Current Events

TOPICS:

11/10/06
11/10/06
11/8/06
11/7/06

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82

 ... 441

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

OCT 25, 2006 09:04 AM

thornpaladin said:

skeptik said:
Granted, no court would likely permit this, as the right involved is one of those considered to predate even the Articles of Confederation, much less the Constitution (by centuries, in fact). But how would they make such an opinion known? Can the Supremes just say, "this is bullshit, we're not going to wait for petition, this thing is going down NOW," or would they have to wait for the (possibly) years it could take for a 'next friend' petition to work its way up to them?
.



Just a thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the leaning of SC Justices currently sit at 5 to 4 'liberal to 'conservative'?
I know not too long ago there was a discussion that if the eldest Justice died, Bush would then put up a new conservative justice for the purposes of the abortion debate.

Is it so hard to believe then that the new justice (if there is one in Bush's term) would fall in line and make the vote 5 to 4 FOR the MCA? Is there any way to overturn it then?



It is not quite so clear as to who is "liberal" and who is "conservative" when it comes to the court. The so-called "liberals" on the court (keeping in mind that two of them are actually Republicans) are generally listed as Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer. The so-called "conservatives" are Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Then there is Kennedy, who has traditionally been more conservative, but has tended lately to vote for more socially liberal causes, such as the decriminalization of homosexual sodomy and the banning of the execution of minors. Kennedy is also the crucial 5th vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. But really, there's no way of accurately predicting where he'll vote on any issue. This is also true of the other "liberals" and "conservatives" on the court, though (at least in my experience) the "liberals" tend to vote as a block slightly more than the "conservatives" do.

The main point is that the current abortion "standings" are currently 5-to-4 in favor of reproductive rights. Everything else is anyone's guess.

skeptik

skeptik

New Orleans, LA
February 2004

OCT 25, 2006 05:28 PM

Not to mention the fact that the appointment of a conservative to replace the eldest Justice on the occasion of his death has already occurred. In fact, two new conservative Justices have been appointed by Bush - Roberts and Alito. And that this Court has already shown its unwillingness, in HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, to simply roll over for the President on the subject of detainees' rights to fair legal treatment.

Whether "conservative" or "liberal" in personal philosophy, this court has clearly reaffirmed the notion that the U.S., including its President and its armed forces, is bound Constitutionally by its treaty obligations as "the supreme Law of the Land." One of which is the Geneva Convention. Another notion they have reaffirmed in Hamdan is the right to every defendant - whether in civilian or military trials - to be present at the proceedings and have access to the evidence against them.

I don't see either of those reaffirmations being ignored by the Court just because Congress and the President say they should be.

BGage

BGage

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

OCT 27, 2006 09:35 PM

darwinsjoke said:

BGage said:

darwinsjoke said:

DieWhiteGirls said:
If you're going to post a link, at least take the time to read it first:

"Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their detention".

So, no, it does not apply to U.S. citizens.



In the interst of full disclosure (which you seem to have missed), Robert A. Levy is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a rightwing/libertarian think tank) who ran as a republican for Congress in California in 2002. .




This characterization of Cato and of libertarian ideology as "right wing" is obnoxious and stupid. To conflate libertarianism with the neocon crypto-facism that has seized our government over the last few years is to disparage an ethos that is adamantly opposed to imperialist military adventures, vehemently opposed to the War on Drugs and to the War on Pornography, firmly supportive of gay rights and, most importantly, dedicated to protecting the rule of law and separation of powers from exactly the kind of threat under discussion here (pardon the run-on sentence; I know it's a weakness of mine).
Reasonable people can disagree about things like gun control and smaller government (although I would've thought the last 5 years had made the reasons for the libertarian position on these issues ABUNDANTLY clear), but politics, as the cliche goes, makes for strange bedfellows, and liberals are going to have to share a bed with libertarians at least until 2008, or whenever our Long National Nightmare is over. You don't have to say you love us, but you could at least make eye-contact and give us a little kiss once in a while, couldn't you?



As far as social issues go I'm right there with you and your breathren. When it comes to economic isssues, on the other hand, we part ways. I actually rather like capitalism but I would rather avoid the unfettered capitalism that libertarians advocate for since history has already shown us the results of an unrestrained market with the robber barrons of the 19th century and the Great Depression of the 20th century. I take issue with Cato because they've been cheerleading for our dear leader for the last 6+ years. You can't have it both ways, you can't work your ass off to put PNAC in power and then decry the results. You, libertartians in general, not you personally, made the bed and now we all have to lie in it. Don't like it now? Then vote democratic. Just don't expect the dems to come crawling to you begging for your vote. If you would rather have your social issues decided by the fundamentalists, economic policies that are crushing the middle class, and live in a PNAC police state, then by all means, vote republican.




The last post on this thread was 2 days ago, so I'm probably too late to get a reply (damn "real life" getting in the way again), and I'd be embarassed by how far off-topic this is if I thought anyone was still reading it at this late date... but when has Cato been cheerleading Dear Leader? I'm not challenging you; I'm genuinely curious, as this is something I seem to have missed. I've always thought of them as more or less a mirror of the Libertarian Party, which has certainly been doing anything BUT cheerlead for GWB, and has been far stronger in its condemnation of the Bush regime (not that anyone ever listens) than the Democrats have. I also have to say that being blamed for making the bed in which we now lie is rather novel for me; I thought it was supposed to be Ralph Nader's fault for challenging the 2-party system. Ralph spoils for the Democrats, we spoil for the Republicans. Anyway, for the record, I voted for Kerry in '04. I did so not because California was in any danger of going Red, but because it seemed a more satisfying symbolic "fuck off" vote against this administration than voting for Libertarian Michael Baradnik would've been.
As I said, reasonable people can disagree about things like "economic policies that crush the middle class", and about the difference between real free-market capitalism vs the 3rd world-style crony-capitalism that this government has given us, but to lump us in with those Bible-thumping crypto-nazis just isn't fair. It's like if I called you a communist.

As they say in Afghanistan (or so I'm told) "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", so play nice, you pinko.

HeyZeus

HeyZeus

Oakland, CA
August 2006

OCT 27, 2006 09:45 PM

Good news: I'll reply
Bad news: I'll hardly respond.

I think it's funny how the political spectrum is viewed as a _ when really it's a O
I like to say, "I'm so far left I'm right."

smile smile

BGage

BGage

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

NOV 08, 2006 01:05 AM

karr_sic_ said:
Good news: I'll reply
Bad news: I'll hardly respond.

I think it's funny how the political spectrum is viewed as a _ when really it's a O
I like to say, "I'm so far left I'm right."

smile smile



was hoping for a reply from the guy calling me names, but thanks. And I agree.

during the Clinton years I relished my libertarian self-image as a right-wing screwball among my mostly liberal friends. Then, after 9/11, the country lurched so far to the right that all of a sudden I felt like Che fucking Guevara. I'm now on the far left, yet I haven't changed.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Next