Politics: A new beginning

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
you mean cases.

From Dred Scott to Roe v. Wade, I'd argue that outcome oriented cases have been rather serious repeated threats to our Democracy.

It's not "judicial activism" I'd criticize, as I believe the ongoing application of a 200+ year old document requires that the underlying principals be dynamic and that the process be interpretive. But whenever a case struggles with its own logic, there is a problem. And I'm not sure which prior cases you are thinking of, but Dred, Roe and Gore are all ones that do struggle with their logic as I read them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
From Dred Scott to Roe v. Wade, I'd argue that outcome oriented cases have been rather serious repeated threats to our Democracy.

It's not "judicial activism" I'd criticize, as I believe the ongoing application of a 200+ year old document requires that the underlying principals be dynamic and that the process be interpretive. But whenever a case struggles with its own logic, there is a problem. And I'm not sure which prior cases you are thinking of, but Dred, Roe and Gore are all ones that do struggle with their logic as I read them.

I think bilmore and sgtclub are suggesting that all court decisions are outcome-determinative, and that we are kidding ourselves if we think courts act out of any principle except partisan gain.

The wonderful thing about this world view is that it lets you stomach the way Cheney and Rove govern. It's not just your guys who are craven partisan tools -- it's all the judges and Democrats, too.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think bilmore and sgtclub are suggesting that all court decisions are outcome-determinative, and that we are kidding ourselves if we think courts act out of any principle except partisan gain.

The wonderful thing about this world view is that it lets you stomach the way Cheney and Rove govern. It's not just your guys who are craven partisan tools -- it's all the judges and Democrats, too.

You really make me laugh sometimes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I think bilmore and sgtclub are suggesting that all court decisions are outcome-determinative, and that we are kidding ourselves if we think courts act out of any principle except partisan gain.

I sincerely hope not. I know Bilmore regularly subscribes to the "you're a D, I'm an R, so of course we hate each other's policies because we hate each other's parties", but I don't think I've heard him extend that view to the courts. And I believe Sgt.
Club does understand that policy is usually made between the parties, not by one party alone, and that politics is over who has the upper hand, not the only hand.

Bilmore's view is a view which I'd say is probably more conditioned by being immersed in the lawyerly advocate role than in a political/policy world, and needs to be kept that way.

(repeatedly edited for no good reason)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I know Bilmore regularly subscribes to the "you're a D, I'm an R, so of course we hate each other's policies because we hate each other's parties" . . .

No. Reverse them.

[bilmore]

The interview:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecor...ive.asp#022684

You don't need to bring it up again. We'll just agree to disagree. But read it. You'll be a wiser pers . . . . okay, you'll be better informed.

See who O'Neill is going to vote for in 2004.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
The interview:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecor...ive.asp#022684

You don't need to bring it up again. We'll just agree to disagree. But read it. You'll be a wiser pers . . . . okay, you'll be better informed.

See who O'Neill is going to vote for in 2004.

I've read it, and I still don't understand what you are talking about, except that perhaps we have been reading different accounts of the advance clips. Much of what I've read came from DeLong's blog, and (surprisingly enough) he's more interested in details of economic policy that you might not be reading about elsewhere.

[andViolins]

A site just for the Sarge.

http://www.billionairesforbush.com/

I especially like the bumpersticker selection.






aV

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
A site just for the Sarge.


aV

That's funny. I just wish the cuts were actually in effect.

[sgtclub]

http://www.reuters.com/printerFriend...toryID=4122035

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.reuters.com/printerFriend...toryID=4122035

Won't do much good. I understand Dean pretty much has a lock on the South.

[sgtclub]

http://usatoday.printthis.clickabili...partnerID=1660

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://usatoday.printthis.clickabili...partnerID=1660

Well yeah, but I understand the recommendation was based upon some faulty info Bush provided at a Govenor's meeting.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well yeah, but I understand the recommendation was based upon some faulty info Bush provided at a Govenor's meeting.

Honest question: do you guys see Dean's differentiation between unilateral humanitarian missions and unilateral military intervention as being hypocritical?

His explanation of the seeming contradiction made sense to me, but as you might guess I'm rather more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt on these things than you are...

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Honest question: do you guys see Dean's differentiation between unilateral humanitarian missions and unilateral military intervention as being hypocritical?

His explanation of the seeming contradiction made sense to me, but as you might guess I'm rather more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt on these things than you are...

I don't answer hypotheticals, but I think you are comparing to Iraq. I'll answer accordingly.
There were humanitarian reasons for taking out Sadamm. Do you differentiate because thet were put forth as the 4th or 5th reason?