You can click on the thread header graphic and it gets big enough to see clearly when Reagan began this nonsense. And remember Romney is Bush on steroids. His tax plan is far more extreme. He wants to give millionaires an average—average!—tax cut of $250,000. The same plan would add $3 trillion to the deficit over a decade. Mitten$ would turn America into one big Pottersville.
As Greg Sargent noted on his blog Friday, “you might think that when the jobs picture is unsatisfactory, the political debate would be about which candidate has better policies. But instead, it’s a ‘referendum on Obama.’ This is dumb, especially when the other guy is running on such a nest of contradictions and obfuscations. But it’s how life is. I get that. Even so, it shouldn’t stop Obama from making it a co-referendum on Romney and the GOP. Obama’s Bedford Falls may have problems, but the GOP’s Pottersville — no General Motors, no Chrysler, no health care for 32 million, no public investment at all, no regulation of banks, and all the rest — is an ugly place where we don’t want to live.”
Surely, when the USA was formed by representatives of the new colonies consideration must have been given to why democracy would not work. Was public education the reason to give democracy a try? That didn’t work, either, and was never really supported. Was it a faith in some system of ‘blind’ justice? Doesn’t work! What about free enterprise and proprietory ownership? Nope. Politics based upon ‘common good and public interest? No. So, back to an education? No, again. Perhaps this all really leaves little hope for mankind ever doing what is best and leaves most of mankind and most nations with mostly big problems and very little real hope. But, there are the societies like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Brazil, and perhaps others to give mankind a measure of guidance that looks like a glimmer of social success. Maybe someday, if we last long enough, mankind will give wisdom and prudence a try. Oh! But that brings us back to a liberal education that has never been supported.
The House plans to waste time on July 11, 2012 to once again vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. I get the feeling they don’t get how things actually work in government.
After Health-Care Ruling, Time to Reconsider Supreme Court’s Power
(from the link): Of course, we’ve had judicial review in the United States since even before Chief Justice John Marshall’s landmark 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison. But it was Marbury that cemented the idea in our legal culture that federal courts can nullify acts of Congress. At a time in our history when neither blacks nor women could vote, and when even white males could not vote until they were 21, it was difficult to characterize judicial review as any less democratic than ordinary legislation. A decision by one group of middle-aged white men (Supreme Court justices) to strike down something enacted by another group of middle-aged white men (members of Congress) threatened democracy far less than when the courts act today.
The moment is propitious for reform. Two of the left-leaning justices (Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg), and two of their counterparts on the right (Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia), are getting up there in years. It is conceivable that any might retire before the end of the next presidential term. And who will serve that term—Barack Obama or Mitt Romney—is a coin flip. In other words, both Democrats and Republicans have a mutual interest in fixing this problem now.
fnord, just cannot go there. I don’t care what a majority of the public wants to do, this is not a democracy, and was never intended to be one. Rather, the Constitution creates a republic. In a democracy, there is no protection of the rights of the minority.
I note the author seeks to estop the Court from deciding Separation of Powers cases, but would allow the Court to conduct “judicial review”, as that term is currently understood, of cases involving individual rights. Who decides whether an action of the Executive Branch, e.g., which is clearly in violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine but also affects individual rights is a Separation of Powers case or an individual rights case? I wonder if the author trusts the Congress that much. Plus, who really determines the ‘majority’ being served by legislation; those with more lobbyists?
As you likely know, there is a movement on the Right to somehow limit judicial review of the constitutionality of a law to what the term was understood to mean at the time the Constitution was adopted. At the time, such review was limited to whether the law was enacted in accordance with the procedures set out in the Constitution. If it was, the law was constitutional. While this limited review would surely find the ACA was constitutional, so would the DOMA. This movement is percolating slowly, hopefully to become irrelevant as the PTB on the Right really understand what this would mean.
I know the latter case is separate from the crux of the author’s proposal, but be careful of what you wish fir.
I do have more problems with the 5 / 4 decisions. Interpreting law sure does have many nuances. Because of my lack of knowledge I have a great deal of trouble understanding how the Constitution and laws enacted after that document was drawn up can be interpreted so many different ways.
(from the link): The Supreme Court’s decision narrowly upholding the Affordable Care Act as a permissible tax highlights an important aspect of our constitutional system: Even when Congress has the power to pass a law, it remains subject to the Constitution’s express protections for individual and organizational rights. That principle explains why the religious liberty challenges to the Health and Human Services contraception mandate —there are 23 cases so far— will continue despite the recent ruling.
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
You can click on the thread header graphic and it gets big enough to see clearly when Reagan began this nonsense. And remember Romney is Bush on steroids. His tax plan is far more extreme. He wants to give millionaires an average—average!—tax cut of $250,000. The same plan would add $3 trillion to the deficit over a decade. Mitten$ would turn America into one big Pottersville.
As Greg Sargent noted on his blog Friday, “you might think that when the jobs picture is unsatisfactory, the political debate would be about which candidate has better policies. But instead, it’s a ‘referendum on Obama.’ This is dumb, especially when the other guy is running on such a nest of contradictions and obfuscations. But it’s how life is. I get that. Even so, it shouldn’t stop Obama from making it a co-referendum on Romney and the GOP. Obama’s Bedford Falls may have problems, but the GOP’s Pottersville — no General Motors, no Chrysler, no health care for 32 million, no public investment at all, no regulation of banks, and all the rest — is an ugly place where we don’t want to live.”
Surely, when the USA was formed by representatives of the new colonies consideration must have been given to why democracy would not work. Was public education the reason to give democracy a try? That didn’t work, either, and was never really supported. Was it a faith in some system of ‘blind’ justice? Doesn’t work! What about free enterprise and proprietory ownership? Nope. Politics based upon ‘common good and public interest? No. So, back to an education? No, again. Perhaps this all really leaves little hope for mankind ever doing what is best and leaves most of mankind and most nations with mostly big problems and very little real hope. But, there are the societies like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Brazil, and perhaps others to give mankind a measure of guidance that looks like a glimmer of social success. Maybe someday, if we last long enough, mankind will give wisdom and prudence a try. Oh! But that brings us back to a liberal education that has never been supported.
Jolting the Democratic Party from Its Stupor
by Ralph Nader
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/06-10
The House plans to waste time on July 11, 2012 to once again vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that was upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional. I get the feeling they don’t get how things actually work in government.
Clowns.
Maybe they just know their constituents well enough to know their clown show will satisfy that they’re doing something.
There seems more truth in that statement then any heard on Fox or MSNBC!
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/07/states-and-industry-get-a-legal-smackdown-on-climate/
A very important decision issued by the DC Court of Appeals June 26, overshadowed, of course, by SCOTUS.
I found this interesting.
After Health-Care Ruling, Time to Reconsider Supreme Court’s Power
(from the link): Of course, we’ve had judicial review in the United States since even before Chief Justice John Marshall’s landmark 1803 opinion in Marbury v. Madison. But it was Marbury that cemented the idea in our legal culture that federal courts can nullify acts of Congress. At a time in our history when neither blacks nor women could vote, and when even white males could not vote until they were 21, it was difficult to characterize judicial review as any less democratic than ordinary legislation. A decision by one group of middle-aged white men (Supreme Court justices) to strike down something enacted by another group of middle-aged white men (members of Congress) threatened democracy far less than when the courts act today.
The moment is propitious for reform. Two of the left-leaning justices (Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg), and two of their counterparts on the right (Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia), are getting up there in years. It is conceivable that any might retire before the end of the next presidential term. And who will serve that term—Barack Obama or Mitt Romney—is a coin flip. In other words, both Democrats and Republicans have a mutual interest in fixing this problem now.
So what can we do?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/08/after-health-care-ruling-time-to-reconsider-supreme-court-s-power.html
fnord, just cannot go there. I don’t care what a majority of the public wants to do, this is not a democracy, and was never intended to be one. Rather, the Constitution creates a republic. In a democracy, there is no protection of the rights of the minority.
I note the author seeks to estop the Court from deciding Separation of Powers cases, but would allow the Court to conduct “judicial review”, as that term is currently understood, of cases involving individual rights. Who decides whether an action of the Executive Branch, e.g., which is clearly in violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine but also affects individual rights is a Separation of Powers case or an individual rights case? I wonder if the author trusts the Congress that much. Plus, who really determines the ‘majority’ being served by legislation; those with more lobbyists?
As you likely know, there is a movement on the Right to somehow limit judicial review of the constitutionality of a law to what the term was understood to mean at the time the Constitution was adopted. At the time, such review was limited to whether the law was enacted in accordance with the procedures set out in the Constitution. If it was, the law was constitutional. While this limited review would surely find the ACA was constitutional, so would the DOMA. This movement is percolating slowly, hopefully to become irrelevant as the PTB on the Right really understand what this would mean.
I know the latter case is separate from the crux of the author’s proposal, but be careful of what you wish fir.
I totally trust your opinion because your knowledge is vast compared to mine. I just found it interesting. I found your words interesting too.
Trust Congress? You’ve got to be kidding. I know children with more intelligence and maturity, better moral compasses and common sense.
I do have more problems with the 5 / 4 decisions. Interpreting law sure does have many nuances. Because of my lack of knowledge I have a great deal of trouble understanding how the Constitution and laws enacted after that document was drawn up can be interpreted so many different ways.
More on the same topic —
ObamaCare Constitution fight not over yet
(from the link): The Supreme Court’s decision narrowly upholding the Affordable Care Act as a permissible tax highlights an important aspect of our constitutional system: Even when Congress has the power to pass a law, it remains subject to the Constitution’s express protections for individual and organizational rights. That principle explains why the religious liberty challenges to the Health and Human Services contraception mandate —there are 23 cases so far— will continue despite the recent ruling.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-07-06/obamacare-affordable-care-religiois-liberty/56063934/1