Duck, Duck, Goose, er I mean, Duck.

[Dr.Who]

How much fun would preschoolers the world over have if the game were "Duck, Duck, Duck" instead of "Duck, Duck, Goose"? The truth is that if certain things are going to work at all that they need to work according to established rules.

Which is why our founding fathers created a constitution: to establish some rules. One of the most basic rules they made was that in order to protect the American people from the abuses of government we need three distinct and separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

So when justice Sotomayor has been outed thoroughly as a proponent of usurping the powers of the legislative branch by advocating making law from the bench rather than just deciding if law is constitutional or not what do we do?

Well if you are Time Magazine you write an editorial stating that there is nothing wrong with making law from the bench. What choice do they have? After all much of liberalism today depends on ignoring the constitution and making law from the bench.

Oh, and here is the article:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1910714,00.html

So who wants to play Duck, Duck, Duck?

 

[The Scotsman]

Hopefully the checks and balances within the broad spectrum or backgrounds that exist within the other Justices "should" make any legislating she (or indeed others) might be inclined to do ineffective as it would have to be agreed upon by 4 other justices to have any affect?

 

[Dr.Who]

Hopefully the checks and balances within the broad spectrum or backgrounds that exist within the other Justices "should" make any legislating she (or indeed others) might be inclined to do ineffective as it would have to be agreed upon by 4 other justices to have any affect?

Are you suggesting that rather than demand that we have an actual separation of powers we should just hope she is ineffective?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

How much fun would preschoolers the world over have if the game were "Duck, Duck, Duck" instead of "Duck, Duck, Goose"? The truth is that if certain things are going to work at all that they need to work according to established rules.

Which is why our founding fathers created a constitution: to establish some rules. One of the most basic rules they made was that in order to protect the American people from the abuses of government we need three distinct and separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

So when justice Sotomayor has been outed thoroughly as a proponent of usurping the powers of the legislative branch by advocating making law from the bench rather than just deciding if law is constitutional or not what do we do?

Well if you are Time Magazine you write an editorial stating that there is nothing wrong with making law from the bench. What choice do they have? After all much of liberalism today depends on ignoring the constitution and making law from the bench.

Oh, and here is the article:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1910714,00.html

So who wants to play Duck, Duck, Duck?

In MN we dont play that, its Duck Duck Grey Duck,...

 

[The Scotsman]

Are you suggesting that rather than demand that we have an actual separation of powers we should just hope she is ineffective?

no because you already have one, I was rather assuming the system worked and that her fellow Justices would put her right should she try and stray down that path! The worrying point about this, and I share your concern, is Justices pursuing personal agendas from a position which leaves little scope for redress.

 

[foggedinn]

After the last eight years, I'm surprised anyone still takes the idea of separation of powers seriously. The rule of law doesn't exist in America, and hasn't for a long time. The Bush presidency just drove home the obvious with the force of a sledge hammer.

All of the executive powers claimed by Bush/Cheney and justified by their supporters now reside with Obama. When Obama leaves office, all of those powers will be part of his successors mandate.

We no longer elect a president with limited powers, we elect a dictator. The only limits on the powers of the president are those voluntarily recognised by that president. Since absolute secrecy has also been justified, we won't even know much of what they have done for decades.

We did it to ourselves.

 

[Dr.Who]

After the last eight years, I'm surprised anyone still takes the idea of separation of powers seriously. The rule of law doesn't exist in America, and hasn't for a long time. The Bush presidency just drove home the obvious with the force of a sledge hammer.

All of the executive powers claimed by Bush/Cheney and justified by their supporters now reside with Obama. When Obama leaves office, all of those powers will be part of his successors mandate.

We no longer elect a president with limited powers, we elect a dictator. The only limits on the powers of the president are those voluntarily recognised by that president. Since absolute secrecy has also been justified, we won't even know much of what they have done for decades.

We did it to ourselves.

I agree that the scope and power of the executive branch has grown tremendously. So too have the powers of the legislative and the judicial. I will even grant that rather than acting in balance against each other the three branches are more likely to act in concert with each other along party lines.

I do not agree that we are at the point where the last presidency or this one are dictators or that there is no longer a separation of powers.

It is not too late too change. We all need to work together to restore states rights and to weaken the federal government and to throw out incumbent bumbs, and to elect representatives more for how well they will govern than for what party they belong to.

We can also stop supporting news organizations that distort the news and actively play politics.

We can also donate funds to organizations that attempt to restore the proper role of government.

And if that fails, AFTER it fails we can refresh the tree of liberty in organized groups.

 

[foggedinn]

I agree that the scope and power of the executive branch has grown tremendously. So too have the powers of the legislative and the judicial. I will even grant that rather than acting in balance against each other the three branches are more likely to act in concert with each other along party lines.

I do not agree that we are at the point where the last presidency or this one are dictators or that there is no longer a separation of powers.

It is not too late too change. We all need to work together to restore states rights and to weaken the federal government and to throw out incumbent bumbs, and to elect representatives more for how well they will govern than for what party they belong to.

We can also stop supporting news organizations that distort the news and actively play politics.

We can also donate funds to organizations that attempt to restore the proper role of government.

And if that fails, AFTER it fails we can refresh the tree of liberty in organized groups.

Don't you ever get tired of spouting the same old worn out political tripe.

Divisiveness is the very nature of a two party system. We are not going to "work together" to accomplish anything, let alone something so historically divisive as states rights. Nor is the power of the central government going to be weakened.

We will also continue to re-elect northward of 90% of our incumbent politicians. After all, it's those politicians in other districts that are causing all the problems. Our representative is doing a bang up job.

As for news organizations; what news organizations? Isn't it obvious that nothing of significance has happened anywhere in the world since Michael Jackson died? Someone would have to have cajones the size of basketballs to even call Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. news programming. They are corporate profit centers. That is their function and purpose. Occasionally C-SPAN will let slip some actual news.

The proper role of government. Hmm. Ask any five people, and you will get at least seven opinions.

I apologise if my reaction to your post offends you. That was not my intent, but I've heard everything you posted a hundred times before. It may convince college students, to someone approaching sixty, it sound like tripe.

 

[The Scotsman]

It is not too late too change. We all need to work together to restore states rights and to weaken the federal government and to throw out incumbent bumbs, and to elect representatives more for how well they will govern than for what party they belong to.

You can never go back. Once the genie is out of the bottle its hard to stuff the bugger back in. Politics is about power and the ability to wield it and manipulate to your own agenda - the more power you have the more important you feel. Once you've got that ability to play Napoleon as sure as god made little green apples you ain't going to give it up out of some kind of idealistic crusade. And for those waiting in the wings, well they sure and as hell want to have a go at it despite what they may say. Vanity and pride are a politicians curse!

I'm not as old as foggy but sure as hell just as cynical. Power inexorably moves to the centre not outwards. If you want an example look at Europe and how the rule of Brussels now trumps national laws. Centralisation has taken over from a federalist Europe....we're buggered but good luck in your quest!

 

[TruthAboveAll]

How much fun would preschoolers the world over have if the game were "Duck, Duck, Duck" instead of "Duck, Duck, Goose"? The truth is that if certain things are going to work at all that they need to work according to established rules.

Which is why our founding fathers created a constitution: to establish some rules. One of the most basic rules they made was that in order to protect the American people from the abuses of government we need three distinct and separate branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

So when justice Sotomayor has been outed thoroughly as a proponent of usurping the powers of the legislative branch by advocating making law from the bench rather than just deciding if law is constitutional or not what do we do?

Well if you are Time Magazine you write an editorial stating that there is nothing wrong with making law from the bench. What choice do they have? After all much of liberalism today depends on ignoring the constitution and making law from the bench.

Oh, and here is the article:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1910714,00.html

So who wants to play Duck, Duck, Duck?

Good analogy, Dr. When we've a media who has openly referenced a chill running up the leg, a President like a god (or God), a description of a presidential address as sermon-like (complete with reverential overtones), etc. it should be no surprise that there would be one openly advocating unconstitutional activity like legislating from the bench.

I don't think liberalism relies on ignoring the Constitution and legislating from the bench. I see it more as a goal to destroy the Constitution. And legislating from the bench is a means to that end. But what liberalism relies on is 1) ignorance of large numbers of the general population, 2) class envy and 3) a subservient media allowing history to be rewritten and the redefinition of accepted words, terms and concepts to go unchallenged.

Actually, Duck, Duck, Duck might be an excellent game for the children of today. If there is no goose, no one can ever be the "chosen" one. If no one is chosen, then no one need feel left out. Also, with no chosen one, there is no one to chase anyone, and possibly cause additional pain and injury to their precious psyches.

Ah, but I digress from your illustrative intent. It IS a good analogy...

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Hopefully the checks and balances within the broad spectrum or backgrounds that exist within the other Justices "should" make any legislating she (or indeed others) might be inclined to do ineffective as it would have to be agreed upon by 4 other justices to have any affect?

Agreed, it will hopefully work that way. It is a huge part of why nine were selected. No even numbers that could result in a true split. 3 & 5 were viewed as too few. 7 was viewed as the number relegated to God, symbolizing perfection, so it would be heresy to have 7. 11 would be approaching unwieldiness. 9 serves the purpose well.

It is not that the balance may not be maintained. But our highest court, the final arbiter of blind justice and constitutional solidity should not be subject to the vagaries of any one individual espousing the belief that ANY bench should be creating legislation. It would indeed be onerous for us to passively let this go. It is about the attitude and perception. The other justices should not have to be on constant guard that their opinions could be tainted by an individual who perceives his or her role as legislative, rather than strictly judicial.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

By the way Scotsman. I noticed your signature with the Churchill quote. Are you using that as a compliment to the U.S., or as denigrating? Since I must rely on what others have written and observed about Churchill, I'm confident his usage was in the context of a time of distress, hoping America could be persuaded to come along side Great Britain and their allies battling fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. A hopeful commentary that we (America) may wish to try other options, to search for others, but in the end can be counted up, as he said, to do the right thing.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

no because you already have one, I was rather assuming the system worked and that her fellow Justices would put her right should she try and stray down that path! The worrying point about this, and I share your concern, is Justices pursuing personal agendas from a position which leaves little scope for redress.

Our justices do not work that way. That is why we have so many votes that are 5-4, 6-3, etc. They may have points of their opinions where they are in full agreement, such as their recent overturn ruling and subsequent opinions in the case of the New Haven firefighters. The press has been mostly about the 5-4 decision, split along the usual lines.

However, the concurring five justices, and dissenting four justices had one point of full agreement. There was full agreement (yes, 9-0!) that rejected the Sotomayor and fellow two members position that disparate racial results ALONE justified New Haven's decision to deny promotion of the firefighters and to dump the exam. There was no inquiry whether or not it was fair and job-related. This really is HUGE.

There is one course of redress for any federal official to be held accountable: impeachment. It is a very difficult area to approach where the judiciary is involved. If everything were cut and dried, all laws abundantly clear in all cases, all cases simply black and white there would be no need for the SCOTUS in the first place.

But at least the course of redress is there... Even if most Americans are totally clueless about it.