|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 8, 2008 13:44:47 GMT -5
No, I'm not planning to endorse Tom Swift, but I chose that title in my heading, since my idea will be almost as controversial. But, it's something to think about.
Our future teeters on the edge of abyss, in that one more Republican Appointment to the US Supreme Court, especially if Stevens or Ginsburg step down as they most assuredly will, can mean the end of our country as we know it. I do wish more Americans would pay closer attention to this. I've always considered the right to abortion to be a "bellweather" issue, inasmuch as any judge who would reverse Roe v Wade would no doubt also find that the "right to privacy" does not exist. Consider the implications.
The election of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would only ensure that the oldest and best judges on the court would be replaced with those of a like mind. But, with the addition of Roberts and Alito to the court, we have already taken a turn so far to the right that the effects will be felt beyond the lifetime of many of us.
Unless....
The US Constitution gives Congress the right to set or change the membership of the US Supreme Court. There is no provision that mandates the court consist of 9 judges. That amount could be increased or reduced by simple legislation.
In the 30's, President Roosevelt was frustrated when many of his best programs to help end the depression were ruled unconstitutional by Right-Wing corporate judges appointed by a President many still consider our worst ever: Warren G Harding, who, in the 2 1/2 years he served prior to his death, managed to appoint 5 judges to the court.
Roosevelt's solution was to ask Congress for legislation that would give him an end-run: That is, he asked that the membership of the Supreme Court to 15 judges. If passed, the legislation would have allowed him to appoint 6 new judges, effectively neutralizing the effect of the Harding judges.
Roosevelt also felt that the US Supreme Court was so backed up that they were overly limited in the amount of cases they would hear, so besides smoothing the way for programs like the WPA, it would have helped move cases along faster. He also wanted a separate court so that one court could hear criminal and the other could hear civil cases. That never went anywhere.
Now, what I propose would only work if a Democrat is elected president and the Senate makes enough gains so that after the 2008 elections, we have 60 Democratic Senators. So many Republican seats are up for grabs that it's mathematically possible that we could end up with 62 seats, so 60 is certainly attainable. Anything less than 60, and the Republicans will most assuredly filibuster any attempt to change the membership on the court. Once you reach 60, the Republicans lose their ability to filibuster. In a case like that, much good could be achieved.
What I propose is that we take a more modest approach than Roosevelt and increase the membership on the court to 11 or 13 judges, although 15 would be nice. If the membership was increased, this would allow a President Obama or Clinton to appoint extra YOUNG progressive judges who reverse the continuing erosion of our rights. A larger court, for example, could rule that factual innocence IS grounds for an appeal, that the right to habeas corpus is inviolable, and that unreasonable search and seizure is unconstitutional, and that if we are to have a death penalty, it at least ought to be as painless as possible. Imagine the opportunities.
My own Senator just happens to be the Senate Majority Leader. If Obama is elected and the Democrats achieve a 60-seat majority, I plan to make just such a proposal to him. In the meantime, it's something to think about and discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Shadout Mapes on May 8, 2008 22:56:02 GMT -5
Well either that or just pour molten lead in their ears as they slumber! Death to right and the wrong! >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Shadout Mapes on May 8, 2008 23:09:21 GMT -5
Mon Deu Ricardo, why didn't you become a teacher or something? >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 9, 2008 4:45:27 GMT -5
Mon Deu Ricardo, why didn't you become a teacher or something? >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina! What do you think I'm doing here? Class is in session!
|
|
|
Post by Shadout Mapes on May 9, 2008 10:12:12 GMT -5
Five Stars! ***** >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by davidlee on May 9, 2008 12:52:25 GMT -5
What about the constitution Rick? Do you really think that in this day and age where the last of the Baby Boomer's have 13 year old daughters that abortion is an issue? My wife and I have a standing joke every time we see a dad with teenage daughters....long story short it usually entails him (the father) being totally screwed. Thank God we have three boys!!! Hehe
But really, it's about legislating from the bench which is a very bad idea. Maybe in concept, but I encourage you to find me a judge on any level, on both sides of the aisle who is impartial and does not have an agenda. You guys are great proponents of the separation of powers until it fits your agenda.
As bad as these people are I don't think you will ever find a handful that will take on the constitution. Did you watch the John Adams mini series? The Tar and Feather scene comes to mind immediately! Hehe
No, R vs W is not in danger. There are way toooooo many of us old folk that had way tooooo many close calls to have that go bye, bye for our children. You have to remember that this whole abortion thing is generational very much like (do I dare say it?) Racism! Generations tend to cleanse in my opinion.
Now partial birth abortion is a whole different story!!!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 9, 2008 14:43:47 GMT -5
I actually may be in error in my above hypothesis. I was always taught in college that the consitution gives Congress the right to set the number of judges on the Supreme Court. But, on another list, someone pointed out to me that if they actually passed a law increasing the membership, the current members would probably rule under "stare decisis" that the established 9-member status quo was inviolate.
So, I carefully read Article 3, and while the Constitution gives Congress wide authority over lower appellate courts, it's totally mum on the makeup of the Supreme Court. Originally, Congress did set that membership at 9, but it's been 9 since then. With the constitution mum on it, I'd have to agree with the "stare decisis" argument since we've got a 200-year-old precedent.
As far as legislating from the bench, I think I've made a pretty good case that the judges who do it the most are the ones you would think refrain the most. That is, the most Activist judge on the court is Clarence Thomas, with Scalia a close second. And, the most conservative judges are Breyer and Ginsburg, since they vote the most infrequent in ruling laws unconstitutional.
No judge ever legislates from the bench, and no judge ever has. That's simply a right-wing talking point. To legislate from the bench, the court would have to literally initiate a proceeding and pass a ruling completely without petition. That has never happened and never will. The courts can only act on cases that are brought before the bench.
|
|
|
Post by sonofwolfe on May 10, 2008 13:07:57 GMT -5
Spoken like we are a country that is still ruled by law. I have lost count of the times someone has said to me, "They can't do that." And then they did. Laws are for those not powerful enough to ignor them.
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 11, 2008 13:32:14 GMT -5
Spoken like we are a country that is still ruled by law. I have lost count of the times someone has said to me, "They can't do that." And then they did. Laws are for those not powerful enough to ignor them. Well, as I've said in the past, I'm not ready to give up yet. No court has ever INITIATED action, and there's simply no structure that would allow it to happen. You have to bring something actionable before the court. The ruling that stopped the vote-counting in Florida and hand the election to Bush in 2000 was pretty scary, though. Bush brought the action, but the ruling was not based on any constitutional principle, but simply based on "the irreparable harm that would be done to GW if the vote-counting was allowed to continue." And, the court has moved one seat to the right since then. This is why no Republican can be allowed to win this time. It teeters on the edge of abyss, and if Stevens and/or Ginsburg is replaced by McCain, who has sworn to continue the right-wing appointments, all is lost.
|
|
|
Post by sonofwolfe on May 11, 2008 23:54:33 GMT -5
Well, it is pretty certain that a democrat will be elected this year. the only question is will it be Bilderberg, or CFR, just different heads of the Hydra. We already are seeing what Pelosi has done. it isn't about giving up. Giving up is accepting the sham. But alas, it's safe, for now.
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 12, 2008 4:49:25 GMT -5
The key is re-regulation, which, in a way, means more government...not less. We've got to end Libertarian Corporate Rule and start enforcing anti-trust. We've got to end free trade in favor of fair trade. And, home education needs to be banned.
|
|
|
Post by Shadout Mapes on May 12, 2008 12:16:39 GMT -5
That's something I'd like to see as an Axiom! Five Stars! ***** >< Tomasina ChicaWolverina!
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 12, 2008 14:26:54 GMT -5
Well, it is pretty certain that a democrat will be elected this year. the only question is will it be Bilderberg, or CFR, just different heads of the Hydra. We already are seeing what Pelosi has done. it isn't about giving up. Giving up is accepting the sham. But alas, it's safe, for now. I like Pelosi. She's been a bit of a disappointment in some regards, but with a slim majority, she's doing the best she can. You'll see a lot more out of her with a Democratic President and/or an expanded majority. Now as for those Hydra groups, I've never really believed they had much power, other than that they are "think tanks," who do have influence on leaders, but are not some secret shadow government. And, with Alex Jones so freaked out over the Bilderbergs, I figure they must be doing something right. I guess I'm automatically sympathetic to anything Jones hates. But no, I don't believe they have the interest of the common man at heart. One of those groups, I think the CFR, actually was promoting a membership drive a couple of years ago. I don't think it's the Trilateralists, but I could be wrong. Anyway, for $25, you could get a membership card and bulletin updates. Of course, you couldn't have any input, but I was tempted. It'd be cool to be a card-carrying CFR member, after all! There is one organization, much closer to home, that I am very suspicious about. It's "The Fellowship," which is an elitest/elect organization made up mostly of Republicans who believe in the rapture and think they are going to trigger armageddon in order to bring Jebus back. Sam Brownbeck heads up the group, but Hillary Clinton is also a member, which is a bit strange. I've also noticed that Ron Paul's supporters plan to disrupt the Republican Convention. That's good news as far as I'm concerned. They completly broke up the Nevada State Convention, held at the Peppermill, right around the corner from me 2 weeks ago. Paul would be worse than Richard Nixon, but he's useful as far as causing disarray. Lord knows we've had plenty of that on our side.
|
|
|
Post by sonofwolfe on May 12, 2008 14:47:17 GMT -5
"There is one organization, much closer to home, that I am very suspicious about. It's "The Fellowship," which is an elitest/elect organization made up mostly of Republicans who believe in the rapture and think they are going to trigger armageddon in order to bring Jebus back. Sam Brownbeck heads up the group, but Hillary Clinton is also a member, which is a bit strange." Not strange at all unless you choose to ignore the trail of bodies the Clintons have left in their political wake. Canada is now passing a law that will make it illegal to grow herbs in your own garden then give it away. They can't do that right? They are. They can't do NAFTA right? They are. There IS no longer oversight. Stop dreaming. Read the monument in Atlanta. 80% of the world population is slated for extermination. That is the goal. The Republican party is NOT the problem, Fascism is, and it is here now.
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 12, 2008 15:55:37 GMT -5
Fascism is brought about through a synergy of corporate and government power. It comes about through laissez-faire policies that have resulted in the current situation that has robbed this country of it's wealth. The penultimate fascist, then, is Ron Paul, since he would cede all power to the corporations through privatization of everything.
As for NAFTA, of course it can be done. It's a legally and constitutionally ratified treaty. It's also very unfair. The good news is that it can be abrogated with a 90-day notice, so if it can't be renegotiated, then it hopefully WILL be abrogated.
One of the good things about Pelosi is that she's tabled CAFTA and will not allow it to come up for a vote.
We need to go back to a system of tarrifs so as to level the playing field and bring manufacturing back home. It took 28 years to get to the point we've gotten, and it will take at least that long to reverse the trend.
I'm sure Bilderberg does advocate reducing world population. There are all sorts of bizarre things circulating in the think tanks. Ideally, it would be a much better world if the population could be capped at a half-billion, but I'm not willing to sacrifice myself to do it. I'm not willing to sacrifice you, either. Anyway, we need enough bodies here so we have the means to reincarnate.
|
|
|
Post by shewolfe on May 12, 2008 16:22:44 GMT -5
The key is re-regulation, which, in a way, means more government...not less. We've got to end Libertarian Corporate Rule and start enforcing anti-trust. We've got to end free trade in favor of fair trade. And, home education needs to be banned. why does home education need to be banned? What about returning our children to the nurture of their parents, giving the children back to the parents to take care of instead of shipping them off to school where they are trained to be robots?
|
|
|
Post by Roland of Gilead on May 12, 2008 17:50:14 GMT -5
Because there has to be some standard. Home education often leads to kids being taught along their parents' narrow religious views. In this country, most home education advocates want the right to teach their children that the world was created in 6 days, 6,000 years ago. Also, keeping kids at home denies them the opportunity to learn valuabe social skills.
Also, you need to consider that most moms need a break as well. It wasn't lost on me that what may have pushed a very unbalanced Andrea Yates to drown her 5 kids was her husband's insistance that she home-educate them.
Very few parents are qualified as teachers. There's just too much in the world of science and other matters that they're ill-equipped for. I don't think we could ban home-education, but there would have to be a trial period and a means of testing children to make sure their education is up to par.
Parents can be jailed for keeping their kids out of school. That's always been true. When I whined at the age of 5 and said I didn't want to go to school, my mom used it as a means of getting me to go. I wasn't about to let her be jailed, and that was in 1953. Now, they've got all these loopholes that let religious nuts keep their kids home and teach them their own warped values.
No one can be impartial, and teachers are also going to imprint their own biases. Hopefully, a variety of opinions can get kids to start thinking for themselves.
Ron Paul has advocated the total abolition of public education in favor of home schooling, and as a means of dumbing down the population, he openly states he wants no standards at all. In his mind, education should be whatever parents say it is.
|
|