2 Evangelicals Want to Strip Courts' Funds

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Apr 22, 2005.

  1. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #1
    ...and they have the ear of the Republican leadership in Congress. Constitutional crisis here we come?

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-strategy22apr22,1,799431.story
     
  2. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #2
    wonderful. well, at least our country isn't run by a bunch of radicals.....



    oh wait.
     
  3. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    Well the only silver lining is that once these guys completely overreach and get kicked out of office it will be that much easier to replace whoever they put on the bench with liberal idealogues. The GOP may be planning for a permananent majority status, but they can only abuse power for so long before the country gets sick of it and tosses them out on their ears.

    Funny thing though is that many of these justices they condemn were put there by the exceedingly liberal Ronald RayGun. So basically they're saying they want to purge from the bench anyone to the left of Antonin Scalia. That's a lot of judges. Of course once the judges start to see their comrades fall, they'll quickly fall into line or be ousted themselves.

    Can we say abuse of power boys and girls?
     
  4. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #5
    abuse of power or not, appropriations are one of only a few tools that exists for Congress to take action against the courts. It is one of the many features of our government that the founding fathers implemented to ensure that the people would always have control. if the people are unhappy, they will indeed "toss them out on their ears" and vote for those who will restore those courts.

    Additionally, Congress could cut the federal courts in an even more powerful way. Art III(1) - "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Art III(2)(2) - "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
    So, Congress has the power to create or destroy the lower courts as it chooses, and can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. But, remember the people.

    Remember, there is no set number of justices. This Congress is not the first branch to threaten to manipulate the courts to gain what it wants. It was a switch in time that saved nine during the FDR administration. The Court was threatening to overturn legislation that was central to FDR's reforms. It was only a last minute change in vote that prevented FDR from appointing several more justices in order to ensure that the legislation would be found constitutional. But, of course, the people retain that power over the president.

    So, as strange as what is being proposed is, it is no different than any other constitutional request that is being made to local representatives.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    So you'd be OK if the roles were reversed and the Democrats were actively seeking to install judges who'd remove 'under God' from the pledge and generally vote liberal on all things?

    Cuz that was the point of my post. Our day will return, and the GOP will be sorry they made the changes they did.
     
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #7
    This is disturbing on so many levels: Republicans drunk with power, Evangelicals having a horrifying amount of influence over government, the constitutional issues involved in playing "now-you-see-it-now-you-don't" with the courts....

    I have to agree with mactastic. We may be coming close to a time when the public finally gets fed up with this fascist crapola. I may be building sand castles in the air, but I can see, potentially, where the 2006 congressional elections see a surprising turn back to Democrats...basically a reversal of Newt's neo-con takeover of 1994. I don't know whether the Democrats will take a majority...but I do think it's reasonable to hope for at least a two to three seat gain in the Senate, for example.

    Interesting article pointing to a potential backlash against the Republicans:

    I think the Democrats can do two things to accelerate this process.

    (1) Judiciously (if you'll pardon the pun) shut down cooperation with the Republicans. They are already planning to do this, if necessary, with the "nuclear option". If the Republicans go ahead with this crazy plan (de-funding the courts), I think it would not be going too far for the Democrats to threaten to (and actually do it, if necessary) walk out, leaving Congress without a quorum. That would be a drastic tactic to take, but it would draw massive amounts of publicity to the issue of an out-of-control Congress...and by all indications, the Republicans would come out of such an event looking much worse off than the Democrats.

    (2) Re-discover their roots. As Nader, the Green Party and hordes of independents are showing us, there is a large contingent that is out there looking for progressives to vote for, not namby-pamby moderates and corporate tools.
     
  7. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    You've only made the case for how rare it is for the other branches of government to meddle with the independence of the judiciary. You have to go back to FDR to find the last instance, which is widely seen as the lowest point of his 12 years as president. I'd like to hear some experts in Constitutional law speak up about this. Though I hardly claim to know all the facts, I suspect this effort could set off a significant Constitutional crisis of a magnitude we haven't seen since at least Watergate.
     
  8. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    It was detestable when FDR did it and it's detestable now.
     
  9. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #10
    Found this article about FDR's failed court-packing scheme on a decidedly right-leaning web site:

    http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm

    Some lessons to be had here. I wonder if our friends on the right will remember them when the time comes to take sides on this Constitutional transgression.
     
  10. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #11
    amen! i hardly think that i'm only one of a handful of progressives that will vote for a green or other small party before i vote democratic. this is assuming i know the democrat to be a lesser fit to my ideals... realistically though, it's hard to have thorough information on all candidates..

    if the democrats showed some backbone (the ones that show glimmers of hope -eg barbara boxer with one of the recent votes etc all seem to only have it in spurts), i'd be much more likely to go with them and ignore all the hypocrisy their party has come to represent.

    i'd like to get a democratic congress in 2k6 if only because we need some balance with these radicals that are currently giddy with power
     
  11. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #12
    right now i am reading the history behind the constitution and the debates posed by all sides on the issue

    what's interesting is that our way of democracy, in a free republic, with equality was not the way many colonists were treated under british rule so the ideas of our constitution seemed far too progressive for the time for many

    the gop of today reminds me of the anti constitutionalists of whom some would rather return to an autocratic king/queen with an elitist, rich ruling class

    if the majority of americans want to return to the days of inequality under an autocratic ruler, one party system, then it will be then when it will be seen as ok

    but if the extreme elements of the gop came into power and tried to rewrite the constitution, i have a feeling that most of america would reject going against our freedoms we fought so hard for...bush only won by one state and the religious right wingers should keep that in mind and that is the reason bush tries to keep his cabinet balanced

    sometimes i wish bush would try and pack his cabinets and courts with people who only thought like john ashcroft or ann coulter, then at least he would have been voted out in 2004

    it's a balancing act and while the extreme right wingers will make the news and have america scoff at them, slightly less ridiculous right wingers will slip by and get appointed to benches and elected to public posts...it will take many years to undo some of the bad mistakes of george w bush
     
  12. IJ Reilly thread starter macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    It already has. (Year three in Iraq.)
     
  13. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #14
    that's a good theory. it's actually one that michael moore posed in stupid white men. he basically said that sometimes republicans are better than democrats because they screw things up SO much and don't hide it that people get pissed and do something about it. one would have thought that bush's first term would've been more than enough to get him out of office.... sadly, we are apparently among the minority..... pathetic.
     
  14. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #15
    and just months after bush took his second term, he garnered the lowest approval ratings of any president since world war II...too bad the election couldn't have been held in april 2005...kerry would have wiped him out

    it basically shows that so many people who voted for bush barely did so...he's not a president who has true believers like nixon did (before watergate) and reagan in the 1980s, both who received record electoral votes for their second terms...w got in with a lukewarm reception much the way his dad did when he beat dukakis in 1988, and probably even less so

    what i think bush will do before his term is out is pass moderate legislation and move to the left in the last year before he exits so he will pass himself successfully as a moderate who had the "voice" of the people...sadly, many will forget his first terrible 7 years he had as president...it will be major damage control

    at least reagan and clinton worked with the opposing party from day 1 and looked for solutions most americans would be happy with...some say bush was that way in texas but i don't know what possessed him to act like a dictator as president...sad times we live in
     
  15. Pittsax macrumors 6502

    Pittsax

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    I don't know. I can't help but feel that part of the reason the democrats lost the election was because too many of them were overconfident about how they were clearly going to win, that the young voters would turn out in droves, and that newly registered voters would chip in as well. And what did we see? The same old people voting.

    The worst thing Kerry did was ask the American electorate to think. Instead of long drawn-out reasons why we shouldn't vote for Bush, he should have just flung the mud right back. The sad truth is that too often it's not what you say that gets you elected, it's how loudly you say it.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Not entirely true. Rove figured he could turn out more evangelicals than he could capture swing moderates. Something like 4 to 5 million new evangelicals registered and voted in 2004 than did in 2000.

    The democrats turned out plenty of new voters; young, old, and swing, but the GOP turned out more.

    Now, it the Schaivo case had happened before November last year I can almost guarantee the election would have swung the other way.
     
  17. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #18
    Ah, the good Ol' Family Research Council.

    Just in cas anyone cares, which I don't expect them to, the main reason I left the Republican party was **** like this.
     
  18. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19

    It boggles my mind that any openly gay people support the GOP at all. The Log Cabin crowd seems like they engage in self-delusion quite a bit, thinking that their party wouldn't strip them of their rights in a flat second if they could.

    The reason I most often hear from them is that they are fiscally conservative, to which I reply "Well why not switch and vote for the party of smaller government then!"
    :D
     
  19. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #20
    Well at the core of Republican dogma are a core set of beliefs that I agree with passionately. Problem is, our party has forgotten about a lot of them, or taken them to the extreme.

    I still believe in those things, but I refuse to be associated with the party anymore.
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Yeah that's the same reason I'm not a Democrat. But you gotta go to the polls with the candidates you have, not the candidates you want, eh?
     
  21. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #22
    Yup.

    I actually wrote in the last two elections, except for our gubernatorial election in Maryland.
     
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #23
    I considered voting for 'Nunn Bush' last time around. :p
     
  23. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #24
    LOL :D
     
  24. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #25
    But what about the flipside of the numbers? Couldn't they also be saying that support by GOP party members has fallen because they think the leadership in the congress hasn't pushed hard enough to get Bush's agenda passed? I mean, if you were a fundamentalist-neo con, wouldn't you be upset that your party couldn't seem to push these "common-sense reforms" through a balky congress?
     

Share This Page