Posted on 11/02/2004 12:28:39 AM PST by Main Street
You know, you have a point. And that gravity thing - it's too strong. We don't need that much gravity to keep us from floating off the ground - the level we have means it hurts when we trip and fall down. So let's set gravity to half its current strength.
The point is, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. And for all the flaws of our judiciary, it still acts as a check against renegade legislatures and executives. And it is how things work now, whether or not you want it otherwise.
Really? Last I checked, Bush won the presidency without a majority or plurality of the popular vote. And small states have more clout than large ones. A republic, not a cliche.
Ok, Einstein, where is the check on renegade judiciaries? Because that is what we have now, or have you been too focused on the theoretical to notice!
It's called impeachment. We just haven't had reps and senators with balls enough to use it.
Lousy analogy. Gravity is a natural force governed by the laws of physics. Judicial review is a man-made creation, just like the monitor you are reading this on.
Whiiine. The point is, gravity is reality. So is judicial review. Simply saying that it doesn't need to exist doesn't change the fact that it is going to be a reality for the foreseeable future, therefore we all need to be concerned about the process of getting judges on the federal bench.
Legislatures and executives check each other. Read your Constitution.
Unless they decided to work together to circumven the Constitution.
If you have any questions about the efficacy of legislatures and executives checking each other, read about something called Watergate. Happened before your time, I know, but it's in the books.
Of course, I can also point out the fact that Clinton survived impeachment.
And what's worse, Sandra Day O'Connor has been in failing health in recent years, too. If Kerry wins today, and gets to appoint *2* SC justices, you can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodbye....
1 word: fillibuster
It will still give small states more clout, and since it will take small state votes to eliminate it, it ain't gonna happen. Try again.
You can't impeach a judge because you don't like his decisions or ideology. You can only impeach a judge for high crimes and misdemeanors.
And if you decide that blatant disregard for the Constitution fits that category, you can impeach him.
If we had negative-nancies like you back in 1775, we'd still be singing "God Save the [King/Queen]"
If we had folks like you planning the revolution, we would have gotten our butts kicked - the leaders eventually realized the reality of the British Army's general superiority and then learned how to fight it otherwise. Acting like it wasn't superior got a lot of American soliders killed in pitched battle during the early years. The point is, you can say the current reality is irrelevant, but in doing so you're going to get bit in the butt.
Yeah, and maybe I'll win Powerball and retire. Ain't gonna happen. And if, theoretically, it did, how could a judiciary stop it?
The Judiciary does that all the time in stopping laws that Congress passed and the President signed. Try again.
Not exactly. Clinton was impeached; he just wasn't convicted by a 2/3 vote in the Senate.
Last I checked, that consitutes surviving impeachment.
Come back when you can make a coherent point, and you can have the last word. I've got better things to do.
Can't let this one go by, it's just too inane. It doesn't matter what the American people think. Only 13 small states are needed to block a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Electoral College. The votes in question in Colorado, Nebraska and Maine still are in reference to the Electoral College, last I checked. It isn't one man, one vote, and it is within the rights of state legislatures to determine how their electors are chosen. And a person in Wyoming still will have more clout with their vote for President than a person in California.
You can pretend you're doing well in this exchange. Of course, you also are pretending that we shouldn't be concerned about judicial selection as a result of this election.
No, they are not. You don't even know how two of the states divvy up electors. Nebraska has five electoral votes. One vote for winning each congressional district, and the two votes equivalent to the Senate seats for winning the state. Maine is similar. Not proportional. And the Colorado vote will probably be shot down, since the change will be by referendum and not passed by the legislature as mandated by the Constitution - and it will apply retroactively to the election, which is also a legal violation.
And, once again, a Nebraska voter has far more clout than a California voter regarding the presidency.
Why do we need judicial review of legislation (federal and state) in the first place. Another outdated concept that is inherently undemocratic (small-d) and antimajoritarian.
The point is, whether you like it or not, judicial review is a reality now and for the foreseeable future. Your stating otherwise does not change that reality one bit. A sane person realizes that and reacts accordingly. I believe that the Constitution should be rigourously interpreted and read - but that doesn't happen either, and pretending otherwise doesn't change the reality of our super-sized federal government.
And exactly how is that going to be relevant to the next four years and the selection of Supreme Court justices?
Another outdated concept that is inherently undemocratic (small-d) and antimajoritarian.
Most conservatives on this website believe in republican government, which is by its very nature undemocratic and antimajoritarian at times.
Bush wins today, Rehnquist retires in a few weeks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.