| Author |
Message |
    
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 121
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:22 am: | 
|
Guy:
Hard to say what my response would be in 1945, but I think the dropping of the bomb was a very difficult decision that cut short the war. As for Korea, I understand that we had to go in to contain the flow of communism and Truman held a steady hand by not going nuclear. Hindsight is great, and I could argue either side, but I think Truman was careful about his foreign policy and didn't stumble into potential disasters. In fact, wasn't containment as a policy developed under Truman?
But what is your point? Was Truman a great president? Thats not where I was going anyway- sorry if you thought I was. I agree that the President is responsible for security (among other things). My point is that he has shown incompetence in his leadership and in foreign policy- popularity is a separate issue for me.
You are clear- you said you thought he is competent. I appreciate your courage in going with an indefensible position, Guy.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1613
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:29 am: |
|
When it comes to Bush, I think Guy is very comfortable in the position of the man on the right in the "It's Caption Time Again" thread. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1600
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:34 am: |
|
RL, just call me Guy Lewinsky |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1614
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
You got it.
(Nice caption btw..had me laughing...) |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:47 am: |
|
 |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 899
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:58 am: |
|
Something Bush done right: Started the WOT...instead of ignoring the problem he is taking it head on...highly successful so far...
Another? Choosing SCJ that will intepret the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench....Another, the port deal...Another, tax cuts that jumpstarted the economy...
Dr. Boogie-I agree with you on the Medicare Bill but not on Iraq (mostly). DHS was an idea pushed by the Democrats. Bush's mistake was giving into political pressure.
-SLK
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 848
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 11:24 am: |
|
SLK - 
War on terror? The jokes on us - more killing and death by terrorist then ever. Bin Laden and his people laughing at us on video every few months. The President announcing he doesnt think about Bin Laden much. More terror attacks world wide then ever. War on terror - ok great success story.
SCJ - the jury is out on how they will or wont interpret the constitution.
Port Deal - thats your idea of an achievement? Jeez its obvious that the deal has more to do with the Bush private interests then the interests of the country. Most of our leaders have come down firmly against the deal.
Tax cuts - money for the rich that has had no effect on the people. Deficit growing to enourmous proportions, national debt owned by China and the oil producing nations of the middle east to the tune of 20,000 per person owed. Great job Bush.
DHS - pushed by the 9/11 commission which the president also did not want.
Really really funny |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 11:27 am: |
|
Scrotis, no judicial review for the supremes? |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1616
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 11:28 am: |
|
Even if the port deal wasn't loaded with all kinds of questions surrounding security and cronyism, how is it an example of something Bush had done right? By all accounts, he didn't even know about it right away. Wow, real impressive that Bush approved of a UAE company buying a British company. The man belongs on a coin because of this! Man, talk about grasping at straws... |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5810
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
Quote:Why bother with Dr. O'Boogie who constantly proves he can't see beyond partisan politics
and yet people still engage with you, SLK, guilty of what you charge in others. hmmmm |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4433
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
"Legislating from the bench" is something I can't believe conservatives are still touting. Scalia and Thomas, held up as icons on this issue, are on the record as overturning more legislation than any other justices. If that isn't legislating from the bench I don't know what is. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5270
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
|
Please show how Scalia and Thomas have overturned more legislation than any other justice.
And then point to how by overturning legislation they are creating new laws and rights without going through he legislative process. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 902
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
tom-
obviously no, you don't know what "legislating from the bench" is...
SLK |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 903
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
another: attempts to fix the SS mess.... |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1394
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Legislating from the bench is Republican for "a judical decision with which I disagree." |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 907
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 12:31 pm: |
|
dave23-
strike 1...
-PJH |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1395
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 12:43 pm: |
|
Scrotis-
Funny. Can you give a few examples of it from the last ten years? You must have at least dozen on the tip of your tongue since it's such a common and great offense. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4434
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 12:46 pm: |
|
If a majority of a legislature passes a law, and a court overturns it, that court is substituting its judgment for that of the legislature. They are doing the same thing as if a law was not passed, and they created it from scratch. If conservatives are able to overturn gun control legislation, or campaign finance legislation, isn't it fair to say that they are usurping the role of the body which passed it in the first place? That they are, in fact, legislating?
As for documentary analysis, it's not hard to find. A Times writer put this together. Even conservative analysts don't dispute the data, they only point out the obvious, that it's somehow justified. And of course, sometimes it is. It all depends on your point of view.
Which brings us back to Dave23's point -- Legislating from the bench is shorthand for "a judician decision with which I disagree."
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1618
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Legislating from the bench is Republican for "a judical decision with which I disagree."
Very true. It is also code for "I really have no mind of my own so I'll pull phrases off the RNC website verbatim and use them as arguments without really knowing what they mean." |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 105
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Those wacky judges down in Florida and Atlanta(federal and state court, who for the most part happened to be conservative Christian republicans) who actually followed the law with respect to the Terry Schiavo matter, and didn't pay attention to the pitiful politicians (from Bush and his brother to Tom Delay, Santorum, etc.) were not immune to the righties' attacks that they were "activist" judges. That is just another Republican term that they trot out when any judge hands down a ruling that they don't agree with, no matter what the law says. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 122
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 1:53 pm: |
|
SLK, if Bush is the great man you say he is what did he do to initiate the war on terror in January 2001? or 9/10/01? To say Bush "started" the war on terror is insulting to the rest of the world and the Presidents - R and D- that came before him. And how, even if you agree with it, is the port deal an acheivement? Didn't Bush say he didn't know about it until he saw it in the paper? |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2473
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 2:29 pm: |
|
I thought he didn't read newspapers...
Oh "saw it..." There must have been a nice picture. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 750
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 7:27 pm: |
|
I love this thread. It sucks to be the minority party, but you guys should win an award or something for your attempts to alleviate your pain. Every election you guys get all ramped up and actually convince yourselves that you are right. Then the day after the election come the excuses and name calling. At least you started the name calling early. I just can't wait until the dumb people of America take their dumb selves to the polls and make their dumb selection. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3285
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 7:37 pm: |
|
We may be the "minority party" in name, southerner, but with Bush and Cheney's numbers (18% favorability for Cheney?) you right to the right-wingers are being overwhelmed, even by your own party. I think it's time for you to stop gloating about a couple of slippery elections two and six years ago, when there are a couple of doozies coming up.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 754
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 7:53 pm: |
|
I've heard that one before.
I can see you are already hedging on the upcoming elections aren't you. So us right-wingers are being overwhelmed, even by our own party. So does this mean when we still have control of Congress that somehow you libs will count that as a victory? At least you have finally realized the Dems have no chance. I thought I'd never see the day when tulip would be rooting for a Republican to overwhelm another Republican and then claim a victory.
(And not to burst your bubble but no politico on either side would consider this upcoming election a doozie. The last one was the big win. All you have to do is see Alito and Roberts to understand the long term ramifications of your boy Kerry). |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1623
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Southerner: I feel sorry for you. I really do. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 756
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Thanks for the feelings. Now please get your taxes prepared on time. I hear Stevens wants to extend his bridge. |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 77
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 8:28 pm: |
|
The problem with electing a dumb politician is that opportunists will use the dummy to further their own ends. Thank goodness nothing like that is going on with the Bush prsidency.
....Haliburton, pharmacy/medicare, Iraq? Oh, that's right, the plan is to make the nation safe and help the little guy make ends meet. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 126
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Southerner: Are the only people qualified to criticize the president those who supported him in the election? Over 75% of Americans didn't vote for the guy. Does that mean they can't have an opinion? That's just nuts.
But there is no shortage of Republicans that have had problems with our President. Check out Bruce Bartlett's book "Imposter". Bartlett was the author of the Kemp-Roth Tax bill and served under Reagan. He nails Bush for squandering the Reagan legacy. Not a liberal democrat to say the least.
I know it makes for a tidy world view to think the only people that disagree with you must have an agenda. I don't care if the President is Republican, Democrat or Bull Moose- I just want him to get in the game. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 758
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 10:45 pm: |
|
kendall,
I'll agree with you. I don't agree with Bush on everything but I think he is entitled to do what he believes is right. After all, he put his marbles on the line, you and I didn't. He could have easily lost and become a punch line like Gore and Kerry have become. We are all allowed an opinion of course and I enjoy reading them. I am also allowed an opinion and am free to voice it. As for the agenda comment, I wish you would be honest. You and other libs say us conservatives only defend Bush. However, I never hear any of you point out the things you agree with Bush on. If you don't want me and others to think you have an agenda then prove it to us and give us the good AND the bad.
Here are the things I disagree with Bush on
1)Border Security - it's a joke and he hasn't done anything to help the Border Patrol.
2)I don't think he is aggressive enough in going after terrorists. Why we stop at the invisible Pakistani border is beyond me. If we set the precedent early on then it wouldn't be such an issue.
3)The pork barrel spending is ridiculous
4)Letting the Dems completely dominate the political debate in 2005 without fighting back.
Now Kendall, if you don't want me to think you have agenda let me know what you like about Bush. We've heard the negative stuff ad naseum for years so if you don't want me to think you have an agenda then let me hear it. If you can't think of any then that is fine as well, but at least I'll know where you stand. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 835
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 12:34 pm: |
|
He could have easily lost and become a punch line like Gore and Kerry have become.
Bush isn't a punch line? |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 129
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Sorry, Southerner. Got busy with work and all.
I reject the premise that the only way I can have a right to criticize our President is to find things I agree with. I don't have an agenda anymore than I'd prefer to have an effective president than an ineffective president.
That said, I do support much of Bush's rhetoric. 1) I agree that government spending has gone out of control and needs to be addressed immediately.
2) I agree that we need to address the mounting debt levels for financial and security reasons.
3) I agree that education is an important issue that may have many different solutions, and I would not rule out vouchers as a solution in some areas
4) I think that we should have a strong defense
5) I think we should focus on terrorism
6) I think that the less government in our lives, the better
7) I like what he is trying to do regarding immigration issues with Mexico.
Now, Southerner, here is my problem with the guy. On every one of those issues, he has failed. Every one. And right now, the economic consequence around his failure to address spending is staggering. You said you don't like the pork barrel spending; He has a Republican House and has never vetoed a bill. Never.
I mentioned Bruce Bartlett earlier. A big time fiscal conservative, a Republican. Look into his criticisms. He brings up what he calls pork barrell tax cuts- its not just the pet projects that get funded, its the pet industries that get tax breaks that you and I (and our grandkids) will be paying for. In fact, on the issue of fiscal discipline, Bartlett says that Clinton did a better job bringing conservative values to the issue. Are you lacking an agenda enough to consider that opinion?
I'll stop now. but I am curious about your 4th point-- is Bush's job as President political? I know realistically it always will be, but I think Bush needs to be less concerned with what will get Republicans elected and more concerned with running the damn country. There you go, thats my agenda.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 764
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Kendall,
Now we're getting somewhere. I previously stated that I completely disagree with Bush on the spending issue and I agree that Clinton actually turned out reasonably conservative on that issue which I liked about him.
As for running the country, I've given up on that with Bush for good reasons. No matter what he does the left will vilify him. So, with that said, he might as well solidify his political philosophy by fighting hard for Republicans his last 2 and half years and play the political game. Clinton did nothing for you Dems politically and look where he left you. And most of the Dems still fawn over him which I just don't understand from a political viewpoint.
I'm sure you have read my other 20 or so posts where I mentioned this but here I'll go again. I'm a pragmatist unlike many posters. I wish we had gentlemenly political debate in this country but we are way past that point. We have two major parties and no other options. So, for all the issues I disagree with Bush on, I disagree with the Dems on just about every other issue so it is easy to see on which side I support. I wish I could take a little bit of Bush and mix it with a little bit of Kerry and a little bit of Clinton, and a little bit of Dole and have a much better President or candidate. But we can't do that. Are you going to vote for Bush because he has done 2 or 3 things you like? I doubt it. Unlike the factions within the Democratic Party, most Republicans are not single issue voters. Of course we have the abortion nuts but we have them under control. Who else are they going to vote for? The party who pays lip service to overturning Roe (Repubs) or the party who wants abortion on demand (Dems). However, the single issue groups within the Democratic Party basically force any candidate into such tight corners that it is hard to win. My point being, we have two sides to choose from and I want my side to win. We were the minority party way to long and the Dems did not extend that olive branch. In fact they ran Congress like their own playground for decades. The shoe is on the other foot and most Dems have no idea how to deal with their new minority status. I'll accept that it is a slim margin on the whole, but the way the Congressional Districts and the Senate is structured allows us to dominate. I'd much rather win a boat load of states with small populations than the major cities. For all the millions in NY/NJ you guys have the same number of Senators as North and South Dakota. I've always said the Republicans are much better players at going after the big prizes rather than the little ones. While the Dems continue to whine about Plame and wiretaps, the Repubs are out in force raising big time cash for the elections. You better tell Dean he needs to forget the small stuff and look at the big picture. Of course, I think Dean likes being in the minority because he can say whatever he wants on Sunday mornings. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 132
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, March 2, 2006 - 9:35 pm: |
|
I appreciate the clear answer, Southerner. It seems we probably agree on a lot. But it also seems that every day there is some new way that this president shows that he is not up for the job. I love the way you create the perfect president, and for what its worth I agree. And I've got no use for Dean. But I never liked the argument that it is just the system, and it doesn't matter who is President. It can matter.
But you seem to be stuck on the partisan view. At this point, I am no longer praying that the Dems win any elections. I'm praying that Bush doesn't do any more harm before 2008. I said it before: I would vote for any previous candidate in the last 30 years rather than Bush. Hell, I'd probably vote for Goldwater rather than Bush at this point. Anyone who can do the job.
|
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 67
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 7:15 am: |
|
The Republicans are completely tone deaf on immigration. The House passed a good bill last year, HR 4437. Now Arlen Specter and the Senate Republicans want to add a guest-worker (read Amnesty) program to go along with it. This will not fly with the rank and file. If enough Republicans stay home or go 3rd party. Nancy Pelosi will be Speaker of the House in 2007 and there will be an impeachment vote. (Not being a Republican, this would not be too upsetting to me).
Cheers |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 936
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 8:40 am: |
|
kendalbill-are you kidding me? And his predecessor did.....ummmmmm....hmmmmmm.........ahhhhhhhh.............
dave23-
Kelo vs. New London.
Ooh, that was hard. Want another?
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health...
Apparently, the Virgnia Chapter of the ACLU seems to now think that it is a constitutional right to stuff your 12 ahem "undocumented" cousins into a single family home in Manassas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/magazine/26wwln_lead.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Should I keep going?
RL, the fact that I question SC decisions on constitutional matters shows I am thinking on my own. The fact that you and your cronies accept decisions, reagrdless of the constitutional damage, shows your true colors.
In other words, go sing your "illegal wiretap" tunes to someone else....
-SLK
Abortion is NOT a constitutional issue
Gay marriage is NOT constitutional issue
House stuffing is NOT a constitutional issue
-SLK
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5115
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 9:23 am: |
|
I don't know why Kelo v. New London would be considered "legislating from the bench". Could you explain that? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4450
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 9:31 am: |
|
Kelo fits as well as anything the definition of "legislating from the bench" as, "handing down a decision a conservative disagrees with."
SLK, just to review quickly, the Supremes let the state law stand in Kelo, they didn't add, subtract or modify any legislation.
If House stuffing is not a constitutional issue, explain to me again why the Supremes should have gotten involved in Bush v. Gore? |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 134
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 10:00 am: |
|
SLK-- wait, was that a Clinton BJ joke? In 2006? Have you been paying attention at all? Do you get your political opinions from Jay Leno reruns?
Is that your one and only problem with Bush's predecessor- that he was with Lewinski? Or did I missunderestimate your comment.
|
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1415
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 10:02 am: |
|
Scrotis-
Kelo vs. New London: I hated this decision, too. But I don't see what new legislation was formed from it.}
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health: Equal protection under the law. It wasn't too long ago that people felt this way about about interracial marriage.
Are you aware that the ACLU is not part of the judiciary? They merely threatened to sue.
Yes, please do go on. Given how often the phrase "legislating from the bench" is bandied about, I assume there are literally dozens--if not hundreds--of recent cases that demonstrate it. |
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 940
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 10:20 am: |
|
dave23-
Do you even know what legislating" from the bench means? Apparently not....
And for the record, you have to look at the basis the ACLU is suing. It is clearly in the article but you must have askimmed over it:
"The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, handed a rare opportunity to cast its foes as un-American, was planning to sue Manassas not just because it "targets families based on their nationality" but also for "an unconstitutional government infringement on the right of family members to live together."
kendallbill-newsflash-Clinton did jack about terrorism....who said anything about Monica?
tom-good point. And I agree with you. The SC should of never gotten involved in B&G (or Schiavo tulip). But you must place partial blame on the FL SC for overstepping their judicial boundaries. State laws could of fixed this election mess w/o their involvement.
-SLK |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5118
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 10:24 am: |
|
I don't know why Kelo v. New London would be considered "legislating from the bench". Could you explain that? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5282
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 10:32 am: |
|
You go from the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment that allows the taking of land for "public use" and the court says "well....we've started to use the broader definition of 'public purpose.'" They said the the local government could seize land that would allow for more tax revenue to be collected off of privately owned property, the 'jobs' involved or created and increased commerce with this new private development that involves no public access or ownership.
So you go from a clear "public use" standard in the law to a "public purpose" standard which is going to private interests to boot. And this wasn't done legislatively. It was done judicially by 5 unelected justices at the stroke of a pen. That's what gets people upset.
Now, there's a counter to this and I don't know if it was articulated in the decision, but it could be argued that the Takings Clause still applies as we all used to think it did to federal projects, and it's up to the states to create and interpret their own takings clause. Many of them are scrambling around to do that even now. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 767
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 10:49 am: |
|
Three,
I understand your feelings, but unfortunately Republicans and conservatives don't stray that far from the reservation. Most of us politico types realize the Democrat Party is the party consisting of factional groups not the Republican Party. It sure wasn't Repubs who went 3rd party and voted for Nader. I think that was the tree hugging Democratic faction. So your hope of the Repubs not voting Republican and then putting Queen Pelosi in charge won't happen. As for staying home, that won't happen either. We know what is on the line and even though we may have certain disagreements we aren't ready to go back in time to the Dems. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1417
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 10:53 am: |
|
SLK-
First of all, they aren't suing. They threatened to sue. Second of all, we are talking about judges, not advocacy groups.
I already told you what legislating from the bench is: It's Republican for "a decision with which I disagree." You, however, have not offered a definition of your own. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5119
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
I still don’t see how the Kelo case was was “legislating from the bench”. It’s practically the exact opposite.
The Legislature of the State of Connecticut passed a law setting forth the use of eminent domain for a public purpose, and redevelopment was declared by the Legislature to be a “public purpose”. As the Connecticut Attorney General explained in a brief to the U. S. Supreme Court-
Quote: In challenging the City of New London’s condemnation of their property, the petitioners are challenging far more than a single decision of one municipality. In effect, they are challenging Connecticut’s statutory scheme for addressing the deep-seated economic problems of distressed municipalities across the State and, in particular, the General Assembly’s determination that “assisting municipalities to acquire and improve unified land and water areas and to acquire and improve or demolish vacated commercial plants” is a valid “public use” as a “matter of legislative determination.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-186. Because such determinations are properly the province of the legislature, not the judiciary, the petitioners’ challenge is fundamentally unfounded.
Furthermore, the means employed by New London to carry out its state-sanctioned economic development plan are not novel. On the contrary, the common law of eminent domain has long recognized that private actors may be used to accomplish public goals. Thus, the petitioners’ claim that the condemnation at issue in this case represents a new and troubling expansion of the law should be squarely rejected.
…
The General Assembly adopted Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-186 et seq. more than thirty years ago to address the crippling economic conditions of distressed municipalities. In pertinent part, this statutory scheme authorizes the establishment of economic development agencies or development commissions specifically to develop comprehensive economic development plans, particularly for distressed municipalities such as New London. (Pet. App. 272-73).
Once a development agency or commission has been given instructions to proceed by the municipal authorities, it must initiate a project plan that, by law, must include a clear legal description of the land within the designated development area, plans for relocating affected residents, financing plans, etc. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-189. After relevant state agencies have determined that the proposed plan does not vary from state planning program objectives, the development agency must then present the plan to the municipal authorities, and provide appropriate notice for a mandatory public hearing, before these authorities vote to approve or disapprove the plan. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 8-189, 191.
The whole brief can be read here (Link is a Word document).
As stated in the majority opinion by Justice Stevens: “The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City’s development plan serves a 'public purpose.' Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.” I bolded that last part, just to point out that this case is probably the exact opposite of a court “legislating from the bench". They simply decided that the state’s declared “public purpose” was valid under the Constitution.
The more "activist" decision, would have been to declare that the Connecticut law was unconstitutional. Instead, the majority deferred to the decision made by the State Legislature. Whether they should have or not, of course, is a legitimate subject to debate.
By the way, even though poor Justice Souter is the one who keeps getting bad-mouthed when the Kelo case is discussed, he didn’t write any opinions in that case – he just voted with the majority. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1418
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
|
cjc,
That's a good description. Like I said, I disagree with the decision. (Let us not forget that our current president benefitted greatly from eminent domain takings for the Rangers' baseball stadium.)
I think we both read the same thing: It was Thomas who proffered the "public purpose" definition.
The good side of this is that more states will likely enact new laws prohibiting eminent domain to benefit private gain.
Either way, this is not "legislating from the bench" in that it does not create new laws. It's just a bad decision that I hope prompts better-written laws. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 135
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 12:38 pm: |
|
SLK, my mistake- I misread your articulate post quoted here: "And his predecessor did.....ummmmmm....hmmmmmm.........ahhhhhhhh............." Guess I have to keep my mind out the gutter.
And if you are willing to give Bush credit for his dilegence in preventing an attack after 9/11, give Clinton props for possibly thwarting an assasination attempt against Bush 41 as well as stopping Millenium attacks all over the place, as well as going after Bin Laden with cruise missles in the Sudan. I'm not calling Clinton a hero or a rock star, but you can't say he did nothing.
|
The SLK Effect
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 949
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 12:47 pm: |
|
kendalbill-
Good point. You, or Bubba, have my props....
dave23-I realize that the "house stuffing" issue is a separate matter and maybe I shouldn't have thrown it in. I am not trying to link the two concepts. But i do find it bizzare what "rights" some advocacy groups find in the Constitution these days. And you may also be right about Kelo....let me think about it some more...
-SLK
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5284
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 3:21 pm: |
|
dave23 -- How is it not legislating from the bench when you go from 'public use' to awarding property to a private developer and call it instead a 'public purpose' without a vote for legislation saying that?
UNLESS....the federal takings clause is intact and they just punted it back down to the local/state level for them to legislate. If that was the new meaning to the Fifth Amendment, I'd say that was legislating from the bench. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1421
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 3:48 pm: |
|
The court found that the project was a public use and relied on 19th century precedent on the the 'public purpose' interpretation.
I found it interesting that both O'Connor's and Thomas's dissents felt it necessary to mention that this will inevitably hurt the poor, which is completely unrelated to the Constitution.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4452
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 3, 2006 - 3:52 pm: |
|
You seem to think that it was the courts that awarded private property to a developer. It wasn't. It was local and state governments.
I think Kelo was a pantload, just like you do; and the Supremes should have invalidated the statute that allows these kinds of takings. But that would have been judicial activism, legislating from the bench. What they did instead was refuse to do so.
This is a clear case where the Court should have legislated from the bench, by declaring that it is unconstitional to take private property and turn it over to another private entity. But they didn't. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2632
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Cheif Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who was also the Republican Presidential Candidate in 1916 said that the country is goverend by the Constitution but, "The Constitution is what the Judges say it is."
Judges "legislate from the bench." They always have and they probably always will from both the Right and the Left. Legislatures always have the power to respond to judicial legislating by passing clarifying amendments or new laws. They rarely do because they are happy to pass ambiguous legislation and then pass the buck to the Courts for political reasons. Then they can sit back and criticise the Courts for "legislating from the bench". |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5288
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 4, 2006 - 9:12 pm: |
|
tom -- how could the justices have invalidated Kelo? By referring to the Fifth Amendment on 'public use' versus some 19th Century precedent that was incorrect and led to the situation we're now faced with, I suppose. Are we going to have to pass that clause in the Fifth Amendment one more time and put in something like "and we really mean it this time, not that we didn't mean it the last time but it seems like we have to do it again"? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4461
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 12:19 am: |
|
cjc, I'm actually with you 100% on Kelo. Really.
The Supremes should have invalidated the law that allowed those kinds of takings, as you say, by invoking a tighter definition of "public use." This would have been "legislating from the bench," and that would have been just fine in this instance.
I know you don't want to hear this, but it would have been directly parallel to Roe and Brown, in that a state law that says such-and-such is declared unconstitutional and therefore void.
You probably regret Roe, endorse Brown, and wish Kelo had turned out otherwise. But together, they show that "legislating from the bench" is not a meaningful phrase, because sometimes it's good and sometimes it's not. It's the principle underlying a given decision that is the problem, not the mere fact that a state law is overturned or upheld. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 137
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 8:54 am: |
|
For the many of us who slept through Constitutional Law:
Elon University poll
Approve Disapprove
Southeast US : BUSH 42 53
Apparently South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missippi and Florida and hotbeds of liberalism, eh? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 781
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 9:47 am: |
|
Kendal,
Disapproval of someone doesn't mean approval for someone else. All it means is that Bush probably won't get the party nomination in 2008. |
kendalbill
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 138
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Southerner: point taken. And my point was to respond with all of those who are constantly claiming all criticism is partisan. Its possible but unlikely that the southeast would disapprove on partisan grounds. Very specifically, They just think he's doing a bad job. Not whether they would endorse him for the nomination in 2008. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 5, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
Kendal,
Something tells me every President who makes it to a second term is going to lose support due to his supporters turning attention to the next candidate and opponents begin seeing the light at the end of the eight year tunnel. Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had Monica, and Bush has Iraq. And I will now make a leap but not a totally illogical one - I think all 3 of those guys could have won a 3rd term. I definitely believe Reagan and Clinton would have won a third term rather handily. Bush would be a bit trickier but if the Dems ran Hillary he would win by a bigger margin than against Kerry.
And yes, I know Bush's numbers are down but they don't bother me because he doesn't base decisions on polls so from my political view these numbers don't worry me because the Dems are unable to use the low numbers to do anything. If they had the numbers I guess they could impeach but they don't so other than the current state of whining they have nothing else they can do. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page