The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

25 for the House, 30 for Senate, 35 for president, none for Supreme Court (the president could nominate an infant if the Senate was willing to confirm).

Would that be necessarily be a bad thing?

[Alex]

Depends on the infant, I imagine, and its view on whether Roe is settled law.

[Morrigoon]

Okay shmartypants... at what political level does it become necessary to reveal one's personal financials?

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Okay shmartypants... at what political level does it become necessary to reveal one's personal financials?

Well… I imagine that most infants wouldn’t have any financial information to reveal; unless they are well advanced enough to be considered for the Supreme Court, then that may different.

Should the parents of infant Supreme Court nominees be expected to reveal their financial information?

[Strangler Lewis]

Appointing infants and toddlers would be an invitation to multiple impeachment proceedings since federal court judges are only entitled to hold their office during periods of good behaviour.

[scaeagles]

I believe I could name some people who htink like infants that have been on the supreme court.

[innerSpaceman]

Perhaps infants would be better, when douchebags like Antonin Scalia say this week, "Get over it. It's so old by now" about critics of the Court's kingship ruling that put Bush in the White House ... as if a fundamental perversion of the Constitution in overthrowing the people's right to elect someone to the highest position in the government should be brushed aside in less time than the !RS requires us to keep our financial records.

[scaeagles]

How funny and yet ridiculous at the same time.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

How so? I'm not sure what parallel you see, but I might just be being stupid.

Are you referring to the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Spending tons of money to flex their international muscles, and bankrupting themselves in the process. The location of said flexing is only added irony. Reagan was very proud of himself for basically outlasting the Soviet martial spending spree, and here we are doing it to ourselves. Our economy is the worst it's been decades, and our military is overstretched and exhausted. If any new threats should arise, I wonder how we are to deal with them? Yet another irony is the state of our National Guard: the very entity that kept GW's chicken **** ass out of Nam is now a one-way ticket to the Middle East.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Okay shmartypants... at what political level does it become necessary to reveal one's personal financials?

Depends on what you mean by reveal. There is no requirement at any level (so far as I know) for providing the public with detailed personal financial information such as releasing tax returns. That is just something candidates are bullied into by the media, opposing candidates, and to a lesser extent the voters.

However, there are various regulations and body bylaws requiring various elected officials to make various less detailed disclosures (such as "I own between $50,000 and $500,000 in a DJIA indexed mutual fund; I own between $500,000 and $3 million in real estate, etc.). I know that congressman and senators have this requirements. I don't know if the president does (since I don't think Congress could force it on the president -- separation of powers -- it would seem to me voluntary).

That's my understanding of it, anyway.