President Obama

[TX Tiburon]

Embrace socialism my selfish friend. Whats yours is mine.

Have you got Pro Evo 2009 on the PS3?

No PS3 for you. We are Nintendo WII at our house. But you are welcome to drop by for a rousing game of Rayman, Backyard (American) Football or the Incredibles. Bring your remote unless I have to provide that too. And no...you can't have it. It's mine, all mine.

Signed,
Evil-traditionalist, independant, free-market, greedy Americano

 

[Jamo Martinez]

Good post, Bruce. It's all very reminiscent of 1997, when Blair was elected on a wave of optimism. Out with the old, stuffy, corrupt regime and in with this energetic, young crusader. The country was saved, things could only get better. And things did get better, in my opinion. But clearly things could only get marginally better.

Obama has the extra problem of inheriting a terrible economy and the mess that is Iraq. Oh yeah, and then there is terrorism and Iran that looks like it's flexing its muscles again. Obama has taken the presidency at a very tough time. I hope people's expectations, in the cold light of day, reflect the difficult job he has.

But I'm really pleased that we've got rid of Bush. I don't hate Bush, I just think he was a disaster globally.

You are officialy my spokesman

 

[atrottel]

Regarding the current Supreme Court, TX Bill, you are being somewhat misleading in your arguments about liberal imbalance.

Of the current sitting justices, 7 out of 9 were appointed by Republican presidents. In fact, before the two that were appointed by Clinton, the previous Democratic appointment came in the 1960s - a full 40 years ago. (In fact, since Clinton and LBJ were both "good ole boy" southern Democrats, one could argue that there has been no candidate proposed by a "liberal" Democrat in my lifetime. Although you would no doubt correctly say that there have been justices who have been unappealing to the religious right, which is another matter entirely.)

The point about your constitution is that it has checks and balances between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. As you rightly pointed out, your country's founders chose an electoral college to help bypass the effects of a simple majority (and, so I understand, because of transportation problems in those days).

It also provided for a system of nomination and approval for the justices and, if it came to the point where the electorate were so utterly unimpressed with one party that they gave control of both the executive and the legislative to the other party, then one must presume that that is what the founding fathers intended.

And arguing that those Supreme Court justices don't reflect the will of the people at any single point seems slightly contradictory when you are perfectly happy to accept an electoral system which deliberately does the same, just because it is written in the same constitution.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Been away for the last few pages but just wanted to say, top thread chaps. Interesting stuff.

 

[TX Tiburon]

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.

I will have to kindly disagree with the representative, cross-section comment. We the people are represented by our elected officials - our congressmen, senators, president, etc. Judges don't represent the people, they represent the constitution.

As for the court being domindated by appointees... as I mentioned early, that is neither here nor there to me. They should not be ruling based on party affiliation or personal preference. Problem is, the loose constructionist don't adhere to the constitution.

By the way if you are one who seeks balance, the court is somewhat balanced right now. It generally falls: strict constructionist (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts) loose constructionists (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Souter). Stevens tends to fall in the middle. So no, I wouldn't say that the court is dominated one way or another. That's a misconception.

 

[TX Tiburon]

Of the current sitting justices, 7 out of 9 were appointed by Republican presidents. In fact, before the two that were appointed by Clinton, the previous Democratic appointment came in the 1960s - a full 40 years ago. (In fact, since Clinton and LBJ were both "good ole boy" southern Democrats, one could argue that there has been no candidate proposed by a "liberal" Democrat in my lifetime. Although you would no doubt correctly say that there have been justices who have been unappealing to the religious right, which is another matter entirely.)

The 7 out of 9 comment may be true, I am not sure. But what is really relevant is their track records. At least 2 republican appointees have consistently judged very differently while on the supreme court compared to the records prior. Justice Kennedy was a Reagan appointee and Justice Souter was a Bush I appointee. Neither of these would be considered strict constitutionalists. Rather, they have veered to the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Slight_Return]

[cant even quote other posters web links.]

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.

please pardon me, he (GWB) is the best president of all time.

(didnt dubyas wiki page get closed due to persistent 'vandalism'? I appreciate that beyond that, it is the most factual source of truth and justice in the universe.)

 

[TX Bill]

please pardon me, he (GWB) is the best president of all time.

(didnt dubyas wiki page get closed due to persistent 'vandalism'? I appreciate that beyond that, it is the most factual source of truth and justice in the universe.)

To my recollection, no one has said that GWB was the best President of all time.

It will be some years before people can reflect on his legacy and see how his two terms should be judged. He'll have some black marks to be sure. But I don't think he was as horrible as many have made him out to be. Many of us, while appreciated his foreign policy, weren't happy at all with his approach to fiscal conservatism.

I just linked to Jimmah's Wiki page to bring attention to who our worst modern day President has been. You're right, take what you read on Wiki with a grain of salt.

I did however include the IBD editorial (a non-partisan publication to my knowledge) as they pretty much took his comments to task about Bush being the worst President ever. Pot, meet kettle.

There really is no question that Jimmah was an unmitigated disaster in office. I really don't even see many liberals over here try to argue otherwise. Not saying that they haven't tried. I just haven't seen it.

 

[TX Bill]

Regarding the current Supreme Court, TX Bill, you are being somewhat misleading in your arguments about liberal imbalance.

Of the current sitting justices, 7 out of 9 were appointed by Republican presidents. In fact, before the two that were appointed by Clinton, the previous Democratic appointment came in the 1960s - a full 40 years ago. (In fact, since Clinton and LBJ were both "good ole boy" southern Democrats, one could argue that there has been no candidate proposed by a "liberal" Democrat in my lifetime. Although you would no doubt correctly say that there have been justices who have been unappealing to the religious right, which is another matter entirely.)

The point about your constitution is that it has checks and balances between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. As you rightly pointed out, your country's founders chose an electoral college to help bypass the effects of a simple majority (and, so I understand, because of transportation problems in those days).

It also provided for a system of nomination and approval for the justices and, if it came to the point where the electorate were so utterly unimpressed with one party that they gave control of both the executive and the legislative to the other party, then one must presume that that is what the founding fathers intended.

And arguing that those Supreme Court justices don't reflect the will of the people at any single point seems slightly contradictory when you are perfectly happy to accept an electoral system which deliberately does the same, just because it is written in the same constitution.

Sorry as I didn't mean to imply that the liberals were the majority on the court. They aren't. TX Tiburon once again though illustrated the issue of Souter. Bush thought he was a conservative or exhibited conservative tendencies, but when he got on the court, he was nothing of the sort.

I can't say that couldn't happen to Obama but it's highly unlikely. He'll be absolutely sure that any judge he appoints to the Court will share his same left wing views, some radical, some not.

As for the perceived contradiction of me appreciating the merits of an Electoral College vs. the majority not being represented by 9 justices, there is no contradiction.

I explained earlier why the Electoral College is a valuable part of our Constitution and makes sure that every person's vote is worth something, not just those in certain cities, certain states, or certain parts of the country. But I'm not seeing the contradiction in terms of my being concerned about nine unelected judges (conservative or liberal) overriding the will of the people by legislating from the bench.

They have one job and one job only. To be sure that the laws made by the legislative branch and voted on by the people square with the US Constitution. But TX Tiburon is correct in that judicial activism is taking hold in this country and in the long run, that's not good for anyone, regardless of political party affiliation or otherwise.

 

[Nebbiolo]

To my recollection, no one has said that GWB was the best President of all time.

It will be some years before people can reflect on his legacy and see how his two terms should be judged. He'll have some black marks to be sure. But I don't think he was as horrible as many have made him out to be. Many of us, while appreciated his foreign policy, weren't happy at all with his approach to fiscal conservatism.

I just linked to Jimmah's Wiki page to bring attention to who our worst modern day President has been. You're right, take what you read on Wiki with a grain of salt.

I did however include the IBD editorial (a non-partisan publication to my knowledge) as they pretty much took his comments to task about Bush being the worst President ever. Pot, meet kettle.

There really is no question that Jimmah was an unmitigated disaster in office. I really don't even see many liberals over here try to argue otherwise. Not saying that they haven't tried. I just haven't seen it.

What did he do that was so bad, Bill? You seem to have a real problem with that guy, similar to my problem with Margaret Thatcher. Carter always struck me as reasonable, a progressive liberal with a moral backbone.

 

[TX Bill]

What did he do that was so bad, Bill? You seem to have a real problem with that guy, similar to my problem with Margaret Thatcher. Carter always struck me as reasonable, a progressive liberal with a moral backbone.

That editorial could explain that better than I ever could so I won't try.

Seriously, take a bit of time and read it. They touch on pretty much all aspects of his Presidency, from the domestic economy, to foreign policy, the oil crisis, etc....

What really sticks in the craw of many people here in our country is that there's a rule (unwritten but more related to etiquette) that living ex-Presidents don't comment on or criticize the current sitting President.

That unwritten rule had been follow all the way up until these last four years when Carter would take EVERY opportunity to take a shot at Bush and his policies. Clinton did it but to a much, much smaller degree. My guess is that he worked closely with Bush mk. I on several disaster relief issues here in the country and so they developed a mutual respect for each other. In my opinion, it's that respect that really kept Clinton from saying what he might have wanted to say in regards to the current Bush administration.

 

[Slight_Return]

To my recollection, no one has said that GWB was the best President of all time.

It will be some years before people can reflect on his legacy and see how his two terms should be judged. He'll have some black marks to be sure. But I don't think he was as horrible as many have made him out to be. Many of us, while appreciated his foreign policy, weren't happy at all with his approach to fiscal conservatism.

I just linked to Jimmah's Wiki page to bring attention to who our worst modern day President has been. You're right, take what you read on Wiki with a grain of salt.

I did however include the IBD editorial (a non-partisan publication to my knowledge) as they pretty much took his comments to task about Bush being the worst President ever. Pot, meet kettle.

There really is no question that Jimmah was an unmitigated disaster in office. I really don't even see many liberals over here try to argue otherwise. Not saying that they haven't tried. I just haven't seen it.

With the greatest of respect, I didn't bring "Jimmah" (Jimmy Carter?) up in this, it has been reached via my use of 'worst president ever' by yourself and your opinion.

Thats super.

I do smile wryly at the "some black marks" comment in relation to Dubya's legacy.

When was the last 'lame duck' president before Dubya?
Under which presidents have more US soldiers died abroad compared to Dubya's duration as overlord?
What are the numbers of, homeless, and unemployed now in the US? - and when if ever have those levels been higher?
US manufacture reached a low of 38.9 recently, when was US manufacture so low in the past?
Did Obama actually campaign in New Orleans or is the fallout of the former presidents incompetency still prevalent amongst those that remember Katrina.

 

[atrottel]

I'm being a bit devil's advocate here, but the justices are selected in just the same way that the president is elected. People elect representatives who then are presumed to act on their behalf.

The constitution provides that there shall be a supreme court.

Whether those members of the supreme court are activist or literalist or originalist or modernist is up to them, as was intended by the writers of the constitution. All of those interpretations of the constitution are opinion. Justices are appointed because their opinion is presumed to be more knowledgeable and informed.

 

[TX Bill]

With the greatest of respect, I didn't bring "Jimmah" (Jimmy Carter?) up in this, it has been reached via my use of 'worst president ever' by yourself and your opinion.

Thats super.

I do smile wryly at the "some black marks" comment in relation to Dubya's legacy.

When was the last 'lame duck' president before Dubya?
Under which presidents have more US soldiers died abroad compared to Dubya's duration as overlord?
What are the numbers of, homeless, and unemployed now in the US? - and when if ever have those levels been higher?
US manufacture reached a low of 38.9 recently, when was US manufacture so low in the past?
Did Obama actually campaign in New Orleans or is the fallout of the former presidents incompetency still prevalent amongst those that remember Katrina.

Nice try on the liberal talking points regarding "Bush's failed legacy" and yet you don't address why you called him the worst president ever. Why would I even bother to address each point above as facts don't matter to you.

I thought I'd help you along but it's apparent that even when the facts of a Jimmy Carter administration hit you squarely in the face, you choose to ignore them (as a typical liberal would).

When you're ready to have an argument, discussion, or whatever you want to call it based on facts, get back to me. But please put the tired old liberal talking points away. Economy down, Bush's fault. Soldiers died in a war, Bush's fault. People homeless in our country, Bush's fault. Hell, I'm surprised you didn't try to blame Bush for the homelessness in your country. Homelessness is everywhere, or didn't that occur to you.

The "fact" that YOU choose to refer to Bush as "overlord" tells me you aren't even close to being prepared to debate the facts of your initial assertion.

Ah liberals, gotta love 'em.

(I can't wait to see who the first liberal will be to publically call for Obama to charge Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld with war crimes.)

 

[TX Bill]

I'm being a bit devil's advocate here, but the justices are selected in just the same way that the president is elected. People elect representatives who then are presumed to act on their behalf.

The constitution provides that there shall be a supreme court.

Whether those members of the supreme court are activist or literalist or originalist or modernist is up to them, as was intended by the writers of the constitution. All of those interpretations of the constitution are opinion. Justices are appointed because their opinion is presumed to be more knowledgeable and informed.

That's fine and dandy in theory.

In theory.

Problem is that regardless of what is up for opinion, one cannot deny the dangers of judicial activism. The Constitution, for all it's interpretation, was pretty clear as to what roles each branch of the government would play.

Are you telling me (and I know you're playing devil's advocate) that a certain amount of activism from that branch of government is acceptable? If so, how much? And if that's the case, what is acceptable from the Legislative and Executive branches of government in terms of deviating from the responsibilities they've been given.

I mean I can't imagine liberals being happy if all nine of the members of the court were leaning conservative and the spectre of judicial activism reared it's head.

Like I said, it's not good for anyone when judges start to believe that they know better than our founding fathers and start to override the Constitution as it was originally intended.

I appreciate your views though.