Democrat parties had gotten themselves permanently entrenched to the degree that we know of today. Teddy Roosevelt's own Bull Moose party came after that, but today there wouldn't be a snowball's chance in h*ll that such a move could survive. I am totally for a multi-party, coalition-style government process, owing to two factors:

    1. Washington's advice to not form political parties, while ideal, will never happen; and
    2. People do need some way to process and categorize, and political parties are a logical conduit for that.

    Were you folks objecting to my treating the constitution as an operating system? I have to admit I am a bit unclear about that.
    03-06-2013 01:11 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    Were you folks objecting to my treating the constitution as an operating system? I have to admit I am a bit unclear about that.
    I think I was saying it makes more sense I think than the way we handle it now and seems to sync up with the intended instructions the founders gave us pretty well. I'd also add, that you'd absolutely hate the way I code I either go way overboard in documentation or forget about it meaning to do it later and then priorities shift and I'm on a different project without access to the last. :s
    03-06-2013 01:16 AM
  3. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Oh, alright.

    The thing about coding and doing documentation is that the circumstances are very dissimilar. When one is under-the-gun, it's not that you're under the gun to write the code, per-se, but to produce a finished (compiled app, for example) product. You're doing it either on your own or with a team, and typically you have a LOT of work to do and it's fairly time-critical. As far as I know, there are very few -- if any -- laws that have ever been passed which were time critical in the same sense. Also, typically, you will have some number of people working on a bill, it's kind of a formal process, etc., etc., and so it's easier to do documentation.

    I don't write code for a living, but I have friends who do, and so I can completely appreciate what you're saying. They tell me that being able to write with big 'ol fat libraries is perfectly acceptable, but I'm the kind of guy who thinks the job isn't done right unless you've crafted something fully and thoughtfully. Even thinking about the bloat in today's code is enough to give me fits and make me want to tear out what little is left of my hair.
    03-06-2013 01:29 AM
  4. dmmarck's Avatar
    If you have term limits for SCOTUS you don't get appointees who consider the law, you get appointees who consider electability. Big problem IMO.
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 07:59 AM
  5. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    If you have term limits for SCOTUS you don't get appointees who consider the law, you get appointees who consider electability. Big problem IMO.
    That's what I was going to say.
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 12:43 PM
  6. Mooncatt's Avatar
    We already had something similar with Justice Roberts switching sides on the Obamacare ruling. There's evidence that it's because he was more concerned with the Court in the eyes of the media than what was constitutional. In general, I don't mind the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices, but this demonstrated a major flaw in that there is no way that I'm aware of to hold a rouge justice accountable for something like this.
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 12:49 PM
  7. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    We already had something similar with Justice Roberts switching sides on the Obamacare ruling. There's evidence that it's because he was more concerned with the Court in the eyes of the media than what was constitutional.
    That is conjecture on your part or someone else's based on partisan disappointment. Justices do not have to toe the party line.... no matter how much you want them to.

    Show me some evidence other than some right-wing partisan blogsphere website.
    Aquila and rexxman like this.
    03-06-2013 02:22 PM
  8. dmmarck's Avatar
    That is conjecture on your part or someone else's based on partisan disappointment. Justices do not have to toe the party line.... no matter how much you want them to.

    Show me some evidence other than some right-wing partisan blogsphere website.
    How about folks like Earl Warren? Nominated by a republican - Ike - and then siding with more "liberal" points of view in numerous big time decisions.

    Then look at Bork. You know what he did? He told the truth about himself. He was not voted in. What has happened since then? Each and every appointee toes one line during the hearing - predominantly the "we stick to the constitution" - and then the do whatever the hell they damn well please once they're on the court.

    The "switching party lines" has become a frequent point for SCOTUS, so much so that there are numerous books dedicated to how the Court comes to key decisions. Generally, 3 decision-making schemes are offered: purely legal, purely political, and a hybrid of the two. If you remove the lifetime appointment, then naturally the political and hybrid decision-making schemes will intensify because the incentive to stick to legal concepts is reduced and/or eliminated.
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 02:39 PM
  9. Mooncatt's Avatar
    That is conjecture on your part or someone else's based on partisan disappointment. Justices do not have to toe the party line.... no matter how much you want them to.

    Show me some evidence other than some right-wing partisan blogsphere website.
    What we do know is Roberts is the only conservative justice that didn't shield himself from media reports about cases he considered (which I think any judge should do, and jurors are already supposed to), that much of the mass media was in favor of Obamacare, he didn't give any real reason why he switched, and they ruled it on the basis of the government having tax powers when the government argued on it being a punishment for not getting insurance.

    So with everything involved around his switching, it leaves that question pretty wide open. My point wasn't me disagreeing with his change of decision (as in he already wrote the majority opinion had he ruled against the government), but that I don't like that there isn't a way to keep them in check when there are concerns of corruption or not holding to the Constitution.
    03-06-2013 02:59 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    If you have term limits for SCOTUS you don't get appointees who consider the law, you get appointees who consider electability. Big problem IMO.
    Point taken; extremely valid.
    03-06-2013 03:49 PM
  11. Aquila's Avatar
    If you have term limits for SCOTUS you don't get appointees who consider the law, you get appointees who consider electability. Big problem IMO.
    Not sure I want them to be elected, or re-appointed. Think I'd rather have them serve one 10 year or 20 year, whatever, term. That way, like a 2nd term president, their entire focus can be off of campaigning and on doing what they feel is right.
    03-06-2013 04:11 PM
  12. dmmarck's Avatar
    Not sure I want them to be elected, or re-appointed. Think I'd rather have them serve one 10 year or 20 year, whatever, term. That way, like a 2nd term president, their entire focus can be off of campaigning and on doing what they feel is right.
    There would still be a shift in how they're appointed, either from the appointee's end (campaigning to come in for certain issues/political topics) or from the appointer's end (trying to get the best mixture to advance their views). Having set times for them to leave will inherently shift the decision calculus.

    Now, mandatory retirement ages are different, and IMO, could be very useful. But terms/term limits will not help. At least IMO.

    And honestly, those who are looking to the Court for change have a fundamental misconception about "how" our Republic is to function. But that's another topic, IMO .
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 04:19 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    Last night I stumbled into this collection of videos that speak to the history of rights and citizenship in our country far better than I can. The first 3-4 videos (about 10 minutes each) cover history. Its a lot of time investment, and it's focused on individual sovereignty, not on human rights, but if you have the time to spare, interesting to watch. The discussion takes place around 1995 or so, so while much of the context we have today is missing, but the issues are still the same.

    03-06-2013 04:25 PM
  14. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    What we do know is Roberts is the only conservative justice that didn't shield himself from media reports about cases he considered (which I think any judge should do, and jurors are already supposed to), that much of the mass media was in favor of Obamacare, he didn't give any real reason why he switched, and they ruled it on the basis of the government having tax powers when the government argued on it being a punishment for not getting insurance.

    So with everything involved around his switching, it leaves that question pretty wide open. My point wasn't me disagreeing with his change of decision (as in he already wrote the majority opinion had he ruled against the government), but that I don't like that there isn't a way to keep them in check when there are concerns of corruption or not holding to the Constitution.
    Where does the paranoia stop? I beginning to think its only when the conservative view point wins, every time, all the time.

    "it leaves the question pretty wide open."....... whats the question? Did Obama sic his secret muslim police force on Roberts and force him to switch? Did Bill Clinton threaten Robert's family? Did the DNC bribe Roberts?

    What's the latest conservative conspiracy theory on why Robert's did not rule "the way he was supposed to."?
    Aquila and rexxman like this.
    03-06-2013 07:37 PM
  15. dmmarck's Avatar
    Where does the paranoia stop? I beginning to think its only when the conservative view point wins, every time, all the time.

    "it leaves the question pretty wide open."....... whats the question? Did Obama sic his secret muslim police force on Roberts and force him to switch? Did Bill Clinton threaten Robert's family? Did the DNC bribe Roberts?

    What's the latest conservative conspiracy theory on why Robert's did not rule "the way he was supposed to."?
    Kennedy's opinion was, supposedly, at one time, the majority. Which means that based on how Court voting goes, at one point Roberts was on one side, and for some reason, swung to the other. Based upon the fact that Kennedy was writing the majority opinion, we also know that was it a 4-4 tie; Kennedy is famously a swing vote, and even more famously insists on writing the majority opinion for most of his swing votes. So it doesn't take much to deduce that:

    1. At one point, Roberts had voted against.
    2. Something caused Roberts to change his mind.
    3. Based upon the style of his writing, it appears to be written more quickly than many of his opinions.


    Past that, who knows?
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 07:47 PM
  16. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    All that based on "supposedly"?
    03-06-2013 07:56 PM
  17. dmmarck's Avatar
    All that based on "supposedly"?
    No, I put supposedly there for a bit of sarcasm and because it helps people stomach reality a bit better .

    What we don't know is why--that's where the true speculation comes. Why the switch. There have been very, very infamous switches over the course of modern Court history, and this is no different. But why for him may be more complicated. Why does he care about Obama? He has no reason. Does he legitimately believe it? Who knows. We won't know a thing until he dies and his papers get put in a museum.

    OR a clerk leaks the reasons. But that won't ever happen, because getting a SCOTUS clerkship is like finding a golden ticket, having it taken from you, and then going all Raiders of the Lost Ark and getting it back. So the chances of a clerk doing that is...slim.
    03-06-2013 08:12 PM
  18. kilofoxtrot's Avatar
    Why does he care about Obama? He has no reason.
    I love it when you answer your own questions.
    03-06-2013 08:17 PM
  19. Aquila's Avatar
    I absolutely believe that Justices should NOT conform to party lines, especially in light of the changing parties. If they followed the party, we'd have conservatives that turned retrogressives, we'd have liberals that are now conservative. Having an evolving understanding of the constitution is essential, because the more you learn the more you grow, the better equipped you are. I don't think about things now the same way I did 10 years ago, and I hope I'm wiser 10 years from now.

    Them changing "sides" is not an issue for me; it's a two part issue for me: 1. Were they chosen because of their adherence to the Constitution, not their party or views on a specific issue? 2. Have they ruled via their conscience, not based on partisan demand? If the answer is yes to both, regardless of there position on the conservative to liberal spectrum, I usually don't question the decisions personally.

    I have more problems with Scalia than with any of the "liberal" justices, based on his predisposition to radicalizing the federal position despite decades upon decade of rulings by his predecessors to the opposite of his position. I do get that sometimes our positions need to evolve, but this guy seems absolutely divorced from the beliefs of the SCOTUS that presided over the 20th century.
    03-06-2013 08:19 PM
  20. dmmarck's Avatar
    I love it when you answer your own questions.
    I've never asked a question I couldn't answer .

    But to say that there wasn't some motive behind it, possibly fueled by politics, possibly not, is inconsiderate of how the decision came down, how it's written, and the general jurisprudence of each and every member of the Court.
    03-06-2013 08:22 PM
  21. Jude526's Avatar
    It's funny, on Facebook today I got into a lengthy argument with someone trying to agree with me that rape was wrong, but also trying to tell me that sometimes it's the victim's fault. I think the concept of rights and personal sovereignty needs a lot of work.
    Victim's fault? Really....glad I wasn't on that FB page. That's all I will say

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note2
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 08:29 PM
  22. Aquila's Avatar
    Victim's fault? Really....glad I wasn't on that FB page. That's all I will say

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note2
    Yeah I kind of went off on them. Over the course of several posts, I made my position abundantly clear. Actually, not sure I've ever been "liked" by more strangers on anything I've ever written.
    03-06-2013 08:30 PM
  23. dmmarck's Avatar
    Yeah I kind of went off on them. Over the course of several posts, I made my position abundantly clear. Actually, not sure I've ever been "liked" by more strangers on anything I've ever written.
    A rape, by its terms, cannot be the fault of a victim. If the victim is at fault then it's consensual intercourse. Can't have it both ways.
    Aquila likes this.
    03-06-2013 08:32 PM
  24. Tall Mike 2145's Avatar
    Remember, folks, that there are two ultimate checks on the Federal Government. The first of those are the states themselves. They can vote to disallow the enforcement of a law within their boundaries, they can vote to secede from the union, and they can take a number of other positions short of and in between those options.

    The second and final check on the government is the citizenry themselves. That's one of the reasons for the right to keep and bear arms in this country, though perhaps that's considered somewhat "controversial" to say these days. Ultimately, an armed populace can, at least up to a point, defend itself and -- if absolutely necessary -- overthrow the government. It's totally an extra-legal process and it's basically the last option, but it *is* there.

    As a practical matter, I honestly think the States themselves should be the ones to select and vote on candidates for the Supreme Court, not the President and Congress. The whole point of how our government was set up was for all parties to be counter-balanced against each other so you wouldn't have a concentration of power and a run-away government. Why can't the States be competent authorities to decide who may be voted for -- and then do the voting -- who will then determine what follows (or doesn't) the very Constitution that the states are mutually bound by?
    03-07-2013 11:54 AM
  25. Aquila's Avatar
    Remember, folks, that there are two ultimate checks on the Federal Government. The first of those are the states themselves. They can vote to disallow the enforcement of a law within their boundaries, they can vote to secede from the union, and they can take a number of other positions short of and in between those options.

    The second and final check on the government is the citizenry themselves. That's one of the reasons for the right to keep and bear arms in this country, though perhaps that's considered somewhat "controversial" to say these days. Ultimately, an armed populace can, at least up to a point, defend itself and -- if absolutely necessary -- overthrow the government. It's totally an extra-legal process and it's basically the last option, but it *is* there.

    As a practical matter, I honestly think the States themselves should be the ones to select and vote on candidates for the Supreme Court, not the President and Congress. The whole point of how our government was set up was for all parties to be counter-balanced against each other so you wouldn't have a concentration of power and a run-away government. Why can't the States be competent authorities to decide who may be voted for -- and then do the voting -- who will then determine what follows (or doesn't) the very Constitution that the states are mutually bound by?
    More importantly, there are legal pathways to restoring a citizen representation within the State and Federal governments that require only an awake populace willing to put their time and effort into improving their communities and their country. We have an easy way to make these changes, we just don't do it. I'm not sure how active everyone else is in government, but I believe that most American's don't do much other than complain about things... and if that's the extent of it, no one is listening. Congress does respond to phone calls, e-mails and personal meetings. They respond to groups of citizens petitioning them. Without our input, their only two influences are 1. who is paying them and 2. what their party says. We're more powerful than both, because they work for us.
    03-08-2013 02:10 AM
51 123

Similar Threads

  1. Putting NFC to work, at home and elsewhere..?
    By sampoodle in forum Google Nexus 7 Tablet (2012)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-21-2012, 11:04 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-25-2011, 08:23 AM
  3. 2.1 home and music launcher?
    By mich1248 in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-14-2010, 06:35 PM
  4. home++ and battery
    By ulnek in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 03:40 PM
  5. Did anyone buy Droid at BB and pricematch Walmart?
    By Attackcenter in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 11:42 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD