President Obama

[Whitebootman]

Only sneer at the working classes when is is inappropiate to patronise them. Norman Tebbit. (or some other c***).

 

[Nebbiolo]

Nebbiolo.

I had discussed this very real issue in one of the other threads and stated that this was my biggest fear of an Obama Presidency.

The liberal agenda in the USA, regardless of what the press here tells you, is still unpopular. How do we know this? Because liberal ideas that are brought to the public at large are consistently voted down (gay marriage, etc....)

Liberals in our country know this.

So how do you get unpopular polices to transform from ideas and beliefs into laws if you know the people won't vote for them?

Simple. You bypass the will of the people and get the courts to make the decisions for the people. So, instead of interpreting law from the bench, we have courts MAKING LAW from the bench. Anyone can see the big problems posed by that.

Further more, in past administrations, Congressional approval of Presidential Supreme Court appointments was pretty much a given. Generally speaking, Democrats would sign off on Republican appointments and vice versa. You'd have your occasional issues but nothing major.

That all changed under Bush II when the Dems tried to obstruct his appointment of fairly conservative judges to the Supreme Court (yes, they are life appointments) in order to advance their agenda. Judges who were committed to the US Constitution as it was written, not as if it's some "living, breathing document" up for many different interpretiations as the liberals in this country would have you believe.

Even if the conventional wisdom is correct, and Ginsburg and Stevens retire from the court during Obama's term, the conservatives will still have the majority 5 to 4.

But believe me, we don't need anymore uber liberal judges on the highest court in the land usurping the will of the people and making law vs. interpreting law.

But America is a representative democracy, not a representative dictatorship, or mob rule. I fail to see why governing bodies should listen to the will of the people when it concerns something which has nothing to do with them, or their lives. If you think so, then you must be committing yourself to view that whatever a majority wills, it should get. That would mean if a majority wills the persecution of the Jews, government is morally obliged to persecute the Jews. We're talking majority tyranny here, which is not a pleasant thing.

I must admit I'm not sure on many aspects of US politics. But I don't find the principle of the constitution being updated via the bench particularly worrying, assuming there is some type of mechanism available to ensure that such a privilege is not abused.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

Obama & Brow OUT!!

 

[chicoazul]

Research? Come on Bill, you know me better. I just say stuff.

You left out Afghanistan from your list there pal, the same country that the CIA backed the Taliban uprising against the Soviets.

One thing I will say pal is that McCain's speech was very fitting and testiment to man he is.

We'll find out just how good President Obama is over these forthcoming four years. Did anyone see the speech last night? Amazing.

 

[TX Tiburon]

So effectively, the president should be wary of his appointments in that Congress would veto anyone that is not considered suitable. Although, of course, a new president with a majority in the senate and in the house of representatives is probably going to get his way. A less popular president would no doubt be more likely to look at middle-ground appointees?
[/font][/color]


I can see the danger you speak of, but I can also see why people might think the constitution is a living, breathing entity that needs to be redefined and rethought as society changes.

Is there no way of appeal once the supreme court has passed its decision? That is, would not congress take any controversial decision back into its remit and possible overturn it?

The American system is pretty complicated to be honest. There so many houses running side-by-side.

1. Sorry, I don't know how to answer the questions by imbedding my respones. The president will likely appoint someone who leans his way politically. I may be mistaken but I believe that the justices must meet with 60% approval. If that is correct, then it is not as easy as passing them by a majority Senate.

2. The living document. Here's my angle. The constitution doesn't need to evolved because of it's simplicity. If something is not provided for in the US constitution it is a matter for the states to decide. Each state can adapt it's interpretation of a matter as they see fit. So judgement can still evolve. That, or a constitutional amendment can take place. However, these are complex to put in place and would have to be ratified by the states.

3. Judicial decisions would not be appealed by the legislature. However, different flavors of the same judicial matter make their way back through the courts. A matter that reaches (through appeal up the jucial ladder) a federal circuit court and ajudicated can be picked up the the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court sets their own agenda by picking which circuit court rulings that they want to review in a given session. The losing side of circuit court rulings often appeal to the supreme court but there is no guarantee that they will choose to hear the case. Only if they feel there is merit to do so will they review it. I suppose that's the long way of saying yes, rulings can be reviewed over time.

 

[TX Bill]

But America is a representative democracy, not a representative dictatorship, or mob rule. I fail to see why governing bodies should listen to the will of the people when it concerns something which has nothing to do with them, or their lives. If you think so, then you must be committing yourself to view that whatever a majority wills, it should get. That would mean if a majority wills the persecution of the Jews, government is morally obliged to persecute the Jews. We're talking majority tyranny here, which is not a pleasant thing.

I must admit I'm not sure on many aspects of US politics. But I don't find the principle of the constitution being updated via the bench particularly worrying, assuming there is some type of mechanism available to ensure that such a privilege is not abused.

And that is where the issue lies.

I would rather that the majority of the population determine whether or not our Constitution needs amending through the voting process whereas, if I read your comment correctly, you would be ok with nine members of the highest court in our country determining what is "good" for the people and what isn't. Nine members who weren't elected to represent the people mind you.

The mechanism you refer to is the way our government was set up to begin with and something that TX Tiburon discussed. Our three branches of government, Judicial, Legislative, and Executive, all have checks and balances to guarantee that no small minority makes decisions for the majority.

 

[Slight_Return]

bye bye dubya, no president could be worse, so its a positive step regardless now.

hopefully obama can prove to be a good leader and president, but the weight of expectation could well prove his undoing, there are those expecting a quick fix, and problems that have taken so long in the making cannot be put right overnight.

heres to a new dawn.

 

[TX Bill]

Research? Come on Bill, you know me better. I just say stuff.

You left out Afghanistan from your list there pal, the same country that the CIA backed the Taliban uprising against the Soviets.

One thing I will say pal is that McCain's speech was very fitting and testiment to man he is.

We'll find out just how good President Obama is over these forthcoming four years. Did anyone see the speech last night? Amazing.

I thought that the minute I hit "Submit"

We absolutely backed those in Afghanistan against the Soviets back then. 100%. Am I hearing that we shouldn't have? Was Afghanistan a dictatorship a the time committed towards the goal of acquiring nuclear weapons? Committed to the destruction of Israel?

The sole goal was to prevent further communist footholds in that part of the world. However very few, if any, saw the impending rise of radical/militant Islam and the subsequent creation of Al Qaeda during that time.

 

[TX Tiburon]

And that is where the issue lies.

I would rather that the majority of the population determine whether or not our Constitution needs amending through the voting process whereas, if I read your comment correctly, you would be ok with nine members of the highest court in our country determining what is "good" for the people and what isn't. Nine members who weren't elected to represent the people mind you.

The mechanism you refer to is the way our government was set up to begin with and something that TX Tiburon discussed. Our three branches of government, Judicial, Legislative, and Executive, all have checks and balances to guarantee that no small minority makes decisions for the majority.

A prime example is in California where the people voted 2-4 years ago to pass a marriage protection act to define marriage to be between man and woman. The California supreme court ruled that the act was "unconstitutional" even though there is nothing in the Cali. constitution regarding the matter. The court acted contrary to the will of the people. You can aruge the merits of the decision one way or another but their ruling is nothing more than judicial activism.

 

[TX Bill]

bye bye dubya, no president could be worse, so its a positive step regardless now.

hopefully obama can prove to be a good leader and president, but the weight of expectation could well prove his undoing, there are those expecting a quick fix, and problems that have taken so long in the making cannot be put right overnight.

heres to a new dawn.

Jimmy Carter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily

You're having a laugh and clearly don't have any concept of Presidential History in this country.

Please do a bit of research and then get back to us on that "no worse President than Bush" bit.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Why is there so much grief towards top dog Bush? - Didn't think he was so bad to be fair...

*logs out and runs*

 

[chicoazul]

I thought that the minute I hit "Submit"

We absolutely backed those in Afghanistan against the Soviets back then. 100%. Am I hearing that we shouldn't have? Was Afghanistan a dictatorship a the time committed towards the goal of acquiring nuclear weapons? Committed to the destruction of Israel?

The sole goal was to prevent further communist footholds in that part of the world. However very few, if any, saw the impending rise of radical/militant Islam and the subsequent creation of Al Qaeda during that time.

You see, you do stuff like that and I concede. You know [Poor language removed].

Lots of working class Americans are now bounding with hope, and hope is a powerful force. As the great Star Wars taught us.

 

[Nebbiolo]

Judicial decisions would not be appealed by the legislature. However, different flavors of the same judicial matter make their way back through the courts. A matter that reaches (through appeal up the jucial ladder) a federal circuit court and ajudicated can be picked up the the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court sets their own agenda by picking which circuit court rulings that they want to review in a given session. The losing side of circuit court rulings often appeal to the supreme court but there is no guarantee that they will choose to hear the case. Only if they feel there is merit to do so will they review it. I suppose that's the long way of saying yes, rulings can be reviewed over time.

So then there must be some argument to suggest that the court, which sounds in principle reputable, ought to be made up of a mix of individuals in order that it represents a cross section of society. At the moment it tends to be dominated by Republican appointees. Perhaps legislation ought to be put through to even things out somewhat. Get people in from your ivy league universities, law professors, philosophers and the like.

 

[TX Tiburon]

You see, you do stuff like that and I concede. You know [Poor language removed].

Lots of working class Americans are now bounding with hope, and hope is a powerful force. As the great Star Wars taught us.

Yes, and many are concerned about the promise of income redistribution and increasingly higher taxes. Well, at least this one.

 

[chicoazul]

Yes, and many are concerned about the promise of income redistribution and increasingly higher taxes. Well, at least this one.

Embrace socialism my selfish friend. Whats yours is mine.

Have you got Pro Evo 2009 on the PS3?