While All Eyes Are On The Shutdown The Supreme Court... - Page 2

Rex E. · #11 10-13-2013, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpholland

Funny, the SCOTUS is actually probably the most evenly divided branch of Government we have at the moment. Even after upholding the ACA you still feel it is too conservative. Unless Republican's take the white house and the Senate in the next decade, I would imagine Kennedy and Scalia will be the next to go, and will likely be replaced with more liberal justices. Just be patient, you will probably get what you want.

Libertarians are not for plutocracy?

mpholland · #12 10-13-2013, 11:14 AM

Just saying, no matter what happens, we still need to have conservatives checks in the government. The nation can't afford to be completely liberal.

merrylander · #13 10-13-2013, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpholland

Funny, the SCOTUS is actually probably the most evenly divided branch of Government we have at the moment. Even after upholding the ACA you still feel it is too conservative. Unless Republican's take the white house and the Senate in the next decade, I would imagine Kennedy and Scalia will be the next to go, and will likely be replaced with more liberal justices. Just be patient, you will probably get what you want.

I don't feel that it is too conservative, but rather that it has forgotten its role in government. The Roberts court is possiibly the most activist court we have ever had. They are simply supposed to decide does legislation comply with the Constitution. It is the function of Congress to come up with the legislation. It would also help if the jurists were familiar with the English language.

Also I do not object to jurists such as Scalia because of his politics but because of his abyssmal arrogance. He should keep his religion to himself while sitting on the bench.

mpholland · #14 10-13-2013, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by merrylander

I don't feel that it is too conservative, but rather that it has forgotten its role in government. The Roberts court is possiibly the most activist court we have ever had. They are simply supposed to decide does legislation comply with the Constitution. It is the function of Congress to come up with the legislation. It would also help if the jurists were familiar with the English language.

Also I do not object to jurists such aa Scalia because of hs politics but because of his abyssmal arrogance. He should keep his religion to himself while sitting on the bench.

Seems that plague applies more and more to all 3 branches. Nation's going to Hell, I tell ya'.

Rex E. · #15 10-13-2013, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpholland

Seems that plague applies more and more to all 3 branches. Nation's going to Hell, I tell ya'.

Many would say it has been since it started and many have said that since it started.

donquixote99 · #16 10-13-2013, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpholland

Just saying, no matter what happens, we still need to have conservatives checks in the government. The nation can't afford to be completely liberal.

That I much agree with. While the current conservative party has gotten much too extreme, both basic types need the check of the other.

merrylander · #17 10-13-2013, 02:59 PM

Coming from Canada and a parliamentary form of government I never quite understood this 'checks and balances' mantra. If the ruling party came out with some blatently stupid idea they usually lost a vote of confidence and so there would be a general election. If the voters also thought it was a stupid idea that party typically was replaced.

The other thing I have never cottoned to is 'advise and consent' and the deal wherby an incoming President has to appoint something like 7000 or 8000 people.

In the first instance it is rather like forming a corporation, selecting your management team, then asking friend and foe alike to give you their blessing.

In the second instance, with so many positions to fill some are bound to go to people who contributed to the President's election and not because they are competent to fill the position. If you complain that government is incompetent there is the reason right there. I much prefer knowing that every post below ministerial is filled by a vetted professional civil servant who was reviewed every step along the way. (BTW the Brookings Institute agrees with me but I have lost the link.)