the punches keep a comin'
I am very concerned. I am hoping Koler can find a way to give a warm fuzzy about this because I'm just not able to see anything positive.
Let me begin with Mr. Specter and his Calaparisk move. The democrats are moving ever closer to a true filibuster. Typically, this is a pretty big deal, but this time I believe it is much bigger. It isn't so much that some liberal ass law could pass ((another topic another time) and (which I am sure will occur regardless, as we have already seen from the BO admin and flip flopping puck ass Republicans)) but more of a concern as it pertains to how many SC justices BO is going to have the opportunity to appoint.
By my tally before the election, it was 3 plus or minus 1 or more specifically 2 for a 4 yr term/4 for an 8 year term. Of those, I figured it would be the oldest which would retire or die. So that includes John Paul Stevens, 88; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75; Antonin Scalia, 72; Anthony Kennedy, 71. Note: 2 of those Kennedy and Scalia were of the majority in the Heller vs. DC case.
As of this morning, we have this news of Justice Souter's retirement. not good I tells ya! Although Souter was appointed by Bush he has turned out to be more liberal than anticipated. Now that will potentially give Obama the chance to appoint 5 Justices to the SC.
Scary my friends, scary.
Categories: General Interest: Climate Change,Obama,Economics,Legal,Legislative Updates,Religion,Security,Firearms/Guns,Ethics
It's only scary if one fears them. For the disobedient among us, it's all eyewash. We are only under their thumb if we allow ourselves to be.
Reply to this
I aim to misbehave.
Reply to this
Truer words have never been spoken. I welcome the apocalypse. Hell, then I'd get to live out the Red Dawn fantasies of my adolescence.
However that same attitude has landed many on the short end of a long rope, Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Plainfield, New Hampshire incident. None of which ended in favor of those relatively small miscellaneous groups. Now as for Civil Disobedience...well let's just say, I know my belief's and what I am willing to stand and die for.
Honestly, my point to this topic is we need to start heading this off at the pass. To almost piggyback on an earlier posting I made. We need to get more active in local politics. There needs to be more of a push at the state and local levels. That means beating up our local politicians to do what we want and get the two timing lying sacks of shit, out. Continuing those grassroots movements like the tea parties to eventually (hopefully in 2 yrs) bolster a more divided congress. In my opinion, there should NEVER be a clear majority in the house or senate. The only way BO is leaving the white house is if the swine flu gets him. However if we push hard at the local levels where we as individuals have more influence it can create a stronger (diverse) house and senate. Hopefully it will constitute a more conservative democrat nomination from BO to the Supreme Court and thus making it more difficult for the judicial branch to find in favor of things such as the ammo accountability act and other redonckulous whatnots.
Reply to this
game over. its time for tactical retreat/regroup to Galt's Gulch. put your house in order.
Reply to this
also calipari sleeps with the fishes. at least he will when he doesnt turn kentucky around in the first year. i wish him nothing but the worst. i hate to be so emotionally involved in a sporting contest, but it was the only good thing we had going for memphis. fuck him and feed him fish heads.
Reply to this
Ok, the spin:
1. Democrats w/ 60: They aren't like the Republicans; you can't get them to vote lockstep. As Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." The ideological diversity in the democrat's senate is much wider; if Specter is now a D, it just shows they span from an unapolagetic liberal like Russ Feingold (or even the Independent Bernie Sanders from Vermont who actually says he is a socialist, not a D but caucuses with them) to a Regan Republican like Specter. Nothing crazy will get through the Senate even w/ 60 dems (or even 65, for that matter).
Supreme Court: All the big battles have been fought. Segregation is gone, sodomy is legal, there is a right to an abortion in the first trimester and states can impose regulations after that, provided there are exceptions for health. There will only be adjustments at the margins. And both the conservative wing and liberal wing are willing to cede power to the governemnt in differnet spheres. And they sometimes mix with strange alliances, like Justice Stevens (maybe biggest liberal) and Scalia (most promient conservative) joined together to prevent intrusive car searches last month in Arizona v Gant. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-542.ZO.html
If he picks Justices like Souter, who talk about the respect for judicial precedent, there won't be many radical shifts in any of the laws.
Reply to this