Redstate

I yield to no one my disgust for the medicare prescription drug benefit - nor the way the vote went down - but it's pretty clear that blame/shame/and finger pointing during that fiasco is hardly limited to DeLay. I'd actually lay more blame for that at the feet of President Bush.

Also, for Morton's actual thoughts on the matter, here's his open letter on Delay. I think the best advice in it is, "Please don't get bogged down answering all the absurd, groundless attacks. The left can and will raise phony new issues faster than you can respond to the old ones."

On a lot of points here.

Not least of which will be gerrymandering. I'm at a total loss why a practice that dates to the oldest days of the Republic is such a target of scorn. That scorn invariably treats voters as unwashed idiots, incapable of making distinct choices on their own, forced to keep electing the same group of yahoos year after year.

Except 1994, which is somehow different.

And possibly 1998 and 2002, also different.

Somehow. But in a way we can't understand, those are the exceptions, not the rule.

What DeLay did there was to make Texas's districts more representative, and to do the same thing elected politicians have done in this country from time immemorial: Metaphorically slash their opponents' throats with full abandon. It's not as if he had Texas Democrats lined up and shot. It's not as if he seized power in the Texas statehouse -- known for a resolution on gardening that's used to kill business on a regular basis -- to yank the reins of power in a little tighter.

Frankly, I find the whole one-man-one-vote jurisprudence, and the garbage in the Voting Rights Act unrelated to curing real disenfranchisement, two of the worst collaborative plagues ever visited on our body politic. We now have competing armies of drones and lawyers doing house by house redistricting, months of submissions to a (in my experience) confused DoJ, followed by resubmissions and reexaminations and lawsuits and modified redistricting and no finality until just before... the next round of redistricting.

So, let them all bleed knuckles if need be. All DeLay did was what honest partisans have done for two centuries. I'm at a loss to see why this is so very bad, but I'm open to a different opinion (on this).

I'm willing to go on a limb and say that everything related to Ronnie Earle and the grand jury in Texas is bunk.

....of course the President is the principle actor in the Medicare debacle.  But he required at least two key accomplices to help him get his wish:  Tommy Thompson to lie to the Congress via CMS; and Tom DeLay to twist the requisite arms.  Shame on all three, really.

Blackwell's letter is valuable, but it makes two mistakes:  First, as already iterated, it ties conservatives to DeLay to an absurd degree.  Second, it praises DeLay as a valuable conservative.  He's not; he's a prominent Republican who has joined in with the Administration in kicking conservatism to the curb at moments of convenience.  There is a loss of perspective here.

That politics down there is bare knuckle. I've seen this sort of thing tried at every level. Sometimes it sticks. Usually it doesn't.

I hate it, but I wasn't thinking of that specifically.  (Although, now that you bring it up, the new Texas districts are pretty freakin' ridiculous.)  I was thinking instead of the off-year redistrictings.  As conservatives (hauling out my Tory/Whig hat here), part of what we do is respect tradition and unwritten rules, because we recognize value in them and their maintenance.  Filibusters, for example, or once-per-decade districting: no, we don't have to do these things, but they evolved for a reason, and to toss them aside for partisan advantage may, as you note, be superb gamesmanship -- and bravo for that -- but it does not follow that it is sound governance.

And that's good enough for me, dang it.

Not that I'm unbiased here, but I think that Republicans investigating and possibly disciplining their own would play pretty well at the polls. It yanks the "stop corruption!" rug out from under Democrat candidates. Who knows, maybe it would force the Democrats to follow suit and check their own excesses.

It was "Remember the Alamo."

Lord knows it's what I heard growing up.

Excellent point. But putting the filibuster neatly to the side, I only add this: Our forefathers also expected men to be brutish, self-centered, and ruthless in their acquisition of power. They designed the system not to suppress those aspects of men, but to take advantage of them. Extraconstitutional traditions are grand and wonderful, but the bare bones is designed to channel all of this into productive endeavor. The House is supposed to be representative. This makes it a little more so. Throat clearing belongs in the Senate. I'm a little more comfortable with a rambunctious House (and a rambunctious electorate behind it) if the Senate must be so very staid.

If you think Texas districts are odd now, you didn't see them in the 90s, when Martin Frost was practicing a more milquetoast version of what DeLay effected. Not pretty.

With constitutional traditions.

As you know, I do have limited knowledge about some of this personally.  Here's what I'll say about it:  The Texas stuff is almost entirely crap and overwhelmingly false.  The majority of the Washington stuff, however, is almost certainly true.

I am no fan of DeLay, and have not been for a good long time.  I do think he deserves support on many things - attacks on his dead family members, for instance, are completely gratuitous and inappropriate for discussion.  Will Saletan lost any remnant of respect I had for him over that.

But that being said, Blackwell is on shaky ground by saying that Tom DeLay deserves the MANDATORY SUPPORT of me or indeed of any other pro-life conservative against attacks that are based on truth.  Tom DeLay deserves respect for his past actions on many issues, but it's not as if he's going to be replaced by Tom Davis.  Frankly, with this President in the White House and the Senate in safe hands, I think Tom DeLay's importance is at its lowest point in a long time.

the leadership has become all the things they hated most about the Dems when they were in power, and then some.  And the ideals of Reagan have been long left behind.  God forbid the Dems actually come up with some reasonably coherent ideas and half way charismatic politicians to convey them.  Hmmm.. maybe I should take that back as frankly I haven't seen anything other than the first tax cut in 01 that hasn't been a waste of everybodys time or corporate sloth.  Leading means getting things done for the greater good. Sometimes this means you must compromise to advance the agenda.

Just FYI, in the 1989 down here some PC weinies tried to replace 'The Lone Star State' on our license plates to 'The Friendship State', but the Highway Dept (or whoever) was hooted out of Austin.  Apparently they had never seen the driving in Dallas and Houston, which is like a Darwin-meets-Rollerball bloodsport.

I like your style. I've enjoyed reading your posts for the past couple of days. They are straight from the heart and totally uncensored. I knew there was a reason I loved Texas so much! People like you make it great!

toss the rat.  

Equating himself with the conservative movement is pure hubris.

Tom Delay does not represent me or my ideals.  He represents a certain type of opportunistic politician who I honestly feel would be a Democrat tomorrow if he thought it would advance his position.

The problem is not gerrymandering per se, it's the cumulative effect it has had esepcially in the technological age.

Yes, it has existed forever, but in 1920, legislators knew far less - there was some measure of "guessing" where the Republicans were and where the Democrats were.  Now, at the touch of a button a computer will tell you the exact registration breakdown of each street in any given town or city.  

Modern gerrymanderers can effectively craft districts that provide for no competition - the registration advantage for a given party is so great that it would take a totally inept incumbant to lose.  When an incumbant has nothing to fear the edges get blurred.

And at the end of the day each of us votes for only 1 Representative.  We don't get to reelect or turn out the other 434.  When you aggregate the effect of hundreds of non-competitive districts you do wind up with a situation in which gerrymandering leads to the same yahoos going back to Washington election after election.

While I do not believe that Republicans or Democrats are a "protected class" deserving judicial intervention the way the courts involve themselves in the number of minority voters districts contain, I do think there is a way to legislatively (and with judicial enforcement) solve the problem - and Iowa has touched on it.  The state (to my understanding of the statutes) requires that districts be as geographically compact as possible, and that counties not be divided between districts unless necessary to equalize population.  This gives the mapmakers some wiggle room to create safer districts, but at the end of the day, you can only get so many party loyalists in a district without drawing oddly shaped districts that extend over hundreds of miles.

I have a good real-life example.  Maurice Hinchey, a certified loon - represents the NY 22nd.  The 22nd stretches from the Hudson River up through the mountains and into the Finger Lakes.  The purpose?  To connect liberal college towns like Poughkeepsie and Ithaca (both of which are in the 22nd) so as to dilute away the very Republican residents of the Adirondack areas.  It is the most ridiculous district in the state, and anybody who is familiar with New York would probably agree that residents of the Finger Lakes region and Southern Tier do not have the same concerns as the bedroom communities of the Hudson Valley.  Yet they all get stuck together so that the Democrats are guaranteed a seat.  Hinchey is a cook who proceeded to vote for the Ohio electoral objection, has uttered absurd statements, routinely acts like a socialist - and yet has been reelected several times, and will likely win handily in 2006 despite this.  Who exactly is served by this kind of thing?

I think the House Republicans should consider getting a new majority leader, perhaps one who is a little more like Dennis Hastert.  Hastert doesn't "make news" or create controversy.  

But let's all pat Tom Delay on the back for a great redistricting in Texas.  It made no sense for Texas, a state that usually votes 55 to 45 or 60 to 40 in favor of Republicans over Democrats to elect more Democrats to the US House.  

You say that Michigan elects 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats to the US House despite the fact that Gore and Kerry won that state?  Ok.  The Democrats have my permission to redistrict that state as soon as they can gain majorities in both legislative chambers.  

The filibuster?  It ain't in the Constitution.  If you want the Republicans to obey the filibuster, go to the trouble of amending the US Constitution.  Otherwise, grow up and get used to majority rule (at least for nominations, but I'd like to completely junk the filibuster).

I don't dislike Delay for playing hardball with the Democrats.  I do think he needs to get better at it or else pass the torch of leadership to someone else.

I'm all about bare knuckle campaigning and legislative battles - including redistricting.  I practically 'cut my teeth' on a Republican takeover in another southern state and the resulting redistricting.  I was a legislative aide, spokesman, and PAC coordinator.


That being said I took great comfort in working for honest people whose zeal was driven by principle rather than lust for power.


I have  no problem with the second redistricting in Texas due to how the original redistricting went down.  What I do have a problem with is a) risking the indictment by being too close to corporate donors in the state legislative races b) using a FEDERAL AGENCY to track the fleeing democrats.


The first action could be innocently explained as a mistake, but I cannot for the life of me imagine the thought process that would cause a Congressman to call a federal agency to track opponents in a state legislative battle.

I lived in Texas for 32 years and will be moving back this fall.  Finally people around the country are seeing this guy for who he is.  Outside of Sugarland (his district), not many people in Texas like him from what I can tell.  If the indictments of his inner circle surrounding the questionable funding of TRMPAC didn't concern you, his dealings with Abramoff certainly should have.  This guy Abramoff is as slimey as they come.  The guy was taking money from an Indian tribe to lobby to keep their casino open, while at the same time taking money from the Christian Coalition to lobby to shut it down.  I don't care what state you live in, that's just wrong.   ...and DeLay is hanging out with this guy on all-expense-paid trips to high dollar golf resorts!  At the very least, he should be reprimanded for having a poor choice of friends.

The post is dead on:  the depth of the corruption in such a short time after winning on the promise of "reform" is scandelous and disgraceful.  I am an independent, not a republican, but I had hope that the republicans with their stern talk on fiscal issues would be able to tackle the deficit and runawy spending once and for all.  Sadly, today we sit here with $7.7 TRILLION in debt and continue to borrow $1.3 million dollars per minute to fund the insatiable spending beast that is the the U.S. Congress.  Leading up to the 2004 Presidential election, I strongly urged my friends to vote for the disgraced former war hero and sad excuse for a candidate that the dems propped up, for the sole purpose of *dividing the power* in washington. From now on, that will be damn near the only guiding principle that I look to for voting because both parties have proven to be spineless, petty, and shown that they are either unwilling or unable to "walk their talk".  For all the yelling about the fiscal irresponsibility of the Dems by Republicans prior to 1994, these people have clearly demonstrated that they are no more fiscally responsible than the dems, if not worse.  Every child born in this country is born with a "birth tax" of $26,000.  We should all be ashamed that we allow this.  To me, it looks like the only way to keep these guys honest is to keep the balance of powers separated between them.

No.  Don't divide the power in Washington DC.  

Remember Pappa Bush's Presidency and the 1990 tax increase?  That was "divided power" in action.  Remember how the Republican Congress in 1995 attempted to slow the rate of growth in Medicare and President Clinton's veto of that legislation?  That was "divided government" in action.  

Remember all of the reductions in taxes proposed by Republican Congressmen during the 1990s that got trashed by Clinton's veto pen?  Again: Divided government.  

Now I would like to see the Republicans in Congress clamp down on spending.  But, having watched the Democrats in Congress carefully, I don't see many "cut spending" Democrat types remaining in Congress.  

Take the recent vote in the US Senate on Medicaid as an example.  President Bush, House budget Chairman Jim Nussle and Senate budget Chairman Judd Gregg all proposed "cuts" in Medicaid spending.  What happens?  Every stinkin' Democrat Senator (and Jim Jeffords) votes to delete these "cuts."  Assisted by 7 "moderate" Republican Senators, the cuts are eliminated.  

Sorry, voting for Democrats won't solve the Socialist problem that afflicts America right now.  Instead, I recommend nominating more conservative Republicans in primaries and electing them by more than 50 to 50 or 51 to 49 majorities (as we did in 2000 and 2002).

as a native upstate-new yorker, I must take offense to poking fun at our local loony, Mr. Hinchey.  Sure, he's from the Kucinich wing of the party, etc.  But why the disparaging comments about his being a cook, when he's pretty low on the totem pole of power, as compared to that majority leader who formerly killed bugs for a living ;)

I'll take a cook over an exterminator...

Are you seriously suggesting that Bush proposed Medicare Cuts?  His bill was *always* an increase of at least $400 billion in spending.  Perhaps he proposed benefit cuts, but overall spending was always part of his proposal.  Now, after the fact, we find that its not $400 billion, but closer to a $1 trillion increase.  Let's not dismiss reality.

I am not advocating "voting for democrats", I am advocating voting for anyone who is not in the majority at the moment.  How can you honestly hope that the current congress will "clamp down"?  They've had 5 years to start clamping, how long are you willing to give them?  You wanna give them 30 years like the dems had?  At the rate we are going, I don't think that the country will survive.  "tax and spend" sucks, but "Borrow and Spend" is proving at least as bad.

The many "faliures" of the divided government you point out are notable, but the devided government also balanced the budget because they fought with each other tooth and nail about what was in the budget.  Now that they are all scratching each other's back, everyone gets what they want and no one is forced to compromise, resulting in a $900 billion annual budget deficit ($427 billion stated deficit in the actual budget, plus $300+ "off the books" for Iraq, plus another $170 billion "hidden" by the squandered trust fund).

I am not putting down the R's any more than the D's.  They are both to blame.  Go read "Running on Empty" by former Republican Treasury Secretary Pete Peterson.

You didn't read my post very carefully.  I wrote Medicaid, not Medicare.  

The vote occurred just before they left town.

Well thanks, and I've noticed you're quite the death-before-dishonor type yourself.  Very good, thought-out stuff, but my fave is probably the dressing-down you gave somebody (forgot who) whose wheels came off over your 'Letter to Terri'.  Lately I've been trying to channel my passions into more cogent legal arguments (see my extremely windy diary entry on Judge Birch), and I'd like to think I'm starting to get thru to corazon.  But the bottom line is this -- I'm just tired of America grabbing its collective ankles for the judicial mullahs.  Been fighting that fight for years.  Well no, the bottom line's more foundational that that -- it's the orderly rule of law, the Constitution, and most importantly the natural law which fundamentally comes from the Christian/Judeo POV the nation was built on.  I'll be seeing ya in the trenches.

S Con Res 18.  Amendment 204.  Vote 58.

The vote to approve the Smith (R-Oregon) amendment was 52 to 48.  All 48 voting no were Republicans.  

Medicare, Medicaid...  its all the same $27 TRILLION budget shortfall.  :-) Sorry to have confused the two.

How can you say that when Congress clearly overstepped its bounds and tried to intervene in a funtion that was clearly defined in the constitution as belonging to the judiciary's?  I agree that there have been and are some fairly goofy judges, but there are a TON of really good ones.  The guy who decided the last Schiavo appeal in georgia was an Bush41 appointee and a staunch conservative who upheld the legality of discrimination in a Foster Parents case because he said that there was no constitutional right to be a Foster Parent.  That's no "activist judge".  Even he rebuked congress for their brazen attempt to usurp the power of the judiciary.

I love it when people actually cite the stuff that they use to make their point.  Great job.  Now, not to be an ass, but exactly what is the point?  So 48 repiblicans in the senate proved that they are willing to cut healthcare benefits for our most impoverished citizens who are unable to give $2000 campaign contributions.  They should be so proud.  Then, they proved that they are worth their salt by passing the Medicare Drug benefit bill, as a favor to the Drug companies who have contributed millions in campaign contributions.

I am no champion of "the dole", but applauding these guys for voting for their million dollar babies and against those who don't have a voice seems like a pretty twisted standard.  Congratulations, you have a congress principled to voting for whoever gives them money.

peace,

dude

...I like your style. As "mutual admiration society" as our last couple correspondences may have been, yours were still concise and extremely relevant.

By the way, the victim of the dressing down was a relative FNG; a "Nehemiah" that I had never encounterd before. I think he missed the point of that letter, so I just made him aware of the message that I meant to convey with it.

As far as your views on the judicial branch; Amen brotha! They have so completely overstepped their constitutional boundaries, it's not even funny. If you review some of my earlier postings/comments you will see my views on them.

I welcome another "brother in arms" to the war and look forward to "posting" along side you in future "battles". God Bless Texas!

come on! You know kind words between "brothers" is a good thing.

You have to admit, that your use of quotes around the words "posting" and "battles" is somewhat curious.  Are you sure you didn't mean "snuggling" and "hotel rooms" respectively? : )

You're awesome! You can diffuse the most tense and serious political conversation with your quick (and irreverant) wit. Here we were conducting an online love-in and you had to ruin it all.

I apologize for the inferred homo-erotica! haha

First you screech about spending not being cut and then castigate those who actually vote to cut spending as somehow doing the bidding of drug companies (how?) ...

Classic Democrat tactic. Scream about the deficit AND squeal like stuck pigs every time a spending cut is proposed: "They wanna murder the poor!" and, of course, "Enron!"

pretty much Richard Morrison's perspective - and it resnated with a lot of Republicans down here in the Clear Lake area. Morrison gave Delay a good run for a reason. Morrison talked about Texas (as opposed to DC) values, limited interference with local government from federal meddling, and above all, ethics and honor in governance.

Re: I'm a little more comfortable with a rambunctious House (and a rambunctious electorate behind it) if the Senate must be so very staid.

Problem is, we don't have a rambunctious House, at least not in any good way. When districts are drawn up in such a way as to insure the reelection of incumbents, what we end up with is a House full of political lifers who don't give a hoot about the voters and whose arrogance is fast approaching that of the unelected judiciary so many people here are excized about. When the turnover rate in Congress makes the old Supreme Soviet look like a hotbed of partisan democracy I think we have a problem.

Re: It made no sense for Texas, a state that usually votes 55 to 45 or 60 to 40 in favor of Republicans over Democrats to elect more Democrats to the US House.  

There's nothing abnormal about ticket splitting. I do it all the time. So what if a state votes GOP for president but sends Democrats to the House or Senate? I rather think we've gotten better government from the eras when we had divided government. There's something to be said for good old gridlock, after all.

It made no sense for Texas, a state that usually votes 55 to 45 or 60 to 40 in favor of Republicans over Democrats to elect more Democrats to the US House.

First of all, I would never presume to equate a Presidential vote with Congressional representation.  Different races, different issues, different people.  Second, even if you accept your implicit equation as legitimate, it still does not follow that the Congressional representation is therefore illegitimate: what kind of Dems, after all, are Texans apt to send to the House?  One thing is for sure -- outside of the dimwit bastions of deepest Houston, they're the kind of Dems that most Republicans can work with.

I have lived in that district since 1986.  He brings home the bacon, and stays in good graces with the Baptists.  Oddly, the area is very diverse, a large South and East Asian population, plus a good number of latinos, blacks and even a few gay white guys like myself.  I think it is another example that it just isn't all about race anymore.  Generally middle to upper income, educated.  DeLay got 55% of the vote in '04, a percentage that .. I think ...has been slipping a little more each time.  Why do they love him in Sugar Land?  He's a good friend to freeways, regularly pokes the Houston power structure in the eye, and his status gives us a boost in getting our needs (and pork projects!) put up high on the priority list.  And did I mention the Baptists?

The Medicare debacle, that ham-handed handling of the re-districting, his inappropriate statements about Michael Schiavo, his continued meddling in Houston's affairs, and all the Abramoff mess; it makes his peers and predecessors - Wright, Foley, Byrd, et.al. - well, they at least had a little more subtlety.  The 1994 "revolution" held a lot of promise for real change and for a fresh dose of ethics.  All the current leadership has succeeded in doing is morphing themselves into the same ilk as was in power before.  Time for a change.  

OT - Gotta love this site.  Yesterday, I was in furious disagreement over Trevino's comments on Terri Schiavo.  Today....Right On!   Best place for thoughtful, educated commentary and discussion.  Kudos to all.

to those of us who put pragmatism ahead of worship at the almighty altar of abstract and unproven theory. Repeal the top-bracket tax cuts, we can't afford them.

The drug bill could have saved a lot of money by allowing price negotiation. Yes, it's important to promote R&D, but I think a better balance between corporate greed and public interest could have been struck.

I rather think we can't afford tax cuts, period, especially given the increased military spending -- but I'm more sympathetic to the argument that they help stimulate the economy when they end up in the hand of people who spend, rather than stash away, money. Yes yes, it trickles down...

I climbed on board this post to make that point and you have covered it nicely.  Gerrymandering is infinitely more potent than it was historically, not to the benefit of the Republic.

didn't save Daschle.  Good luck in finding a replacement :-).

When Dingy Harry gets Daschled?

Maybe they can change the face of the Democrat party to Pelosi -- I bet that will be a big whinner.

With George Soros behind the Delay attacks, I doubt they're going anywhere. To put in a plug for real campaign finance reform, why don't we scrap the current system and go to one of full disclosure of all contributions. Give anything you want, just force disclosure on the net within 24 hours of the contribution -- no shadow groups, no foundations, or businesses can give, only individual contribution or it is illegal. Make the separation between donor and spender one genration or it's illegal. That way we can see who gives the money to whom and for what.

Me, I am sticking with Delay. Let the moonbats bray, I was raised just outside Delay's district good folks, they can see through the moonbat guano.

So why don't the moonbats love Delay, simple -- like Gingrich he is effective. Let's keep it that way.

But for the last several years I've heard moonbat used as a bad name for people who think like I do, but I never bothered to find out what, exactly, a moonbat was.  I picture visions of bats flying at night on a full moon, but I'm guessing it can't be that pedestrian.

Trevino is "braying" too.  He was called a collectivist yesterday.  Now he's a moonbat.  Poor guy.

still ought to be informed by Delay's almost singular history of supporting the conservative movement.

It didn't save him, did it?  Perhaps he should have emulated Miz Clinton a little more.

Certainly there is no viable Republican challenger (that I see) to DeLay.  A Democrat would have to be fairly conservative, and I doubt Howard Dean or Move.On will be willing to spend much cash to mount any kind of an effective challenge.

The other course - and more viable, IMHO - is for his removal from leadership in the house.  But that will take a few truckloads of backbone, which seems to be in short supply.

with what Delay did in the re-districting was to support an off-year purely political redistricting plan.  I don't care much about the outcome it produced, but the precedent it set.  It's a dangerous road to go down to break with the traditional decennial redistricting.  Now we've seen an off-year redistricting in Georgia and I would be very surprised if we don't see off-year political redistricting in states where the dems control state government.  I think it is a bad thing because it intensifies the political rancour in this country at a time when both sides (and the people they serve) would be served by a less heated environment.

IMHO we should advocate a constitutional amendment to (1) limit redistricting by majority vote to once every ten years and (2) allow off-year redistricting by a super-majority of 2/3 or greater.  Allowing congressional redistricting to become a yearly front in our political battles is not going to do any good for the country.

want nothing more than the republicans to stand behind Tom Delay with their full force.  The fight-back strategy is not a good one...Tom Delay may represent the Sugar Land area well and may represent segmenets of the republican party well, but he is not someone who is going to stand up well to national scrutiny.  If the republicans want to make him the face of the party, which, let's face it, is what is currently happening, it will be a decision that they regret.

Although as we both know it is a political dead letter.  I like the Iowa system as well.

Off-year redistricting is unfortunate.  Undoubtedly it's been done before by both sides.  The problem with this issue is getting past the unilateral disarmament problem - only one party will have the votes to redistrict at any given time, and they will have to lay that power down in favor of "neutrality" or "fairness," which is damn near impossible.  Couple that with a legitimate fear of just creating a new system to be manipulated, and you have what we have now.

If not Delay - then who? Is there a conservative who's with us philosophically on more issues in Republican leadership? The answer is no.

We would be a poorer movement without his help. Less influence, less coherence, less effectiveness.

And, he had some of the best John Kerry put downs out there.

I'm not ready to kick him to the curb yet. I don't think we should be too quick to do so, either.

'Cuz I'm amen-ing you every step of the way this morning.

The reason why I cannot support Democrats is because they prefer higher taxes and more regulation over business (large and small).  

The Republicans are not perfect Ayn Randians on economic policy by any means.  But they have shown a willingness to cut taxes on the productive people of our society.  

The Democrats?  They only want to cut taxes on people who don't pay federal income taxes.  So, I cannot accept the "pox on both their houses" attitude toward the Republicans and the Democrats, even as I am disappointed that Republicans haven't clamped down on spending enough.  

But being in a 51 to 49 majority or a 50 to 50 tie or being in a 49 to 51 minority (as Republicans were during President Bush's first term) isn't what I am asking for.  

I would prefer large GOP majorities so that those Republicans who oppose spending cuts on Medicaid and oppose reductions in high marginal tax rates will be outvoted.  

I am not going to be seduced into the idea that Tom Harkin, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer will propose the cuts in social welfare programs that I would like to see.  

That Pete Peterson guy is politically neutral on whether we raise taxes or cut spending.  I am not.

is the Iowa system?  I'm not familiar with that.  

I agree that it is a political non-starter right now...I just cringe thinking about the state of affairs we would have to get to for it to be a popular measure.

Can he "skate" around your "block"?  It's all in how you read between the lines.  BTW, Seattle, I thought we were in a room.  What I didn't realize was that other people could put in 2 quarters to get the window raised for 3 minutes.....  :o)

Has a presumably neutral commission which districts their Congressional seats by geography.  If you look at their CD map, it is marvelously lacking in the bizarre fishhooks and curls of other, politically dominated CD maps.  Of course, such a system is always open to charges that the commission was biased or the system of vote distribution they use is somehow biased, but I haven't heard that they've had a problem with it.

This gives rise to the belief that rather than using federal action to impose fair CDs, state action could accomplish the same thing with more effective individual state tailoring.  But again, once you hold the whip hand, what state party wants to cede that power away?  That's the reality we're up against.

I'd like to see more of that.  My understanding is that it has become easier to gerrymander these days because of specialized software that allows you to tinker with the districts very easily.  Evidently when there was a redistricting challenge in my state, the Supreme Court justices sat around for hours just playing the software to see what it could do.

There's quite a bit of commentary on it.  I think they put it in place after 1990, but I won't swear to it.  Predictably, Iowans are pretty proud of it.

"The Democrats surrendered their majority in 1995 in no small part precisely because they lacked the spine to topple their corrupt, self-interested leadership."

In no small part? I don't think this really appears in history. In 1994 you had a President who, after being elected as a moderate Democrat, called for gays in the military, signed an assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill, and tried to socialize 1/7 of the economy.

At the same time - Gingrich, Delay, and company had spent the previous 10-12 years building a conservative farm team from the local level up and we fielded more quality challengers (by any measure) in 1994 then ever before.

Again, let me say - should we be happy about Delay and the Medicare bill? Hardly. Does every member of the Republican leadership deserve equal scorn from conservatives on that - yes.

But dumping Delay is not the answer - and certainly not now. If you are operating under the assumption that it will lessen Democratic attacks on Republicans, or that the left will all of a sudden start playing nice - I think you're sorely mistaken. It will embolden them like it emboldened us when Wright resigned.

Conservative owe a TREMENDOUS debt to Delay - who has been rock solid (with aforementioned exception) - find me another member of leadership willing to stand up to the president on immigration, for instance.

....if Tom DeLay -- Medicare boondoggle, ethically dubious, power-grab-mad, pro-life-lukewarm, deficit-spending-enabling Tom DeLay -- is the most "with us philosophically" in Republican leadership, then that speaks great whopping volumes as to where the party and the movement have gone in recent years.

In any case, the idea that any one man is indispensable is rarely true.  Washington, yes.  Lincoln, yes.  Lee, yes.  Reagan, yes.  DeLay?  Bah.

    T1, how about you show me those bounds, in the US Constitution, that the Congress overstepped?  Show me this function that was clearly defined in the [C]onstitution as belonging to the judiciary.  And I, in turn, will show you that Congress acted well within its purview, albeit unfortunately, in such a weak-kneed fashion that Whittemore and the 11th laughed them off.  As I mentioned in the above post that you take issue with, go read my 900-word diary entry on that circus-clown charlatan Birch and his 13-page stand-up comedy act.  Oh, and by the way, I briefly mention the Constitution there. You can debate any and all of that in your effort to show me how Congress clearly overstepped its bounds and tried to intervene in a funtion that was clearly defined in the constitution as belonging to the judiciary's.

    Being a GOP appointee says nothing:  I give you Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Stevens.  And sure, there's a ton of good ones.  Easy to spot, because those are the ones whose higher court nominations keep getting blocked by the Dem minority.

    Oh T1, I really don't mean to make sport, but it's too rich.  I'll leave these words of yours to stand on their own:   That's no "activist judge".  Even he rebuked [C]ongress for their brazen attempt to usurp the power of the judiciary.

   And BTW, my apologies if you object to my capitalizing Constitution and Congress where I cite you.  It's not meant to be a dig -- however, it is meant to make a point.

   

On almost my first jump into RedState, seattleslough (yes, the peeping tom) took my britches down and spanked me but good for making bold assertions that did not hold up, in trying to defend a point.  Learned a valuable lesson there .  Cite verbatim, define, look up words and legal/medical terms if you are not dead-dog sure about their usage (and perhaps esp if you are), and overall just be sure of all your facts.  BTW, I refuse to be thankful to seattle for it, though, because the point I was poorly defending was true in spades.

It doesn't follow to deny the role of the Democratic leadership in enabling the '94 revolution, and then cite the Wright case as emboldening our side in the buildup to that revolution.  Wright, Rostenkowski, et al., all played a critical role in building the case for public outrage that gave us the Congress.  Whence, after all, sprang the prominence within the Contract with America in promises of ethical self-administration within the Congress?  This was not a phenomenon that arose ex nihilo from the Clinton Administration; I think you over-conflate catalyst with cause.

Minimizing the Medicare bill as a cause for outrage is, to my mind, thoroughly wrong.  If anything constitutes a near-impeachable offense, it was the White House role in the lies and grotesque offenses to Congressional precedent that took place in the course of that fiasco.  All of which, as previously mentioned, DeLay manufactured.  For we as conservatives -- and make no mistake, it was our most faithful allies in the legislature that were the direct targets of this malfeasance -- to excuse or willfully forget this is to assume all the pathetic qualities of the self-negating battered wife.

On a few of your other points:

But dumping Delay is not the answer - and certainly not now.

What's unique about this moment in time, exactly?  Is this an election year?  Is Republican control of any branch of government under threat?  Is significant legislation important to conservatives (and sorry, SS reform ain't it) on the line?  Does this involve judges?  Is Tom DeLay the indispensable keystone to any meaningful plan or institution extant?  Seems to me the answers are no, no, no, no and no.

If you are operating under the assumption that it will lessen Democratic attacks on Republicans, or that the left will all of a sudden start playing nice....

Of course not.  But will it negate a particular line of attack?  Yes.  Actually, it will negate a couple that I can think of, and insulate us against further against what will, I guarantee, be a key Dem campaign theme in 2006: that the GOP Congress is ossified and out of touch.

Conservative owe a TREMENDOUS debt to Delay....

I see no debt that mandates the absurd contention that the price of conservatism is DeLay.  This cult of the leader crap is.....crap.

....find me another member of leadership willing to stand up to the president on immigration, for instance.

I can think of plenty of Republicans in Congress who would be perfectly willing to do so.  The leadership is not a static body.

Re: I rather think we can't afford tax cuts, period, especially given the increased military spending

There is a good argument for tax cuts as economic stimulus (whether by Keynesian or supply side mechanisms) in times of recession, and for deficit spending in general during wars and great national emergencies. But otherwise we ought return to spend budgeting principles, which is to say that income should approximate outflow.

I also admit to disliking the form that Bush's tax cuts have taken. Unlike Reagan's which simplified the tax code and played no favorites, Bush's have made the system even more complex and have picked winners and losers, something the government should avoid doing.

the conservative movement.  I say he has helped himself.  Why is the republican party now the party of HUGE federal defecits?  Why is the republican party now the party that DOES want to get into your bedroom with you?  Why is the republican party now the party of Federal trumping states rights EVERY TIME?  Maybe, now that they are in control, it's easier to legally bribe people, corporations & groups with money and favors.

Americans are middle of the roaders.  They see this is corrupt power.  Do you think thye are just going to continue to support blatant hypocracy?  Maybe some of you here think so.  But the vast majority of Americans won't.  Don't drag the republican party down the same rat hole the democrats took theirs in the 80's.  The extremes are not the answer to continued growth of the party.

Getting off my soapbox....everyone enjoy April Fools day.  Don't get caught by any April Fools (back on the soapbox).  It will catch up and bite you in the buttocks (is that OK to say here?).

you're talking about.  & you would replace them with less independent judges.

I find it ironic that you refer to them as judicial mullah's when in fact what it seems like what you want is an American Talibahn.  Don't you smell a little whiff of hypocracy there?

You know my thoughts on this. I'm sympathetic to your argument, but worried about the precedent this would create. If the very folks DeLay is perceived to have championed are the ones who toss him over the side, it'll be a bit trickier to get someone else to line up for us next time.

With that said:

If anything constitutes a near-impeachable offense, it was the White House role in the lies and grotesque offenses to Congressional precedent that took place in the course of that fiasco.

No.

Signing the campaign finance reform bill is grounds for impeachment and conviction. This is not.

Even I'm not that crazy. It's the profanity that's the problem.

Are you sure you want him for president.  He has been quoted as saying that if the majority of people in a state (CA) want it, he's OK with that.

Tom Delay has supported hundreds of conservative movement organizations throughout his career - and I daresay no other member of Congressional leadership has done more on that front. (I think in recent memory - only Dick Armey comes close)

American Taliban is over the line.

I think I agree with you on Birch's opinion - I don't carry it forward into your theory that the [C]ourt should be wholly subsidiary to the will of Congress, nor do I subscribe to your views on the separation of powers generally, but I don' think he's right.  If work stays so damnably s-l-o-w next week I may really try to break down Birch vis-a-vis Tjoflat's dissent.  (Thomas Card played).  Let's just say I share the dissent's concern about preemption.

FYI, procedurally Birch's dissent has zero meaning, other than to illustrate Judge Birch's opinion.  The Court of Appeals declined to hear the case en banc without a substantial opinion, and Birch just chimed in as to why he thought not only was it the right thing to do, but that it should have been thrown out from the start due to unconstitutionality.

But you guys lay some pretty heavy rhetorical brickbats on the opposition sometimes too.  I'm always amazed to find out what absurd gangs and crowds I belong to in the eyes of folks.

But let it be said it's consistently better here than other places, so my complaint is minimal.

The people of Nevada LOVE Reid.  You aren't going to get rid of him like Dasche.  They won't listen to your charges.  Idependent types.  You might consider that before you convince yourself of your invincability.  You don't want to throw away a very good state for another purity war (ie who deserves to be called a republican & who doesn't).

indicted?  & he will be.  Are you willing to drag the whole party through the muck?

Yeah, but Dick Armey was, from what I can tell, an honest, stand-up guy.  At a minimum, DeLay gives the appearance of not being so.

Even I (as in, "even a blue stater like me") like Dick Armey.  Not so DeLay.

I'm kind of jumping into this mid-thread, so excuse me if I'm talking out of my hat, but I think this is to the point.

Cheers -

Now the today's message from the Ministry of is as follows:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

and IGNORANCE (ah you get it)

And directed at a commenter? I try to be evenhanded. Tell me what I've missed.

You mean in terms of consciously signing a bill that the President believes is unconstitutional?

That would be a neat one.  "Neat" as in pretty interesting, and possibly even useful.

You guys do a fine job at keeping the line drawn between "heated" and "offensive."  Thin skins should stay the heck out of political blogs.  But in general I don't think American Taliban is any worse than accusations of or analogies to Nazism or Stalinism, i.e.  

Also, I think the loyal opposition is best served by always recognizing where they are - if you really, really want to flame conservatives, there are certainly a cornucopia of opportunities out there.  I mean, if I want an amen chorus, I go to Atrios and MyDD.  If I want to discuss<argue> I come here.  I have much more fun here, learn more, and even fall victim to persuasion from time to time.  Even happened today.

So really I should just shut up and let you do your job.

Tom Delay is not the only conservative in the US House of Representatives.  So, I do not believe that supporters of the conservative agenda need to stick with Delay under any and all circumstances.  

I can think of many Republicans in the House who could take Delay's leadership position.  So, while I am not convinced that Delay is the "evil dude" that the media presents to us, I do think that a leadership contest would be helpful.  

Senate Republicans replaced Trent Lott with Bill Frist when it was to their advantage.  If there are advantages to replacing Delay, let's get on with it.  But I don't think we can make our opposition to the Medicare prescription drug boondoggle a reason for replacing Delay.  If that were the case, we would have a hard time finding very many Republicans qualified for leadership positions.  Speaker Hastert is every bit as culpable as Delay.  

I think I'm on record for this a couple of times now. My one great reservation with Bush is that he signed a bill he'd publicly announced was unconstitutional, and at any rate should have known was unconstitutional. He, no less than any other officer, swears a duty to defend and uphold the Constitution. To my mind, he, no less than any other elected official, is empowered to decide what the Constitution means.

He should have been impeached. So should the relevant Supreme Court Justices. And the legislators who voted for the bill should be recalled, and, not to put too strong a rhetorical flourish, put in shackles.

I was serious. I miss something along the same lines from the other side, I'd like to know. I do try.

 doesn't address the issue: screaming for spending discipline while at the same time screaming against spending cuts (or to be more precise, cuts in spending growth rates).

But either way, the fact remains that in the past three or four decades the Left has NEVER EVER believed we can afford ANY tax cuts ... at whatever tax bracket. So what were you saying again about worshipping at the altar of "pragmatism"?

And considering that if the Left in Congress had their way, the drug bill would be three times as expensive and a lot less market driven (not that this excuses the GOP), I don't really believe the Left's criticism is in good faith.

And finally, I cannot remember ever hearing a Leftist speak of corporations sans disdain. If corporations are so consistently and incontrovertibly bad, how come y'all are  not fighting to see them banned? How about an amendment to the constitution banning incorporation?

How can the US Congress impeach President Bush for signing the campaign finance legislation when it was the US Congress that passed this legislation.  And can the US Congress impeach the US Supreme Court for upholding a law that the Congress passed?  This is libertarian utopian drivel, I'm afraid.

dude, it's Clear Lake, too, now. Delay kind of screwed himself with his own redistricting.

Medicare boondoggle, ethically dubious, power-grab-mad, and deficit-spending-enabling parts, eh? :)

"who's scruffy lookin'?"

I however, do not pretend to be an independent, but I agree completely with your assessment of the state of this party after a very short time in power.

I ask all my conservative colleagues on this board:  If we do not hold our leaders to the ideals that we elected them in to office for, then what do we, ourselves, stand for?  

To rail against corruption when Democrats do it, but then turn a blind eye to it when one of our own does is hypocritical and it perverts the ideals that we stand for.

If we can't find it within ourselves to hold our representatives to our ideals because we are afraid it might strengthen our rivals, then the only ideal we stand for is the desire to keep power.

If that is what Republicans really stand for, then it doesn't matter how we vote.

I said should be done. I'm under no illusions it will happen.

A different Congress can repudiate the actions of a prior Congress. A majority of the relevant bums would have been tossed by 2007 to gear up for impeachment, if anyone cared, which they really don't.

I miss Sugar Land. Not so much Clear Lake.

You hit the nail on the head.  

This discussion bogs down when people simultaneously complain about how the Republican party isn't true to its principles and then complain when the Republican party occasionally tries to conform to these princples (i.e. Medicaid "cuts").  

Giving Nancy Pelosi a seat at the negotiating table with President Bush and Majority Leader Bill Frist won't make tax cuts more likely or personal retirment accounts more achievable.

..can be quite steep for the newcomer. When I first arrived, I thought this site to be a completely republican/conservative arena. Boy was I wrong! I got my butt handed to me on my first couple of posts and learned some valuable lessons.

I've learned that what makes this site so great are the dissenting views. It's not just a "ditto" love-fest. Here, your most core beliefs are challenged by facts and differing opinions. You can't spout ignorance here, because someone will call you on it. If you don't have a full "arsenal" of facts handy, it can be quite an unpleasant experience.

If anything, my experiences here have restored what was a waning faith in the democracy in which we live. People on both sides of the aisle have great points, and the required facts to back them up. As long as someone is coming at me with an opinion based in what they see as the truth, I can live with disagreement.

My conservative principles remain steadfast, but it's nice to see that the other side is thinking through the issues as well.

While I am certain you speak out of true concern for the future health of the GOP ... I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get to it ...

I explained how to reconcile screaming for spending discipline while at the same time screaming against spending cuts -- repeal the irresponsible tax cuts. Sorry if that's not the answer you wanted to hear.

NEVER EVER is awfully emphatic, isn't it?

For the drug bill, a lot less market driven would make it less expensive, not three times as expensive.

Corporations look out for corporations first and foremost, as they should. Lots of times that's inline with what's good for society. Sometimes it isn't. Your comment is just silly.

    As to your second paragraph, that's what I figured as to the meaning of "specially concurring".  Hey, I'm gonna need some remedial training on the short-hand: what's the scoop on a 'Thomas card'?  Methinks it's related to our local sage Thomas.  I actually have not read Tjoflat's dissent, but I will now.

    Interesting, I thought my deconstruction of Birch's statement was the most tenous part.  What I get for thinking.  But I don't view the Court as wholly subsidiary to the Congress -- only that Congress has been given pretty broad regulatory power over appellate jurisdiction.  If that's tantamount to the same thing, then it looks like that's the plain textual meaning of Art-3, Sct-2, and therefore so be it.  Maybe the Framers intended it that way.  Hamilton in Fed 78 reasoned the judiciary would be the weakest of the three.  (Nice guy, what a RUBE...)

    But inre 'separation of powers', I do see it as rock/paper/scissors.  IMO, SOP is not like 3 pastures with very high walls between them.  Instead, each branch has ways to severely meddle in each other's affairs, (one hopes) to keep them from running amuck.  That's exactly what a veto is, or an impeachment.

    I'd be greatly interested in your thoughts on SOP (and anything else).  I'm a lay person, but a learner.  Still, the plain language of the Constitution is the bottom line for me, no matter what court case has 'decided' this or that.  I'm sure I'm a little radical, but I consider both 'case law' and 'legal precedent', as to how they relate to Constitutionality, to be the sort of thing we use to line the bottom of the bird cage.  We won't even touch what I think of 'penumbras', 'evolving standards of decency', and the Eurocourts.  

Re: He should have been impeached. So should the relevant Supreme Court Justices. And the legislators who voted for the bill should be recalled, and, not to put too strong a rhetorical flourish, put in shackles.

There is no provision in the Constitution for recalling a congressman or senator. The closest thing would be the power of Congress itself to refuse to seat members.

As for the President, I would agree that signing a bill he regards as unconstitutional is a serious breech of trust with his oath of office. On the other hand if he had believed the bill to be constitutional then one might disagree with him without charging him with anything dishonorable. Ditto for any congressman or senator who voted for the bill believing it to be constitutionally licit. And ditto for judges also: as long as they are voting what the sincerely believe to be the case we have room only for disagreement not for charges of malfeasance.

So what are your thoughts on PAYGO?

Re: In 1994 you had a President who, after being elected as a moderate Democrat, called for gays in the military, signed an assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill, and tried to socialize 1/7 of the economy.

This is a bit of an exagerration.

Gays in the military seemed a bit outré back in 1992, but it has since become a position favored by a lopsided majority of the American people (for rather obvious and sensible reasons). The assault weapons and Brady Bills were actually popular and cannot be passed off as liberal extremism (whether they were good policy or not is another question of course). And Hillarycare, though a bureaucratic boondoggle of breathtaking proportions, would not have socialized healthcare in the sense that Canada's single payor or Britain's NHS has since the system would have remained in private hands, but transformed into something like a public utility. Something of the sort in general (but not anything like it in detail) will ultimately have to be done under any sort of healthcare reform, including a market-based reform featuring MSAs and the like. 60 years of employer-provided healthcare have so warped the insurance industry that it will require major restructuring and public oversight if we are ever to get out of this deadend situation.

So I guess spending cuts play no part in spending discipline? Just raising taxes. Last time I checked, that's the Left's response to any economic problem. Just raise taxes.

NEVER EVER is awfully emphatic, isn't it?

I guess it is. So I'll make a brief mention of JFK and Zell Miller as two Democrats that didn't think a tax cut is the handwork of Satan.

For the drug bill, a lot less market driven would make it less expensive, not three times as expensive.

Price controls and other intrusive forms of government involvement often end up making stuff a lot scarcer as companies produce them less for lack of incentive. In the end, expensive doesn't just mean what you pay in cash.

Your comment is just silly.

Maybe ... but I still would like to note that it is EXTREMELY rare to hear a Leftist say anything good about corporations. It's either, they're too greedy, too powerful, too controlling, too successful, too conservative, too ...

DeLay stands a very good chance of doing to the Republican party what the uber-liberals did to the Democrats in the 80's.

I'm not egging on him or you for the causes you choose to fight for.  But beware, you want the american public to see the two as different & not joined at the hip.

Tom DeLay isn't the face of the party.  Even the other republicans are distancing themselves from him just this AM on Fox News.

and mostly agree with. Spending cuts are necessary as well. Price controls can certainly backfire in all sorts of ways. Lots of leftists would agree that corporations are usually eeeeevil.

Stand by my basic point that if you're concerned about fiscal discipline, you oughta take a hard look at the tax cuts.

That is exactly what I meant.  I am not stepping over any lines by calling it what it is.  I don't mean to offend you.  

Please re-read what I said in response to the on judicial mullahs.

Are the 'borrow and spend' Republicans worse than the 'tax and spend' Democrats?

The Democrats want to raise taxes because they want to pay for our government.  Is that worse than borrowing money to pay for our government?

 trevino, I disagree.

When it comes right down to it, all you have against DeLay are nothing more than nebulous accusations by partisan Democrats in Texas and Washington echoed by a Press corps that wants to take out its frustrations of losing last year on one of the most effective Leaders the GOP has had in a generation.

While I do not believe that DeLay is synonymous with Republicanism or Conservatism (a loyalty oath to Delay certainly goes too far), and much as I loathe the GOP's lack of spending discipline and the Medicare bill, he sure as hell deserves some benefit of the doubt (and a presumption of innocence) from us ... cause he sure ain't gonna get from the other side.

NOTE: If going on junkets and other events with somewhat ethically compromised lobbyists is reason enough to throw DeLay over the side, they'll always and forever no leaders in either party in Congress (which may not be such a bad idea).

I would support a modified PAYGO rule that would require a supermajority to increase spending over the level set by the budget resolution, as long as tax reductions are not subject to these PAYGO rules.

because I dont live there, I live in League City ;)

I much prefer Galveston County overall..  ever heard the song "Gulf Coast Highway" ?

The Democrats want to raise taxes because they want to [massively grow] our government.

my post came off as a personal attack against you, I actually wrote it with some levity in mind, with that being said, I reread the posting rules, and it clearly states that there should be no personal attacks.  I am clearly not as good a writer as most on this board, but my point, however badly made, was that it seems to me your loyalty to Delay is a little too dogmatic, and not all strategic if you are truly looking to uphold the tenets that swept the Republicans into power in 1994.

Is a clever (and somewhat unfair) reference to Thomas's occasional habit of saying "I disagree with you, but oh, look at the clock, I'll research it and get back to you.  I think GADMAN coined it.

In all fairness to Thomas, not only is it reasonable to not answer every post as soon as it is posted and in the detail sufficient to make a point, it is practically impossible.  Particularly when you have a real job.  My first experience with RedState was a well researched and thought out post on his part.

But I like needling him anyway.

I don't think you need to make any apologies for being a layperson of the law.  Your thoughts our cogent, frequently disagreeable to me, but certainly not outside the realm of jurisprudential thought.  You have a number of like-minded legal scholars on this blog, Thomas being foremost.

you would replace them with less independent judges  Yeah, alot you know about what I think.  I don't care who appointed them (O'Connor, Stevens, Suiter, Kennedy...).  What I would replace them with (were I the person in charge of that), is judges who READ and REVERE the US Constitution, as duly enacted and duly amended -- I call that independent of political pressures and motivations.  What I don't dig is them making up their own law, rewriting the Constitution (see Roper for how the Constitution evolved in 16 years), and thumbing their noses at legitimate Congressional authority -- read Art-3, Sct-2, Clause-2, and tell me what YOU think is meant by with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.  I don't care if judges are GOP, Democrat, Catholic, atheist, pro-abortion, Wiccan, Moonbat, Wombat, or even if they went to bloody Zero-U (in Norman, OK).   If they are originalist, I am for them.  All the other ones can take a long ride on the KMA express, and that includes our blessed Republican Birch.

it seems like what you want is an American [sic]Talibahn.  I'd say you are pretty clear on what I mean by 'judicial mullahs'.  But why don't you explain to me what you think an AT is, and why you think that's what I want.  If you are not clear on my position, then read my diary.

Don't you smell a little whiff of [sic]hypocracy there?  Why yes, I do.

I don't agree with you but thre is an easy solution to your 'big government' Democrat problem.

As someone mentioned downthread, Congress could reinstate the 'Pay as you go' rule after the tax increase.  The Dems won't be able to increase spending without spelling out how to pay for it.

But as 'American Taliban' is to me an empty perjorative (really, what's the exact meaning of that?  That I like women in burqas? -- oh no, sundresses, miniskirts, bikinis....), I just want saywhat to explain what he means by that.   Then we can argue about it like regular men.

    To really dig at me, you gotta call me something like a leftist, a Democrat, or (worst), a Yankee.  No offense to Yankees, but I'm from Texas.  We just don't like to be called that.

Nah - I was happy to kick Arlen Specter eight ways from Sunday.

Look, I think a judiciary consisting of only one mindset would be as awful as a Congress with only one party.  The point about the appointment process is that the balance of the judiciary is accomplished by selection by a partisan appointer.  You are clearly an originalist.  Fine.  You want more originalists on the bench.  Groovy.  I don't.  I didn't vote for Bush.  He's going to stick quite a few of them on the bench.  Maybe if we can pull ourselves back together in 2009 there will be a big D in office who will appoint other flavors of judges.  The judiciary will change in composition gradually to reflect those changes.

But when we start talking impeachment, when we start calling judges Mullahs because they use a different set of tools in their legal analysis, it doesn't advance any particular set of ideas.  If you want a firmer check on the judiciary, a la if we disagree with your ruling we'll impeach you, you'll not have my help.  I am flexible to the idea of an elected federal judiciary, although I have grave misgivings, but impeachment is the wrong device to impose your politics upon the bench.

It actually makes me happy that judges derivate from their political marching orders once they've been appointed.  I think it can cut both ways, although I freely admit there have been more Republican nominees who didn't perhaps turn out like their President-appointer thought they would.  I don't want automatons for judges.

One topic we haven't discussed enough in my opinion is the impact of tax cuts on the economy.  

Why is Ireland's economy doing well while Germany's economy stagnates?  Ireland has low tax rates on corporations.  So, conservatives are correct to oppose tax increases (or rolling back tax cuts) as a means of closing the deficit.  If you want an economy to grow, don't suffocate it with high taxes.

But I was always a bigger fan of the Ballad of the Alamo, myself.

    Gengis, I think we are pretty clear on our respective positions, and some fine day (warning : Thomas card coming) let's kick around the question (approximately) of 'why anybody that's not an originalist is still somebody we want on the bench'.  Try to persuade each other, or possibly just drink each other under the table.  Just not now, it's too lengthy.  Let me clarify one thing, though -- my use of 'replace' was not intended to mean impeachment.  I  did not realize that was the inference.

    But as for the term mullahs, come on, that's as appropo as it gets.  In Iran, you have all the infrastructure of democracy, all the exercises in nominating, voting, etc. But it's all a charade.  It's the unelected oligarchs (for those of you in Rio Linda, they are called 'mullahs', the religious elites) who really run the show.  While that may be 'just my opinion' (I don't even remotely concede that), it's not like it's a meaningless perjorative. The parallel is striking.  Calling somebody a 'Hitler' is usually just a perjorative, but shouldn't we be allowed to use that term if we are talking about some guy (a hypothetical here) if he really does have a funny little moustache and has a girlfriend named Eva?

We like to throw our leaders to the wolves at the earliest sign of any possible impropriety, however slim the possibility, or however outrageous and unsubstantiated the accusation.  But the Democrats always rally around their embattled folks.  I can think of several still serving in Congress today who would be gone if they were Republicans- James Moran and James McDermott, for two.

One of Ronald Reagan's cardinal rules was to never speak ill of your fellow Republican.  It would behoove you and your fellow weak-kneed Republicans to live up to this rule.  If you have nothing good to say, then shut-up!  If Tom DeLay is to step down, it will be for reasons that a court of law will dictate, not what some wishy-washy, spineless fellow Republican thinks might make the party look better.

It's time we took a page out of the Democrat playbook and play by their rules-hardball politics.

the theory behind exempting tax cuts from PAYGO (other than, of course, that I'm fond of tax cuts). Don't tax cuts have to be "paid for" somehow?  

I have a few questions about this train of thought.  Scalia is perhaps the pre-eminent originalist on the bench today.  He is famous for not spending any time trying to divine the intent of the framers, but instead to base his decisions on the letter of the document.  Fine.  Sounds like the only way to provide a truly consistant body of rulings.

What bothers me about this is that this glosses over a big interpretational step--namely the understanding of how language itself has changed in 200+ years.  

For example, take the 2nd amendment, part of which reads:  

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

(Come on, I didn't really need to reprint that, did I?)

Pretty clear, right?  Except for the fact that two words that are critical to the understanding of this clause, "militia" and "arms" are never defined in the constitution itself.  This raises even a bigger question since at the time of the writing, 'arms' consisted essentially of muzzle-loading muskets.

Does an originalist then have to rule that this clause guarantees the right to bear muzzle-loaders and muzzle-loaders only?  Or, does the originalist use the current definition of 'arms' to allow modern armaments also?  

Importantly, if the second approach is taken, doesn't this mean that the constitution is 'living and breating?'  As language changes, this must therefore represent a change in the meaning and scope of the constitution.

To avoid this change in meaning, one would have to spend the time to research exactly what the framers meant at the time of the writing, right?  But that then brings into the picture even bigger issues of interpretation.

Or am i just way off base here?

Just to be clear, before the 1994 republican revolution, the Democrat Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, resigned over the appearance of ethics violations.  To my knowledge, he was not under official investigation and certainly did not have any DA indicting half his staff.  Additionally, Newt was forced out with much less than what they have on DeLay.  This isn't about "playing hardball", as you put it.  Its about integrity, honestly, and decency.  We should *demand* these things out of our leaders, be they R's, or D's, or Independents.  If we do not demand a high standard from these guys, then we can't complain when things don't turn out well.  

I dunno about you, but my family deserves better than a guy who is as unscrupulous as DeLay.  If you doubt that he is unscrupulous, then you just arent't being intellectually honest with yourself.  The Abramoff incident alone is enough to demand that he step down from his leadership position.

Look out!  Now we are gonna get a brewhaha going over the right to arm bears...

OK - that was sarcasm folks.

I'd like to say on thing that this sub-thread is about.  There is more than 1 flavor of conservatism in America today.  No one of us is the only authority.

Have you seen what has happened since George W Bush took over?  Let's not blame the democrats on this one right now.  Now it's Republicans weilding all the power.

this is exactly the issue that constitutional lawyers and scholars argue about all the time.  the bad news is that there is a lot of disagreement, as you might have guessed.  The example that you use is a great one because the founders could not ever have imagined weapons like F-16 fighter jets or Tomahawk missiles.  I guess the ultimate literalist would say that I am allowed to have a nuclear warhead at my house, and that its a Constitutional right.  Is it?  I dunno.  Its a good question.

I think the example highlights that we have to be willing to do at least some interpretation, but where do you draw the line?  This is what scares many people:  we must have defined limits.

The question is a old as the founders themselves...

"Is confidence or discretion, or is STRICT LIMIT, the principle of our Constitution?" --Thomas Jefferson to Jedidiah  Morse, 1822.

"Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson to M. van der Kemp, 1812.

Of course, this is why we can ammend the constitution.  Because people wrote it and no matter how perfect we want to see them, they were still imperfect human beings.  If things are unclear in the constitution, we are allowed to clarify them:

"Nothing is more likely than that [the] enumeration of powers is defective.  This is the ordinary case of all human works.  Let us then go on perfecting it by adding by way of amendment to the Constitution those powers which time and trial show are still wanting." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.

peace,

dude

That was good, back in the 70's....

Rostenkowski, Jim Wright or Tony Cohelo?

t1dude- I guess I need go no further- you are a clear example of what I mean by the "Stupid Party".  Your idea is advocating throwing out anyone in the majority, as you said in your earlier post.  If that doesn't mean throwing out Republicans, then I guess you are speaking a different language.  Get a grip!

The theory behind exempting tax cuts from PAYGO.......

The short answer is that a budget deficit caused by tax rate reduction is preferable to a budget deficit causeed by increased government spending.  Both types of deficits need to be paid for because both types of deficits are claims on future resources.  

But, for those of us who prefer a federal government that is limited, for those of us who believe that using the federal government to redistribute wealth and income is generally dangerous, exempting tax cuts from PAYGO rules gives tax reduction a parliamentary advantage that is justified.  

Ireland has demonstrated that lower taxes on corporations can improve a nation's economic health.  That's just one example.

It always amazes me how far the die-hards will go out of their way to blame things on the other party (in both parties).  How in the hell can anything be the D's fault right now when the R's are in control of everything by large majorities?  The current situation just proves that one-party rule totally SUCKS, no matter who is in control.  As the federalist papers suggest, the way to keep the bastards at bay is to make them fight with one another and not to give any one group too much power:

"This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State."

-- James Madison in Federalist 51

    At the outset, let me clear up a couple of things.  First, you are describing Scalia as what we call a 'strict constructionist'.  He's not.  An 'originalist' like Scalia incorporates 'framers intent' into that.  In the now-famous Scalia-Breyer discussion Scalia hashes that out some.    

    Second fine point.  There were muzzle-loading pistols in that day too, so the term 'arms' would then have been a broader term.  An interesting side question would be whether Amendment 2 contemplated the personal ownership of cannons. What about knives?

    For those parts of the Constitution where the language is plain and has not changed, then the originalist defers to the plain language, while perhaps giving some minimal weight to the Federalist papers (etc), when it comes to really splitting hairs.  However, if the language HAS changed (and I think 'militia' is certainly an example of that), then the importance of the 'framers intent', which will include the archaic use of the language, is elevated to probably greater importance than the exact wording as used in contemporary English.  That is how an originalist does it.

    An analogy -- the old King James Version of the Bible uses a word 'conversation'.  In 1611 it meant 'lifestyle', but today it means 'talking'.  If your authoritative source for your Christianity is your KJV Bible, I say two things.  (1) Get a life and get a modern translation, and (2) If you won't do that, then you need to read 'conversation' in your KJV to mean 'lifestyle', as the 'framers' intended.

To avoid this change in meaning, one would have to spend the time to research exactly what the framers meant at the time of the writing, right?  But that then brings into the picture even bigger issues of interpretation.   You are exactly right in your summation of 'originalist' thinking.  And as to the issues of interpretation, that's one reason we want 9 judges, and not just 1.   Reasonable men will disagree on framers intent.  Hope this helps.

that it says "shall not be infringed".  Constitutionally speaking (whether one is a 'strict contrustionist' or an 'originalist' or just an 'ist'), that sounds an awfully lot like "shall not have any restrictions at all placed on it".  How ideed can the gov't infringe on my right to own a Bradley or an F-22, or mount an M60 on my pickup truck ("right to KEEP and BEAR" those arms).

Yes, absolutely it's not all cut into stone.  But, and here's where alot of us differ so vehemently, I believe it is the legislative branch that fleshes out the meaning of most of these things.  I believe the judiciary's only proper role in that is to say, in a given statute, 'No, you can't do that, because that violates the spirit and/or word of the Constitution'.  They overstep when they say "no, HERE is what you must do".  Sometimes those overlap, and that is why we all get in here and fight the good fight for whatever side we believe in.  Political debate.  Sometimes smears and name-calling.

While I agree that Republicans should not operate like a kangaroo court regarding the allegations made against Tom Delay, there is one distinction we should make here.  

You mentioned Moran and McDermont as Democrats that have been defended by their caucus.  Yes, but these two are not high up in their party leadership (or am I wrong?).  

That's not to say that your point about Democrats rallying around their own is not accurate.  But a House member who is not in a leadership position attracts a little less attention from the press and is less of a liability for their political party.  

I am still agnostic on the charges made against Delay.  I am not entirely convinced that he should be replaced.  But it is possible that the GOP could benefit from a passing of the leadership baton to someone else.

I thought I was the only authority.  That's what my RedState.org Welcome Pak said (with the decoder ring).  Sigh.....

1. You want to show a preference for/give a parlimentary advantage to tax cuts over other types of "spending."
   
2. You want to prefer them because (a) tax cut expenditures improve the economy but other types of spending do not and (b) because tax cuts force limited government and less "dangerous redistributing of wealth."  But wouldn't (b) be true only if the tax cuts didn't create deficits?  If tax cuts are funded with deficits don't we have the same amount of big government/wealth distribution spending as without the tax cuts - or am I confused?
   
3.  We should support deficits incurred to improve the economy.  In which case I wonder how do you measure or determine whether the size of the improvement in the economy is worth the related increase in the deficit - how do you calculate the cost benefit?

It's been a long time since I've thought about these issues and I'd really like to know what others think. I think that this country offers a lot of value to its citizens and I'm happy to exchange value for value in the form of my taxes.  On the other hand, I do pay a boatload in taxes and I'd love them to be less to the extent that is consistent with the best interests of my country.  I'm not at all sure that the twin deficits and all this debt are advisable.  I'm trying to reconcile my desire for tax cuts with my horror of the deficit.

You want to prefer them because (a) tax cut expenditures improve the economy but other types of spending do not and (b) because tax cuts force limited government and less "dangerous redistributing of wealth."  But wouldn't (b) be true only if the tax cuts didn't create deficits?  If tax cuts are funded with deficits don't we have the same amount of big government/wealth distribution spending as without the tax cuts - or am I confused?

It is true that tax cuts, in and of themselves, do not directly reduce government spending.  But they do, depending on how they are structured, provide an "incentive effect" on the people impacted by them.  

A thought experiment......

If the tax rate were 100 percent, many people would see little reason to set their alarm clock to 5:00am and fight traffic to work 8 to 14 hours a day.  One would not be able to argue that one is working to feed one's family or oneself because all of the gross income would be taxed away.  

Similarly, if the government offered to citizens free food, free housing, free health care, free transportation, free education and free entertainment, people might reevaluate their determination to work everyday.  

Thus, the reason why I support a PAYGO rule regarding government spending has little to do with the deficit.  It has more to do with the negative indirect impact of government spending, negative indirect impacts that tax cuts do not cause.  In fact, tax cuts often lead to faster economic growth.

gotcha.

at a certain level this whole discussion of the Dems rallying around their people better than the R's is kinda hillarious.  The criticism from everyone on both sides of the aisle is that the Dems are "rudderless" and "disorganized" with "no clear vision" and "no leadership".  I'd agree with all of those characterizations, but you'd have to be pretty wacky to assert that paradigm, then also say that the Dems neatly coalesce and organize behind their ethically challenged politicians, acting with the clarity of purpose sufficient to save them from the wrath of the people.  You gotta take your pick.  Either they are the bumbling buch of idiots that the R's have been saying they are for decades, or they got their sh-t together enough to speak with one voice and rally behind those who are important to their Party.  Personally, I don't even think they know who is "important to their party".

Like someone else posted here.  We can't blame everything on the dems.  At least a couple things have to fall at the feet of the majority party who controls all three branches of government.

peace,

dude

When people describe the Democrats as leaderless and rudderless, I doubt that they are describing the Democrat party's unwillingness to play hardball and defend Democrat elected officials.  That criticism is usually directed at the Democrat party's lack of creativity in the realm of ideas.  

As comedian Bill Mahr said in 1995, in the aftermath of the Democrats losing control of both houses of Congress, "I don't know why the Democrat platform didn't sell: Higher taxes and more lesbians in government."

If the tax rate were 100 percent, many people would see little reason to set their alarm clock to 5:00am and fight traffic to work 8 to 14 hours a day.

I am not disagreeing with you, but if not being able to keep more of your money was actually a stong disincentive to work, why didn't the serfs in midevial europe who were indentured to their landlords just stop working?  Instead these people worked their asses off and paid both rents and taxes to their landlords, and also gave them the vast majority of the produce from their farms.  On top of that it was not uncommon for these people to say "our landlord is so nice to us.  look at all they give us.  they allow us to live in this mudhole on their land. we are so fortunate"  To me, that sounds alot like the people today who say "oh, the super wealthy should pay no taxes at all.  after all, they provide jobs for us.  we should be grateful that they allow us to work for them."  (never mind that the jobs are all being created in China).

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not opposed to the capitalist system.  No way!  I am just in favor of everyone paying his fair share for the benefits of living in this country, or operating a business here.  Right now, we have multi-millionaires who actually renounce their US Citizenship just so they do not have to pay taxes, but they keep living here!  Some people in congress tried to introduce a "Benedict Arnold" tax to force these people to pay their fair share or move to another country and it didn't even get enough support to make it to committee.

If you look at what's going on here, its not that the rich are getting a "break" to help create jobs.  They are getting huge windfalls and taking the money abroad and creating jobs other there.  The Labor Dept just released the job numbers for march and they were about half of what economists expected:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=8065
558

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18262-2005Apr1.html

There's more to managing the economy than simply giving the wealthy massive tax cuts that cripple the government's ability to pay for the services that we all demand.  This year, we spent close to $900 Billion more than we took in ($427 stated in the actual budget proposal + $300 billion in Iraq + $170 billion "hidden" by the SS trust fund).  This is an unsustainable course and the economy is not growing as fast as the Bush advisors said that it would.  In fact, inflation is higher than expected, jobs are lower than expected, and wages are slipping.  Its not about blaming bush or anyone, its about admitting the reality of the situation and asking ourselves in these tax cuts are really the answer.  I am for whatevr works.  In the 1980's Reagan's tax cuts works.  These current tax cuts are not working.  Tt would be nice to admit that this is reality while the national debt is still only $7.7 TRILLION, and rising at $1.3 million per minute.

peace,

dude

the argument is still inherently flawed.  how can you be disorganized to the point of losing so much power, clearly squabble amongst yourselves, bicker over petty crap, represent every disperate interest under the sun with allegiance to none, yet have this smokin' kick ass organization that is able to rally together with a unified message and hide the malfeasnace of all your shifty politicians who are not even shifty enough to get re-elected anyway?  I mean, these guys barely have a unified message on SS, and that's a complete no-brainer.

The argument just makes no sense to me, and appears to be a way to rationalize the downfall of the current party in power.

" negative indirect impacts that tax cuts do not cause"

I think the point here is that tax cuts in the face of deficits without appropriate spending cuts do have direct negative impacts on the deficit.  So for those of us who prefer a federal budget that is balanced,  exempting tax cuts from PAYGO rules gives tax reduction a parliamentary advantage that is unjustified.

You didn't seem to make up your mind as to whether people respond to incentives or whether they ignore them.  Are you saying that European feudalism created rapid economic growth?  If your answer is "Yes," then I would disagree with you, assuming you are comparing feudalism's record to capitalism's record.  

As for the recent economic reports coming out of the BLS: This has been going on for a while.  The payroll survey shows slow job growth while the household servey shows healthy job growth.  If you are confused by the competing BLS reports, take a look at housing prices, which are doing quite well.  Or take a look at the recently reported 3.8 percent growth rate.  

But even if you would like to see the economy grow faster (as I do), such a desire would not lead one to support higher taxes on people who work, save and invest in the American economy.  

If you want to observe an economy that needs to change policies, look at Germany.  

If your primary objective is balancing the budget instead of economic growth, I would agree with you.  But even then, only to a point.  As tax rates go up, people don't participate in the economy in the same way.  

I'm more interested in economic growth.  Thus, I am unwilling to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.  Instead, we should reduce social welfare spending.  

I'm not blaming the growth in spending entirely on the Democrats, though their screaming about Republicans wanting to starve the poor/women/minorities/gays every time a spending cut is proposed and the skepticism free echoing their screaming gets in the Press sure as heck doesn't help.

This puts me and a lot of other Conservatives in a bind. With the likes of Teddy, Harry, Nancy, Durbin and "I served in Vietnam" as Leaders of the Democrats in Congress there's no way any spending discipline is ever going to come to Washington, whether control is split or not, unless the GOP relearns why it's in charge today.  

I'll bite.

In your own words, can you explain to me, what it is that Tom DeLay did? And why I should join Trevino in agitating for his ouster?

You didn't seem to make up your mind as to whether people respond to incentives or whether they ignore them

you didn't see a conclusion, because I didn't post one. I am just saying that the incentive is not as strong as tax cutting proponents advertise.

Are you saying that European feudalism created rapid economic growth?

of course not.  the comparison was to illustrate that even people who work their asses off and end up forking over nearly all their wages still do not stop working entirely as the claim was made.  I was not comparing feudalism's record to capitalism's record.

As for the recent economic reports coming out of the BLS...

I am familiar with those.  Its great that one sector is doing well.  Do you think that those household jobs come with benefits, healthcare, pensions, 401k's?  We are replacing high-wage benefit laiden jobs with low-wage, part-time, and zero-benefit jobs.  You may be happy that more upper-income people are able to hire maids and nannies at the cost of losing Radiologists, IP Attorneys, and manufacturing jobs, but I do not see that as so great.  There is ample evidence to suggest that these household jobs are lower paying.  The median wage slipping is a good indicator for sure.

Or take a look at the recently reported 3.8 percent growth rate.  

Is this after inflation?  Inflation was very high last year (highest in years).  I really do not know the answer, just asking.

such a desire would not lead one to support higher taxes on people who work, save and invest in the American economy.

wow!!  your statement shows an inherent radical bias.  By saying "higher taxes on people who work", are you suggesting that people who are not in the top 1% tax bracket do not "work"??  I hope that's not what you are saying.  I am all for giving tax cuts to people who actually work.  My concern is mainly the multinational corporations and billionaires who pay ZERO taxes.  Its not enough to say "these guys could create jobs".  If they are actually creating jobs, that's one thing, but they are not.  By your own admission, the jobs are being created in the households.  Do you think that John Q Public who makes $150,000 per year and hires a maid and a lawn man actually benefits from the massive tax cuts??  I'll give you a hint:  He probably got back $600, but will pay way more than that in increased state an dlocal taxes and fees due to the federal budget cuts, not to mention higher prices caused by inflation steming form the huge deficit and resulting inflation.  Meanwhile, XYZ corporation "repatriates" $500 million at a ZERO tax rate and ships John Q. Public's son's summer job off to China.  If you wanna cuts taxes on people who actually "work", that'd be great.  I just want the people who benefit most from our society to pay some taxes.  Shouldn't they be required to contribute to the system that provides infrastructure and workers for them?

And so making Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House is supposed to be the answer to the problem of too much socialism in the American economy?  Having reviewed Nancy Pelosi's voting record in the US House, I don't see much hope in that strategy.  

I agree I'd like to reduce social welfare spending but increasing the debt to "grow the economy" through tax cuts seems, well, intellectually dishonest to me as a conservative in some strange way.  It's like saying, I'll take the benefits of a booming economy and tax cuts to boot, but the bill (deficit) for those goodies?  Send it to that guy over there (those suckers who didn't have the foresight to be born now). It seems like a form of wealth shifting. I think Ayn would demand tax cuts but would also be realistic about paying for them with spending cuts.

If there is no free lunch, and I don't think there is - someone is going to have to pay the price of these deficits.

sorry if you don't like it, but the role of the judiciary is to "interpret" the laws passed by the legislative branch.  That's all they do.  if you take that role away from them, then what are the courts for?  

do not dispair though because the legislative branch is not without its recourse.  If they do not like the way a judge interprets something, all they have to do is pass a law saying "no that's not right.  let us clarify.  this is what we meant".  or even "we don't want to do it that way anymore".  The legislative branch can pass any law it wants.  If the courts say its unconstitutional, the legislature can even change the constitution!  its not like they are a castrated weakling just because the courts can interpret the law.

In a system where the legislative branch creates the laws and interprests the laws, where is the check on their power?  read both federalist 10 and 51 and you will see that all these stuff was thought out by the founders.  They answer the last question, I believe in Federalist 10.

peace,

dude

I am in favor of reforming the corporate tax system, as long as the "reform" isn't an import tariff under another name or a tax increase on corporations.  

Corporations are just groups of people who form business projects together.  Thus, I am not hostile to corporations anymore than I am towards the mom and pop small business down the street.  I would like to see Congress move towards a "contract trumps tort" type of tort reform in order to stimulate business, large and small, incorporated and unincorporated.

As to the household survery, one does not have to be a small businessman to be counted by the household survery and not counted by the payroll survey.  If you work for a new business, the payroll servey will not count you, because it won't know that your employer exists.  

But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the economy sucks (it's actually doing well).  Raising taxes is going to make things worse, not better.  

Don't you think corporate CEOs and other businessmen would take their business elsewhere if the Congress tried to play Robin Hood?  

Uhhh, she died a long time ago.  If you look at the biographies of her life, she said intersting things but lived a very screwed up life.  I always wonder why people use her as some paragon of thought.

Support of tax reduction and spending cuts are not mutually exlusive.  Both direct government to reduce its role in the economy.  But I see no reason why I should support a tax increase (or a repeal of a tax cut) just because 7 wimpy "moderate" Republicans in the US Senate failed to vote the right way on Medicaid "cuts."  

But the Senate didn't settle the matter of Medicaid "cuts."  President Bush proposed "reductions in the rate of growth" in Medicaid, as did the US House of Representatives.  As they hammer out their differences, I will ask my Senators and Representatives to maximize the tax cuts and the spending "cuts."  

Nothing dishonest, in my humble opinion.

I am no democrat.  I am independent and have voted for republicans, democrats, and independents.

The problem I have with the medicare/medicaid issue is not that they only cut benefist for the impoverished, its that they were brazen enough to increase "benefits" going to wealthy corporations.  If we are going to cut spending, lets do it, and not be selective.  I'd support a 20% across the board spending cut.  Seems to me that is the only way to be fair.  This business of cutting social programs for the impoverished and simultaneously giving the weathly tax rebates is nonsense.

Its just like that bankruptcy bill.  I could have understood the rationale to "make people personally responsible" if they hadn't included the part about the "Assett Protection Trust" where rich peole get to keep their mansions and stock options if they file brankruptcy, while the poor are sold into indentured servitude to the credit card companies who knew better than to give those people cedit to begin with.  Where's the justice?  

I think Ayn Rand is overrating too.  I much prefer Richard Epstein, the Law Professor.  My favs from Epstein are "Simple Rules for a Complex World," "Forbidden Grounds: The case against discrimination laws," and "Mortal Peril: Our inalienable right to health care."  

Corporations are just groups of people who form business projects together.

while this may be a *REALLY* over simplified definition and would be okay for some purposes, it misses the central point of the corporation, which is to limit liability.  That's just the most basic element of the corporation.  Go look at any business or economics text book and you will see that "limiting liability" is the central aspect of the definition of "corporation".

While there is nothing inherently wrong with the corporation, history has proven than the limited liability benefits also do have their drawbacks, which we must guard against.  The "liability" that the corporation seeks to limit is financial, so that the owner(s) are never on the hook for more than they invest.  That was the original intent of the corporation.

Somewhere along the way, as a society, we have become confused about this fact and some people working at corporations think that the purpose of the corporation is to shield the actor from ALL liability and from personal responsibility.  if you question that claim, ask yourself how people working for corporations made decisions that led to: (1) dump toxic chemical in the ground water (happens all the time,, but Erin Brockovich is a good example), (2) the Ford Pinto case in the 70's where a manager at ford decided that it would be cheaper to pay the lawsuits of killed and injured customers than it would be to fix a $2 bracket on a million cars, (3) Enron, where they pruposefully hid debt in offshore corporations on separate books, so people wouldn't know that they were loosing money, (4) the recent insurance scandals uncovered by Elliot Spitzer in which the largest insurance companies in the world ripped people off , (5) the Mutual fund scandals uncovered by Elliott Spitzer in which they sold funds that internal memeos said were dogs, but told customers that they were "great".

There is something about the "corporation" that makes people just a little more comfortable lying or bending the truth.  Some faceless corporation didn't make the decision to dump toxic waste in the ground water in California.  A PERSON MADE THAT DECISION.  Why would someone do that?  I don't have the answer, I am just pointing out that there is something about the corporation that brtings out the worst in people and that needs oversight.  

Other than that, lets ahve as many *responsible8 corporations that makes everyone lost fo money!  Nothing wrong with making money and improving society with your higg-demand good or service that adds to the GDP.  I just want people to be responsible for themselves.

I don't have the hang up on the limited liability issue that you seem to have.  I think our current liability laws are too pro-litigation to the point that good products are not made and put on the market because the maker of the product will get sued.  

Not everyone has Ralph Nader's level of risk aversion.  But since in much of our current law "tort trumps contract" rather than the other way around (as it should be, in my opinion), we are all required to live like extremely risk averse people, with all of the associated negative economic consequences.

would step aside for the good of the movement rather than bring it down with him.





The movement is more important than any one person--even one who is done much for it in the past.





If Mr. Delay were an honorable man, he would stand down if indicted.

I'd be more than happy to explain it to you in the detail that it deserves, but I'd like to know if your question is sincere before I go typing up a big reply.  If you google "TRMPAC DeLay Earle", you should get a ton of articles about what he is under investigation for and for which 3 of his top guys have already been indicted.

If you google "delay abramoff", you'll get alot about that too.  The main thing there was that he accepted a vacation and gifts from a lobbyist, which is expressly against the law.

There'a alot more, let me know if you are serious.

peace,

dude

they STUCK to interpreting.  It works in theory, but when the juduciary goes to a-legislating, they usurp.  And because our legislative and exec branches have simply let them get away with it for so many years, they've gotten WAY, WAY out of hand.  

    Like a spoiled brat that you let boss you around when he was 4, and you indulged him all his life.  Well, now he's 16, he's trashed your house, gotten you fired from your job, stolen your car and credit cards, and robbed a bunch of convenience stores. Yells at you, yells at his mom.  Screws the dog.  And the cat.  And we think the goldfish.  Maybe it's a big stretch, but just maybe it's time for a little time-out for the boy.  Or perhaps it's time for a big who's-your-daddy SMACKDOWN.

haha. its not a "hang up".  That's the central defining characterstic of corporations:  to avoid responsibility.  I have absolutely no problem with avoiding the risk of starting a business and providing incentive for people to put up their own money and take risks.  I have an extereme aversion (call it a "hang up" if you want) about corporatins that exploit the system and avoid taking responsibility for the harm that they cause.  Are you opposed to corporations being held responsible for the harm that they cause?  who would be opposed to that?

The tort abuse concerns that you have are completely overblown.  Less than 1% of all lawsuits are people suing corporations.  Almost all the restare corporations suing each other.  In medical cases, there are numerous studies that blow the "frivelous" suit theory out of the water.  There are no frivelous suits.  The latest study done at the University of Texas, was a study of thousands of cases over 15 years and found that the average jury award has not risen but has stayed contsant.  The number of suits filed has gone down.  The number of case that involve payouts has gone down.  The only thing that has gone up was defense costs.  there is no tort reform crisis.  Its a sham assertion designed to create a system where corporations can accurately estimate how much their mistakes will make so that they can make decisions like they did in the Ford Pinto case in which they decided that a $2 bracket was more important than human life.  Is that the kind of society that you want to live in?  Do you really want the kind of society in which corporations are responsible to no one and are allowed to purposely harm the public if its cheaper than another course of action?

here's the source for the University of Texas Study on malpractice:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=678601

There's also a link to more articles and the PDF on my site:

http://www.dudedesign.com/blog/

peace,

dude

the judiciary si simply not "out of control".  if they are "WAY WAY WAY" out of hand, maybe you could name three cases that were so out of hand.

if you take the interpretation role away from the courts, then what are the courts for?

In a system where the legislative branch creates the laws and interprests the laws, where is the check on their power?

peace,

dude

T1, I understand your concern. And I also acknowledge that Congress cannot be trusted to apply its own laws. That's the reason why the Judiciary exists; to make certain that Congress and the Executive branch honors their promises (more on this later).

The courts should concern themselves primarily with checking that a given law or practice passed by either the Federal or State Legislatures violate the Constitution, based strictly on American jurisprudence throughout history and the intent and meaning of the framers and writers of the subsequent Amendments. If the law does, they strike it down, if not, they don't, no matter how strongly they object or approve on a personal level.

The best way to divine the intent is to read the plain text of the Constitution. This is where the meaning is at its clearest. So I guess I'm primarily a textualist, then an originalist (Federalist Papers, Blackstone, etc) and thoroughly reject the concept of the "living constitution". My own belief is that the Constitution is a contract between the American people and those among them who are empowered to govern.

And when it comes right down to it, NO contract worth anything has meanings that change over time.

Either way, you have to admit that the judiciary is fast becoming the most powerful branch of government when it should be the weakest and there should be a way to curb the courts' powers when they step out of line without having to go through the rigamorale of passing an amendment ... because a truly rogue court can interpret or outright invalidate an amendment away (all the while citing French law for support).

Let me give you a hypothetical; what if the Supreme Court suddenly went crazy and issued a ruling interpreting the general welfare clause as mandating higher (or lower) taxes and then ordered the Legislature to comply.

Considering that one of the parties likes taxes being as high/low as possible, the possibility that an amendment being ratified invalidating that ruling would be low. What would you have the legislature do (especially the House which is given plenary power over the purse strings)?

I am sincere ... I just am far more prepared to see him indicted, tried and convicted before I cast him aside. Unsubstantiated accusations just raise my hackles and get me in a pugilistic mood.

So please ... go ahead.

That particular illustration was WAY too detailed to just be rhetoric.  Been having trouble with the kid?

but on what are you basing your assertion that the judiciary should be the 'weakest' branch of government?

"Let me give you a hypothetical; what if the Supreme Court suddenly went crazy and issued a ruling interpreting the general welfare clause as mandating higher (or lower) taxes and then ordered the Legislature to comply."

In order to tackle this question, I have to imagine the case in controversy that is before the court which allows the court to make this ruling.  As you know, the Supreme Court doesn't do advisory opinions, so someone would have to sue the U.S. government by making a Constitutional claim that his taxes were an unconstitutional taking of some sort.  

Unfortunately, generalized grievances such as taxpayer suits are nearly impossible to get by the Supremes.  Scalia even tried to bump the generalized grievance up from a prudential bar to a constitutional bar all by himself.  see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife.  (note that Scalia was in clear violation of the separation of powers doctrine in Lujan as a Constitutional bar precludes Congress from allowing the court to hear it)

A better question is, what happens when the court makes a bad decision?  Answer: they eventually retire and the next court overturns it.  See:  Korematsu and Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson

That's why we try to keep crazy people off the Bench.  

As far as holding Corporations responsible, I am in favor.  But, once again, we need to reform our legal system so that contract trumps tort, not the other way around.  

When I bought a new television set recently, I paid one amount of money for the television set and another amount of money for the extended warranty, which was optional.  Someone else could have purchased the same television set and rejected the option of purchasing the extended warranty.  

This sort of arrangement allows people to make contracts based upon how much risk they are willing to expose themselves.  If I am willing the risk the possibility that my television set will go on the blink in a few years, I could save my money and not purchase the television set.  

There are many instances when tort, rather than contract, needs to be applied in our legal system.  But it is used too often and inappropriately.  The result is that an automaker cannot know for sure whether his automobile will be considered "safe" by some future judge and jury, despite the fact that the automobile meets the governments crash test regulations.  

It's important for people to know what the law is prior to entering into a contract.  But the current overuse of tort makes that impossible for anyone incapable of reading the minds of future judges and juries.

He's replacable.


Maybe I'm too focused on the Supreme Court, but I really don't care if we have a strong house leader in the next 3 years anyway relative to the leadership in the White House and Senate on Justices.

You nailed the Reagan, et al. better than I did.

See entry under ethics violations that he has been reprimanded for.

1.  Ronald Reagan was clean as the driven snow, and put principle first.  If your political self-education passed the phonics stage, you'd know that he came to Republicanism -- and stayed with it -- because it aligned with his core values, not he with its.
   
2.  I'm going to guess that of the two of us, only one has served both in the current Administration and the US Army.  I leave it to you to decide whether the one who hasn't ought to be braying about "wishy-washy, spineless fellow Republicans."
   
3.  Finally, putting the interests of The Party above all else is a notable characteristic of Soviets, Nazis, old school Labourites, and idiot frat boys.  It ill becomes an American.

I'm not sure that we can apply the "Reagan standard" to all of our Republican leaders.  But I agree that some reasonable standard must be applied.  

I'm not persuaded that Delay's involvement with the Medicare plan of 2003 should be a real issue.  An overwhelming majority of House Republicans (over 80 percent, I think) voted for that bill.  The Senate vote among Republicans was less unanimous.  

No.  I think the ethics charges are the one's we should focus on.  And if an impartial group of people say that Delay is guilty, dump him.

Principles may be stupid, but I'll die with them any day before living without them.




My defense, during my short 10 years of political activity, to charges that Republicans are no 'better' than Democrats has always been that our leaders either resign or are forced from power when their bad behavior becomes an effective weapon against our causes.




There is no more poignant example of that than the case of Rep. Bob Livingston who resigned his post rather than be used as an example of hypocrisy.


I urge your to relive one of the most powerful moments of Congressional drama (at least during my 'political lifetime').  It still brings tears to my eyes.

If an jury of his peers says there's probable cause to prosecute him he should step down until he is cleared of charges.  It's the only honorable thing to do.

I live in Kingston, at the Hudson River end of it. A blue city in a historically red county in a blue state. But not particularly a bedroom community, nor is any river town, this far north of NYC.

In fact, rural areas across upstate NY have many areas of common interest; many people are aware of it and in contact with each other. The same is true of small cities. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking in the right place.

Poughkeepsie has several colleges, but it doesn't have the feel of a college town. New Paltz is a much better example for your point. (I say this as someone with a degree from a Poughkeepsie college, who currently works in New Paltz.)

I hadn't heard the cook story about Hinchey, but I am not surprised. He was a Thruway toll collector too. He did a lot of jobs, I'm sure. A lot of people around here do a lot of jobs. Salaries that can support an entire family are increasingly rare. Hinchey was a kid from a poor family who worked hard and made good.

I don't know the horse trading that went into the design of this district (but I do know it has been substantially the same since at least 1970). But I doubt it has much to do with the Adirondacks, which are way on the other side of the more populated area along the Mohawk River and Erie Canal. Rather, giving this district to the Democrats makes the surrounding districts more safely Republican.

Why should we wait to see if he's convicted or not? I'm not saying he should resign his seat if indicted, but he should step down as a leader.




If he is cleared he can return to power (if we feel he's the better than the new guy/gal) with more power than before due to his vindication.  Insert Star Wars reference here.

Wrong on most points, except "recall," which admittedly, I was using as shorthand for "recall where an option through State law, but more likely defeat in their next regularly scheduled election." On that, my apologies.

(1) I've seen no polls showing a lopsided support of gays in the military; and we're dealing with 1992, not now.

(2) The relevant bills may or may not have been popular with the public at large; what they were not, was popular with off-year election voters. I love public opinion as much as the next guy, but I truly love the opinion of the folks who actually bother to show up and vote. They make the decisions because they make the time to participate.

(3) It's because of government intervention in the healthcare industry that we're where we are. Start with ERISA and work your way forward. (Don't get me started on ERISA.)

I assure you, there are frivolous suits.

(And I loathe those words):

I believe I have, as you say, played the Thomas Card fewer times than I have fingers on one hand, and each time, I did indeed come back and answer at some length. My word is my bond.

The specific episode that gave rise to the term involved a particular commenter demanding an answer on his time. I was in the middle of drafting the opinion letter from Hades (forty pages and counting at that point) and had my boss emailing me every ten minutes (I counted) demanding to know where it was. I had a deadline coming down on my like a perverse Sword of Damocles, happened to see the demand for a response. I snarkily noted that I wasn't being paid to answer comments, but to answer at length and adequately would take longer than the two minutes I had to spare while my research was being printed out. That's when GADMAN coined the term.

This is why it took so long.

No, my daugther's high-spirited and an angel, and my (other) worst nightmare is coming true -- she's 13, and quite, shall we say, getting to be the looker.  Oh, boy......

    But the illustration is very, very like my bro's oldest boy.  Except they don't have a cat or a goldfish.

3 cases?  I could list 300, perhaps 3000.  Maybe 30,000.  Hey, Bill Gates.  Got a nickel?  I don't believe you, prove it. (hey, work with me on this, we know he probably doesn't carry anything under a 'large', but you see what I'm trying to say....)

But first, once again you keep building this straw man, and it's frankly getting pretty tiresome.  How many times do I have to say that I am FINE with the court sticking to interpretation, and yet you say if you take the interpretation role away from the courts, then what are the courts for?  Can you maybe just pull the wax out of your ears so we can have a discussion?

OK, this is such a waste of time, proving that water is wet.  And I'm just going to stick to judiciary 'legistlating', I won't even start with their out of control  antics in terms of re-writing the Constitution (just a primer  -- if Roper v Simmons did not make your stomach turn, then you have problems).

First, Miranda v Arizona, 1966

As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the [384 U.S. 436, 445]    process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning.

Miranda is an evidentiary issue.  The police can still interrogate you.  They just don't have a right to use the fruit of an illegal interrogation in a court of law.  

This comes from the fact that people will say practically anything if you put them under enough stress.  Lots of people have been coerced into confessing crimes they did not commit.  Lots.  

Miranda is a safeguard against coercion, and thus is a procedural safeguard that works in favor of law enforcement.  When the police conduct searches, witness IDs, seizures, and interrogations, in accordance with the law, they get convictions.  

There is nothing a defense attorney likes to see more than cop blowing an otherwise valid witness ID by telling the witness he "picked the right one" in a line-up.  Or by putting one 20 year old guy in a line up with a bunch of 40 year olds.  The cops think they are getting results.  What they are really doing is giving a basis for appeal by contaminating evidence.

Miranda is a good thing for all.  It is based on well established criminal and constitutional law bases.  Equal protection, freedom of association, the concept of innocent until proven guilty etc.

Seattle, why don't you just put words in my mouth for me then?  Did I say I have a problem with Miranda?  BTW, in general it's a nice argument you put forth.  But it's not relevant to what I'm talking about.

I accidentally hit [post] instead of [preview], so I'm in the middle of something -- which if you'll climb up the ladder, you'll see that T1 has challenged me, saying that the judiciary is not 'out of control', in particular that somehow the big problem is that Congress is stepping on the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, and that the judiciary does not 'legislate from the bench'.  He invited me to give 3 examples of that, so I am.  There's so many thousands to pick from that I'm just sticking to 'the classics'.

So that's what I'm talking about.  Not the merits of Miranda, just the fact that its a classic (and far-reaching, yes?) case of 'legislating from the bench'.  It's the state legislature's job to tell arresting officers what procedures they must follow and what they must say or not say, or do or not do.  The Court's role is to interpret the Constitution and judge statutes as to how they pass Constitutional muster.  If you want to argue that point, then fine, that's what this discussion is about.

via Federalist Papers #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.

The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like.

Rock, your comments have focused on risk, but the full balance of the equation is still RISK vs REWARD.  Business decisions aren't made in consideration of risk alone but rather in the calculation of risk vs reward.  It's true that risk mitigation may neutralize the value of the reward and create a negative business case.  It's then the company's decision whether or not to accept the unmitigated risk or kill the business plan.  The point is, a company owns both the reward and the risk and both are factors in its business decisions.

The inherent check and balance, then, is that a company is strongly incented by threat of financial impact to perform a robust risk analysis and mitigation exercise.  If a company ulitmately chooses to accept unmitigated risk in order to maximize reward, and that choice results in an injury, etc, then it's the consumer's recourse to litigate according to the severity of the impact.  Checks and balances.

As t1dude rightly alluded, a company's dream scenario is to be able to plug the exact cost of unmitigated risk into it's business case. Tort reform does that perfectly and, in doing so, destroys the natural system of checks and balances.  A company may no longer be incented to identify and mitigate individual risks since they already know the full cost of impact.   Calculating risk vs reward becomes a mere actuarial exercise -- no risk analysis required.  Poof... financially incented consumer protections disappear.

Let's look at hospital care, for example.  Let's say hospitals know that the risk of patient mortality increases/decreases according to patient-staff ratios.   Without tort reform, the cost of accepting unmitiaged risk, due to litigation, is quite high so the hospital is incented to identify and mitigate risks to the patient.   With tort reform?  Risk vs reward becomes a mere actuarial exercise...   "We can afford an X% patient mortality rate, therefore we will maintain a staff of (pick a number).

Tort reform clearly rigs the system...  I don't understand why free marketers aren't appalled by it.  And if free marketers are willing to make 'a regulation exception' for companies where liability is concerned, then why not also accept additional regulation on the consumer side to balance out the equation, such as to ensure consumer safety?  True that some exist now, but I'd say they're fairly minimal relative to the drastic impact of minimizing liability caps.

BTW - The warrenty example you mentioned seems to me to be more correctly described as a (valid) mitigation option that reassigns the risk, by mutual agreement, to the consumer. Basically the company is saying, "The reason you can buy this TV for $97 is because we made a business decision to build it with crappy materials that allow us to sell the product low and still make a profit.  The risk is that it could break down in less than a year.  If you desire to purchase this low cost product then YOU must accept the risk that it may break down in less than a year.  If that is not an acceptable risk to you, then you may purchase insurance from us that we will replace this product if it breaks.  If you decide this risk is acceptable and your TV breaks then it is your problem, not ours."  

Disclaimer:  Not a lawyer  :-)

Crap!!! I hit 'post' when I meant to 'preview'.  Okay, you gotta really be twisted if you call Miranda v Arizona 'interpreting the law'.  If that ain't making law, then water ain't wet.  They require that from now one, arresting officers must in such a fashion apprise the arrestee (?) of his rights in that fashion.

Look, it's Saturday, gotta go.  I will continue this Monday.

The courts aren't just there to tell Congress what is or isn't constitutional.  They are there to tell all levels of government what is or isn't constitutional.  In Miranda, it was cops in Arizona refusing to let a suspect talk to his lawyer.  In Rock against Racism, it was the City of New York telling a concert organizer they had to hire a city sound guy.  on and on.  

Congress passes laws.  But 99% of the laws that actually have an impact on you and I are not passed by Congress.  They are administrative rules and regulations.  They are procedures.  They are ad hoc decisions made by local big wigs.  Miranda wasn't challenging a law.  It was challenging a procedure.  From the standpoint of the average citizen, there is no discernible difference.

The court has a check, not only on the legislature, but also on the executive.  Any action by any state agency, can and should be up for constitutional challenge.  If a person is claiming the government violated their constitutional rights, the court is the only place that person can go.  

thanks for the reply

To suggest that asking to prove water is wet is not addressing the problem, but rather simply deflects the question.  I am perfectly willing to accept that your interpretation is accurate, but I'd just like a little proof.

Citing Miranda as "making law" may be an accurate depiction of what the court did, but since you don't disagree with it, what's the point?  

In addition to that, the legislature could easily pass a law that would negate Miranda or any other case law.

As someone else pointed out, the Federalist papers indicate that the judiciary is inherantly the weakest branch because they cannot initiate legislation.  In fact, they cannot do anything unless soemone brings suit to them.  In addition, the legislative branch can override any decision that they come up with, and even amend the constitution.  On top of that judges are appointed and approved by the other two branches.  There have been Republican presidents for 24 of the last 36 years, so if the courts are stacked with "liberal activist" judges, then its fair to say that its the fault of all those Republicans who appointed them.  

Your notion that the judiciary "needs to be reigned in" is foolhearty and dangerous.  The other two branches already are controlled by RW ideologues, and the Supreme Court is not far behind with 5 conservatives and 4 moderates.  Why would you want the courts to also be stacked with these people?  Is your goal 100% abolishment of any checks and balances?  The president has not vetoed one single bill since he took office, there is an example of no checks and balances right there.  The congress is spending like drunken sailors with no one to check them either.  The idea that we need to abolish the independece of the judicary is just plain stupid and probably comes from one of those dumbasses on RW talk radio.  Do yourself a favor and think for yourself.  This is a really bad idea and should be abandoned immediately.  The problem is that people like Tom DeLay are running out of other people to blame.  His latest targets are the judicary and academics.  His party controls everything, and thats still not ebough.  His party controls everything and the only way to draw attention away from the fact that they are royally screwing up is to drum up fears about the "liberals" that want to "take over", even though liberals are already locked out of everything that controls policy.  If they are successful in completely stamping out liberals from all of society, God help us.  That's the main difference between the RW'ers that control everything now and moderates and liberals:  the moderates and liberals want to include everyone at the table, the extremists in power now do not even want others to have a voice.

Your notion that the judiciary "needs to be reigned in" is foolhearty and dangerous.  The other two branches already are controlled by RW ideologues, and the Supreme Court is not far behind with 5 conservatives and 4 moderates.  Why would you want the courts to also be stacked with these people?  Is your goal 100% abolishment of any checks and balances?

When an unelected branch of government, the federal judiciary, takes power away from the elected branches of government (the legislative and the executive), it is appropriate that elected officials redouble their efforts to ensure that future judicial nominees understand  that their role is to interpret the law, not make new law that suits their particular viewpoint.  

When you speak of "checks and balances," you should realize that these where institutional checks and balances, not political checks and balances.  Thus, even when a single political party "controls" all branches of the government, the checks and balances still exist in the sense that the President still holds the veto power, the Congress still holds the power to impeach and appropriate money and so on.  

Where exactly has the judicicary branch taken power away from the other two branches and kept it for itself?  Almost every controversial court decision I can think of has given more power to the individual.

Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education

Roe vs. Wade

Ms. Schiavo's case

Obviously these are vastly different cases, but in each of those instances, the courts ruled that the government in some form was overstepping its bounds into personal matters or taking rights away from citizens.  The power that the federal and/or legislative branches lost didn't go to the judiciary branch, but to "the people".

Maybe I'm missing something from your argument, but I don't see where the courts are gaining power.  I see individuals gaining more say over their lives, which I feel is a good thing.

Thanks.

your citation correcting my poor typing skills is funny.  that's really a great point you are making.  I am glad that the level of my typing skills is of important debate on this topic.

As to your response, I'll turn your question around and ask you where there is proof in the [C]onstitution (happy?) that these judges have over stepped their bounds.  All this sh-t is subjective, which is the whole point.

If in your view, [C]ongress (happy?) passing a law for one single person that rekmoves litigation that has worked its way through the entire judicial system all the way to the [S]upreme [C]ourt three times, is not an example of [C]ongress (happy?) stepping into the role of the judicary, then what would be an example?

It sounds like you would only be happy if Congress had the power to do whatever they want and answer to no one.  Ask youself how you would feel if the tables were turned and a Democratic [C]ongress passing a law to undo what the [C]ourts have done?  

BTW, everyone knows that you are a good patriot because you can type well.  Great Job.  I think I will nominate you for a [C]ongressional Medal of Honor.  I know that people like me who have difficulty typing are not worthy of such awards, but excellent people such as yourself who can not only type well, but are also able to point out others who cannot type as well should be honored for your exceptional skills.  I bet that you go to Church more often than me, and you probably give more to charity than I do.  I mean, if you weren't opposed to euthanasia, I'd just ask you to put me out of my misery.  Can you show me how to be like you?

Two language violations in one day, using the same expletive, and the second after a warning. Bye.

Where exactly has the judicicary branch taken power away from the other two branches and kept it for itself?

Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education

Roe vs. Wade

Ms. Schiavo's case

In the Roe vs. Wade decision, the federal judiciary took the power to regulate abortion away from the legislative and executive branch.  The individual rights of the unborn child could, thus, no longer be taken into account by the elected representatives of the people because unelected representatives took that power away.  

Now, you might prefer that abortion be legal.  But it's clear that the judiciary took power away from elected officials.

They'd say the legislature never had that power, and had been violating the Constitution for years.

Is this a legal fiction?  Maybe.  

But bear in mind that the court is powerless to stop the other branches from doing something, unless someone brings a claim challenging it.  Even if the court knows that Congress or the President is doing something very unconstitutional.  They still have to sit on their robes until someone, with a viable, ripe claim, showing actual harm, and who has standing to bring a suit brings a suit, and is willing to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court.  AND the members of the court are politically, and prudentially willing to take the case.  Only then, will the court even entertain the question.

My point was that the judiciary branch took power away from government and gave it to individual people.  They didn't, for example, say that anyone who wanted an abortion had to go to the courts to get approval instead of Congress.  But I realize that you weren't exactly making the point that more power to the government is a great thing in all instances.

In the case of Ms. Schiavo, I was very uncomfortable with the idea that members of Congress openly criticized the federal judges for not following the intent of Congress to reopen the entire case after "Terri's Law" was passed.  That's clearly not how our government is set up, for one branch to dictate to the other what they want them to do.

I'm off tangent a bit, but I just wanted to bring up the point that in every case I can think of, the court ruled that individual people were entitled to more power than the federal or legislative branches had been giving them, not that the judiciary branch should have more power.

My point was that the judiciary branch took power away from government and gave it to individual people.

In the case of Roe versus Wade, one could not agree with the statement you made above if one beleives that an unborn child is an "individual person."  Is an unborn child a person?  That's a question that elected legislatures can answer.  

I am not certain that the federal judiciary has always ruled in favor of "individual people."  Certainly, when a federal judge forced the state of Missouri, in 1989, to provide funding for Kansas City schools in excess of the amount elected officials were willing to provide, the court was not "empowering individuals," it was empowering government and ignoring the principle of "no taxation without representation."  

An unelected judge determining how much money should be spent on education.  That's one reason, among many, that many believe we need to restrain the judiciary.

I don't know the details of that case so I can't disagree with you.  If I remember correctly, there was some issue of unsafe school conditions that played a part there, and the judge ruled that the government has a responsibility to provide bare minimums of quality in school.  But I could be way off base.

The argument about whether an unborn child is an individual isn't the exclusive domain of the legislative branch, although I'm not sure exactly who gets to decide that.  Obviously reasonable people can disagree about that determination.

The courts aren't just there to tell Congress what is or isn't constitutional.  They are there to tell all levels of government what is or isn't constitutional.

As far as I can see E Pluribus wasn't contesting that point. His complaint is that the courts are prescribing policy solutions when their job is simply to determine constitutionality and rule accordingly. If the act, law, regulation, etc. is Constitutional, they leave it alone. If not, they strike it down and leave it for the affected branches to fashion a another solution that would pass constitutional muster.

Were the court simply to say yea or nay on a particular claim, Congress would have a difficult time knowing what to do.  That is the purpose of the opinion.  To inform the offending party of what they did wrong.  That way they don't repeat themselves.

You have to tell them why they overstepped their bounds lest they continue to violate people's rights.  And if you are being generous, you might even save them (and us) the trouble, and say not only is Z unconstitutional, but even X is unconstitutional; though I can tell you for sure that W would work, and so on.  But all this would merely be dicta.  Informative, but not binding.

The Wall Street Journal opined this week that Delay has become just another politician who forgot why he was elected and has confused his self-interest for the party's interest.

In an ideal world, W would sit him down and tell him it's time to go, or at least to move to the back benches like lott. OR, again in an ideal world, a strong GOP candidate would whip his butt in the next primary.

Delay's situation is symptomatic of a party that has gotten used to power and lost its sense of purpose. If you want to see how bad it can get look at Ohio. Our RINO governor is rated the worst in the country, our legislators cooperated with the unions to keep a sales tax repeal initiative off the ballot, and treats the real conservatives like Secretary of State Ken Blackwell like pariahs.

The Democratic Party crackup, should it occur, may not be the good thing we all think it is without a strong ideological challenger to the current GOP.  Ohio's Democratic Party is moribund at the statewide level, and look what it got us here-just about the worst economy in the country.

Actually, Seattle, both your 2 posts('rather inefficient' and I'respectfully disagree') are wonderful  - dang, you are a clear thinker.  What you state differs practically none with my theology.  Sidebar -- somewhere you got the idea that I would not have the Court ruling on Constitutionality of anything but Acts of Congress -- if I implied that, it was not intentional.  But you make a telling statement here:  [Z's no good, X is no good, but W would work, and so on] But all this would merely be dicta.  Informative, but not binding.  That's perfectly, exactly what would be the judiciary's proper Constitutionally supported role in my view.  But that's uptopia.

Every cop in America knows that if he/she fails to properly 'Mirandize' a suspect, any evidence gotten from subsequence statements will be thrown out in court. In the wake of Miranda, law enforcement entities all over America codified all that into regs, procedures, policies.  Possibly it was codified by legislatures and city ordinances for all I know.  But the trial judge will toss the evidence solely on the basis of Miranda.  Any state law (or the like) is entirely superfluous to that trial judge, and to appellate judges all the way up to SCOTUS.  So what does this mean?  It means that Miranda v Arizona is the de facto law of the land.  And it came from a Court, not a legislature.

Miranda is the poster boy of 'judicial legislation'.  It tells the the prosecutors that you must do this, this, and this, and you can't do that, that, and that.  So on the question of 'do the courts legislate from the bench', can there be any answer other than.....

Game.  Set.  Match.

BTW, my second poster child for T1 was going to be US v Jefferson County Board of Education, but I am having a booger of a time getting the actual text (and a link) of that.  It was the 5th Circuit in either 1966 or 1967.  I can get it out of LexisNexis (I think), but I'd have to pay for it, and I couldn't link it for us.  Can any of you folks more resourceful than me (or I? this was always an obtuse grammatical construct IMO) find that?  And just for the record, I abhor racism in every form, the separate-but-equal crap and all the rest, and I don't have a rebel flag tacked up in my garage (quick, name that song!)  so don't go off on that tangent.

and likewise back at you.

This is gonna be rude, but ya know, they don't serve tea and crumpets here at RedState.  You gotta make your case and support it, or you get run over.

OK, let's start.  simply deflects the question Really?  You see me deflecting the question?  See my posts, starting with the one you replied to, and add to that 'I'm busy but....' and 'close to perfect...', and I'll also co-opt Martin's 'missing point....'.  And Seattle has has brought out fine points and forced me to make my case.  Yep, that's me, dodging the question I guess. I'd just like a little proof  Yep, same answer, I guess I've not made any case at all.  You guys always ask for proof from the RW-ers, but you sure feel free to fling your snotty, unsupported aspersions wide and far -- in the above post, e.g., The other two branches already are controlled by RW ideologues and the only way to draw attention away from the fact that they are royally screwing up ... and dumbasses on RW talk radio and the extremists in power now do not even want others to have a voice.  Get this straight, NFG.  I've worked my BUTT off to support my contention that Miranda is a classic case of 'legislating from the bench'.  I've cited, given examples, split fine points, and issued a coloring book for those who were educated in my home state of Texas.  Why don't you make a point, stick to it, and support it instead of quoting us from the MoveOn hymnal?  "making law" may be an accurate depiction...but since you don't disagree with it, what's the point? BECAUSE IT IS NOT THEIR JOB. (I have the feeling this has been mentioned somewhere around here before....)

the legislature could easily pass a law that would negate Miranda or any other case law.  Ah, nope.  Any such law passed would be struck down before the ink was dry, and laughed out of town.  Or let's play a new game.  Give me an example of where a law was passed that successfully negated case law.  Like to see that one....  And just an aside -- any debate in which you are contending the courts don't legislate, you might avoid the term 'case law'.  the legislative branch can override any decision that they come up with such as that ban Congress put on partial-birth abortion and even amend the constitution which is a piece of cake compared to how difficult it is for 5 unelected, lifetime-serving, unaccountable judges to, with a stroke of a pen, redefine the Constitution because, over the course of 16 years, 'evolving standards of decency' and because 'the Europeans say so', executing 16-and-17 yr old capital murderers .... you know the rest.

so if the courts are stacked with "liberal activist" judges, then its fair to say that its the fault of all those Republicans who appointed them.  Actually, you are exactly right.  Some STUPID appointments.  5 conservatives and 4 moderates oh my stars.... OK, give me a definition of 'conservative' and 'moderate' that gets us those numbers.  This I gotta see. What does it take, by your definition, to be a 'liberal' judge?  And my sakes, on what planet is Ruth 'ACLU chief counsel' Ginsberg considered a moderate?  Here's the deal -- 3 conservative, 2 moderate, 4 liberal.  And I'm well aware of who nominated who.  

Is your goal 100% abolishment of any checks and balances?  It's fair for you to ask questions.  No -- it's to re-establish checks and balances.  Clearly we disagree on what the existing situation is. But I'm making arguments to try to persuade you.  You're just slinging mud.  You need to cite or quote something, or bring some evidence of some fact to the table.  I can play nice, but I'm not going to until you start supporting arguments.

The president has not vetoed one single bill since he took office, there is an example of no checks and balances right there. Nope.  Let's review Poli-Sci 101.  He has that perogative, therefore checks exist.  Very often the THREAT of veto significantly affects legislation, and GWB has wielded this club very often. The idea that we need to abolish the independece of the judicary is just plain stupid'independence of the judiciary' -- a multiple-choice question.  Does the Constitution (a) establish each branch as completely independent , or (b) provide for checks and balances?  Those are mutually exclusive concepts.  I'll quit being coy and make my point.  The Constitution gives each branch power to SEVERELY meddle in the affairs of the other, and this was intentional, so as to keep any of them from going rogue.  But it does require some manly action sometimes for each to apply its 'checks'.  Vetos, amendments, and impeachments are very difficult. dumbasses on RW talk radio as opposed to the brilliant Al Franken.  And generally speaking, LW radio can't get and keep an audience.  I wonder why?  Do yourself a favor and think for yourself.  Ya know, you're right.  I've been on the phone most of the night with Tom Delay and Rush Limbaugh formulating my response to you, and I lifted my whole Miranda thing, word for word,  from the Weekly Standard, all because I can't think for myself.   [Tom Delay's] party controls everything Yeah, that's why Terri Schiavo is dead, Roe v Wade still stands, and the 8th Amendment now means that it's 'cruel and unusual' to execute somebody who was 17 when he kidnapped a woman at random, bound and gagged her, drove her to the river and threw her off the train bridge to drown, basically for entertainment and because he thought he would not be executed because he was a minor. Because Delay's party controls everything, you can't say the word Jesus in a public school in America (unless it's a curse word) or call Christmas 'Christmas'.

liberals are already locked out of everything that controls policy well, convince Americans to vote your guys into office.  Oh wait, never mind, how about you get all your agenda enacted by judicial fiat?  (methinks this idea may have already leaked to the other side...) the moderates and liberals want to include everyone at the table, the extremists in power now do not even want others to have a voice  Yeah, that's always what the party in the minority says.  Prove me wrong.

T1, I took all this time to deconstruct your post, because I want you to smell what it is you are shoveling.  Start making arguments and supporting them, or pointing out real holes in the arguments of others, or really, just go back to the kiddy pool.

That's straight, right?  I ask, because lately my powers in detecting subtle satire can be called into question .  [for a laugh, you have to see it -- check out the Streiff diary 'Worst Economy in 10,000 years', and see the Corky/E Pluribus exchange.  Talk about gullible.....]

What I envy you most is how compact -- I am just killed by taking up too much space to get my point across.  But a question -- have I made, in your estimation, a solid case for Miranda as 'legislating from the bench'?  There's a weak flank -- do we really know that SCOTUS INTENDED it to be treated that way?  Methinks so, but it'd be a DOG really proving that, and a 'legislating from the bench' charge implies intent.

Addendum -- I just wrote an extremely nasty gram to T1, then found out Thomas deep-6'ed him over language. So he won't even get to read it, and I may be legitimately due a censure for being so gratuitously rude.  Just got tired of the wild accusations, so I deconstructed him point-by-point.  And enjoyed it.

Your comments seemed sincere enough, and I enjoy having the opportunity to actually discuss issues with people whom I disagree with.  It is good for us.  It helps us understand our own positions as well as those of the contrary argument.  

I have a tendency to piss people off.  I don't try to, I usually just mirror the same level of discourse back at people.  That said, when a poster such as yourself, has the class to admit a well worded point, and to not be personally offended by my remarks, I truly appreciate it.

As for SCOTUS, certainly police violate Miranda at their own peril.  So it is technically a legal fiction to claim that the police have not had their hands forced by the court.  However, I can practically guarantee that the Court doesn't see it that way.  (and since you are generous enough to require intent . . .)  Here is an analogy.

The court looks at the Constitution as Bedrock.  State Constitutions are like hills upon that bedrock.  State actors can build structures upon this bedrock, and can move about it, or fly above it.  But once they start digging, the Court says no.  

Everyone agrees with this analogy.  Where people differ is that the Bedrock is not well defined.  The surveyors left us only a few bare notes.  So the Court is constantly having to reinterpret these notes to determine where the bedrock actually lies.  Sometimes, when this happens, you find out that every structure in the entire country (though they didn't know it) has a root cellar.  

The 'legislating from the bench' claim implies that the Courts are writing laws.  They would counter that they are not writing the Constitution.  They are merely upholding it.  

Now of course people disagree over what the Constitution means.  But to simply enforce your reading of the Constitution is not to legislate.  The alternative would be to ignore a violation of the Constitution as you know it.

Sorry for the long reply.  Kind of sad about T1.  Whether you agreed with him or not, he wasn't all bad.  Kind of hate to see someone go for filling in the blanks on B---S---.  

..."get a room you too." haha. LOL

I think the discussion of opposing ideals in a respectful manner is what makes this site so great.

Of course there are always bad/ignorant apples, but for the most, the moderators make sure that every opinion is respected here.

OK, give me a definition of 'conservative' and 'moderate' that gets us those numbers.  This I gotta see. What does it take, by your definition, to be a 'liberal' judge?  And my sakes, on what planet is Ruth 'ACLU chief counsel' Ginsberg considered a moderate?  Here's the deal -- 3 conservative, 2 moderate, 4 liberal.  And I'm well aware of who nominated who.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!

Nothing annoys and amuses me more than seeing the Left trying to describe a moderate. Usually it's someone who supports gay marriage, abortion legal till the day before delivery, racial preferences, opposes school choice, likes taxes high, etc.

In other words, a Leftist.

Although reading that it appears that the comment that the judiciary is the least of the three branches is more of an observations of how things are, not as how they should be.

Also, this passage seems to state that the judiciary cannot be a threat to the constitution, which is in conflict with the assertions of many of our representatives.

...thing off.  What movie is that from anyway?  Thanks, Martin.  After I wrote that, I was hoping nobody would pin me down on that 3-2-4 by asking me what criteria I was using to separate the 2 mods from the 4 libs.  I'm not sure I can, except to say those 2 are just not 'reliable' liberals.

Much as one may detest, f'rex, Doggett's voting, he did represent the people of Austin, TX.  The re-districting was a rather transparent attempt to draw him out of a job.  Now then, whatever you believe about one's politics, having your Congressman actually represent you seems to be a fairly important element of running a republic.

Although I fear that my off-the-charts rudeness to him had made our exchanges unredeemably messy, and actively contributed to his tone.  I'm gonna stop that (well, I'll try -- like you I'm prone to respond in kind).  I understand minimal curbs on civil discourse, it's their blog, and they can call the ball.  But OTOH it really takes minimal wattage to figure out that if you must express yourself that way, you can get away with BS, WTF, arse, SOB, and the like.  So there's a certain Darwinian thing ruthlessly weeding out the weak.

Interesting, I'm inclined to agree with you that (most) judges don't consider what they do 'legislating from the bench' (how 'bout we acronym this puppy, LFTB). But I'd bet money that a certain   percentage do it in full knowledge, if the real truth could be known.  Like I said, a DOG to prove that one.

I think that on the LFTB topic, there's not much to continue with since we (1) have common ground on much of it, and (2) probably aren't going to persuade each other on the rest, but we sufficiently understand the logic guiding our respective positions.  So we must resolve this like men.  Shots every 5 minutes until there's only one left standing.  My weapon of choice -- Jose Cuervo Gold.  And I've already fired the first salvo.  Second too, actually.

Re: (1) I've seen no polls showing a lopsided support of gays in the military; and we're dealing with 1992, not now.

Yes, we are dealing with 1992 and yes, then gays in the military struck a small majority as a outlandish idea. Noawadys however support for this is up around 70%. The reasons for this change are pretty simple. First off, "Don't ask, don't tell" has gotten most people used to the idea of gays in uniform. Secondly the current security needs of the US make discrmination in this area seem like an unaffordable luxury. Finally, should there ever be a new draft, the ban on open gays in the military would have to go since otherwise it would create a loophole the size of Mt. Everest to allow any draftee to opt out. (Under the old draft this was not so much a problem because there was a huge stigma against homosexuality. Nowadays that is no longer true and plenty of draft-dodging young men and women would have no problem decalring themselves gay to get out of service).

Re: (2) The relevant bills may or may not have been popular with the public at large; what they were not, was popular with off-year election voters.

You may recall that voters in the off-year election of 1990 (remember Harris Wofford?) were pretty fired up about healthcare reform. And in 1992 it was a winning issue for Clinton as well. The problem was that reform, in general, was quite popular. But any specific proposal was and is not, since any sepcific propsal creates losers as well as winners.

Re: (3) It's because of government intervention in the healthcare industry that we're where we are. Start with ERISA and work

I rather agree with you on this. However, to get back to a market-based system you are going to need some form of public regulation and a shift of the tax system to accommodate it. MSAs for example will need the favorable treatment that employer-paid insurance currently has. And health insurers issuing major medical policies will have to be required to use strict community rating so as to avoid the problem if "cherry-picking" subscribers since this ends up shifting the burrden of insuring the chronically ill and elderly onto public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Ideally we should trying to phase out those public programs--but to do that the private market will have to step up and assume their role instead. Currently the market is corrupted by its preferrence for large groups and healthy young people, and it will not reform itself spontaneously.

So please pardon me if this is brief.

(1) I assure you, young men might be more likely than in the Seventies to say they're gay to avoid military service, but they are not in any large numbers likely to do so.

I still see no citation to polls to the effect that you state.

I doubt that assuming the numbers are right, the causes you attribute to them are.

(2) Actually, the problem in 1994 was that a specific kind of reform was on the table, and that reform was unacceptable to the voting public that year. Which is what I was saying, and what I suspect you're saying, but we're coming from different angles.

(3) Insurance is not "corrupted" by preference for large risk pools and healthy young people. It is how insurance works. They only profit if they take in premia and don't have to pay out as much. Higher risks either mean higher premia or exit from the market. Because our bread and circus democracy refuses to countenance higher premia, insurance companies simply leave markets.

Contrary to what you may think, the world is not a neatly organized place where legislatures think of *every* concievable possible law that society may need before the need arises.  Nor is congress the omniscient body that you seem to think they are.  Rarely are laws written by the legislature so that they are completely unambiguous and need no interpretation.  Are you proposing that the legislature both write and interpret the law?  What would the courts be for then?  Would they serve only as impotent fact-finding bodies?

Furthermore, if you do not like that the Supreme Court is the final authority of the U.S. Constitution, then blame that on the predecessors to the Republican party, the Federalists. The Federalist party is responsible for this outcome when they decided Marbury v. Madison in 1803.  As much as you may think that the courts have no authority to interpret the Consitution, and therefore all laws, you would be incorrect on that point.  Go read Marbury v. Madison and see for yourself.  Here is a synopsis on the U.S. State Dept's website:

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm

Aires - great post.  I just have one thing to add.  sorry I am so late. :-) Rock mentioned that he thought that "contracts should trump tort".  This is a nice slaogan that sounds like an easy solution, but ask yourself this:  Do we really want to allow people to sign away their right to torts protection?  If you logically follow where this leads, it will mean that the slick and savvy (corporations and companies who can pay a legion of lawyers to draw up contracts) will have a license to abuse the less informed or less able.  If contracts trump torts, then it would be legal for you to sign away your right to sue someone who kowingly put you in harm's way and concealed the harm from you in order to encourage you to sign.  does that sound fair?