The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I don't really understand it in conjunction with the progressive role for government you've previously expressed a preference for.

But oftentimes, when it comes to the government, I just like posting mad.


Sorry if it wasn't obvious I was angry. Perhaps we need a Rant smiley?

[Alex]

Ok, so when you're posting mad you're not expressing your true opinions?

It was clear you're angry, I just don't see how that impacts the apparent disconnect.

[blueerica]

(Stepping in for perhaps, the first time)

Politics, both sides, has been manufactured pretty much since the beginning; pandering, scandals, heroes, you name it. While there will always be the questions and wanting to know the truth, I hold no illusion of ever knowing, nor do I really think there's a truth out there. After all, it is subjective. One man's truth is another man's lie.

Which is pretty much why I stopped bothering years ago, and will live out my political days in silence and contemplation.

(Stepping out, because my shoes are covered in muck.)

How do you guys do it?

[Alex]

So, a lot of people are upset by the Supreme Court's partial birth abortion ruling yesterday.

Since I think the point where we sanctify life is pretty much an arbitrary decision I don't really have a strong opionion either way and we're in splitting hairs territory. Two inches farther and it is a human being with full rights, two inches farther back and you're within your right so get a dwarf to stick a hand up there just to punch on it for a while.

But there are a special subgroup of people complaining about the ruling, that feel the law should have been struck down as unconstitutional. And those would be certain Congressman who voted for the law in the first place (such as Harry Reid).

Since no new information has come forward on the constitutional merits of this law I can only assume that Mr. Reid voted for a bill he believed unconstitutional for political expediency and with the unstated assumption that a court would strike it down.

In a just world, would not voting for a law you believe unconstitutional be something bordering on treason?

(On a different issue I expect to find a lot of Congressman in the same boat on the suspension of habeus corpus.)

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Since no new information has come forward on the constitutional merits of this law I can only assume that Mr. Reid voted for a bill he believed unconstitutional for political expediency and with the unstated assumption that a court would strike it down.

In a just world, would not voting for a law you believe unconstitutional be something bordering on treason?

The first part of this is not strictly true. In passing the law without a health exception, Congress made a "finding" that no health exception was necessary because the procedure could never be justified to prevent damage to the pregnant woman's health. When the law was challenged at the district court, there was testimony on both sides of the issue. Because the testimony conflicted, the Supreme Court said that the law survived a facial challenge. The Court also said that the Congressional finding was hooey, but that other "findings" provided a rational basis for the law. None of this is to suggest that Reid and others actually put their faith in the legislative "findings."

Somewhat less dramatically, the strongest grounds for suggesting the law is unconstitutional is that Congress arguably lacked the power to enact it under the Commerce Clause. Justice Thomas mentions this in his concurrence. Whether he did this out of a genuine limited federal government impulse or out of the desire to push the issue towards whether a fetus is a person under the Due Process clause--which would provide an alternative ground for Congressional action--will have to wait further developments.

For those who like a little light--and disingenuous--reading, here's the opinion.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-380.pdf

[Alex]

I'm not sure what part you are saying isn't correct?

That there was no new information since voting for the law that would have change Reid's mind on the issue? I'll agree that there was new testimony, but would argue that there was no new information.

Or was it another part?

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm not sure what information actually was before Congress when it pulled its legislative findings out of its collective ass. However, I would assume a politician like Reid probably would say that the district court proceedings contained new information so that he can stand at podiums and disagree with the court with the appearance of good conscience.

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, treason. Absolutely.


I have no idea what the Supremes voted on yesterday, so I'm not talking about this specific case ... but in the abstract, though it could never be proven, legislators should be strung up if they vote for a law they know to be unconstitutional. They could buck their responsibility all the way to the gallows for all I care. And this will not be a problem once their internal thought-monitoring devices are installed in the cerebral cortex, beginning with the 2037 session of Congress.

Voice-box monitors will be found sufficient for all congressional and white house staffers until the 2059 session.

[Prudence]

Anyone else following the internet radio royalty issue? I love my internet radio. If this causes my favorite Live365 channels to go away, I will be one unhappy camper.

[Alex]

I've never listened to internet radio and it sounds like the fees being setup are stupid, but if that is what they want to charge, more power to them.

Internet radio won't go away, it'll just move conglomerate, off shore, or underground.