Politics As Usual

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why isn't the same sector of the public that screams for the public release of this [purportedly disgusting] material also not lambasting the media for their self-censorship of (1) the 9/11 WTC footage, (2) the Fallujah burnings and (3) the numerous beheading videos?

Because there is something we can do about it?

Just one guess among many.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
[passengers give up first class seats for soldiers]

I thought you were opposed to wealth redistribution.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
These are two different things. I want whatever happened to be a matter of record, because I think it otherwise will be whitewashed and not dealt with adequately. Sunlight the best disinfectant, and all that. I do not, however, want to see any of it -- torture, WTC, Fallujah, beheadings, Game 7 of the ALCS -- unless I go looking for it.

In that case, haven't the pictures/videos already been released to the Senate? I'm sure there are plenty of anti-Adminstration types in that body that will make sure punishment is ultimately meted out.

That being said, any further release will only serve to feed the passions of the mob - and that is precisely why we're being told the other videos are being hidden from view

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I thought you were opposed to wealth redistribution.

I'm opposed to cohersed wealth redistribution.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In that case, haven't the pictures/videos already been released to the Senate? I'm sure there are plenty of anti-Adminstration types in that body that will make sure punishment is ultimately meted out.

In camera production to the Senate won't really accomplish much, in my cynical estimation. The Senate doesn't get to punish anyone. Their investigations only work by drawing public attention.

That being said, any further release will only serve to feed the passions of the mob - and that is precisely why we're being told the other videos are being hidden from view

What you call "the passions of the mob" are what we call democracry in action, and if you believe in the democracy -- and are willing to send Americans to die in Iraq for it -- then you have to be willing to trust people to do the right thing in hard circumstances like this.

[Gattigap]

Since the GOP has been unable to muster the requisite support to amend the Constitution and eradicate the scourge of gay marriage, Smiling Tom DeLay and your Grand Old Party will soon be seeking to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear controversies for which the GOP might not like the result.

Certainly, Congress has the ability to define the jurisdiction of the lower courts, but I am unaware of past attempts to use federal jurisdiction as a tool for the advancement of social policy. The GOP gets points for creativity, if nothing else.

As the article mentions, gay marriage is first on the GOP wish list, but fortunately there's more fun stuff in the wings. Pledge cases are next, and though DeLay feels abortion is "not yet ripe," it's comforting to know that at least it's on his mind. At least this'll clear up that troublesome hurdle for nominees to the federal judiciary, right?

I thought that past attempts of the GOP to (say) eliminate filibusters for judicial nominees were beyond the pale, but I was wrong.

Could someone please tell the GOP that THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A FUCKING STRETCH ARMSTRONG. If you really think something should be so, then you should be able to -- you know -- pass laws with the majority that you hold in Congress, or (if you really think it's fundamentally important, and don't wish treat the Constitution as casually as toilet paper) actually lead, convince people that you're right on the issue, and amend the Constitution. If you cannot accomplish your goals throught these tried and true paths -- notwithstanding your majority position, or your president's moral gravitas and ostensible support of all god-fearing, law-abiding Americans -- then you should MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.

The elimination of filibusters, restriction of federal court jurisdiction, and potentially "postponment" of federal elections in the event of terrorist attacks are not intended to be nifty levers for the achievement of your pet social policies.

That is all.

Gattigap

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
In camera production to the Senate won't really accomplish much, in my cynical estimation. The Senate doesn't get to punish anyone. Their investigations only work by drawing public attention.

Are you telling me that every single Senator would sweep this under the rug? Ted? Chuck? Even I'm not that cynical.

What you call "the passions of the mob" are what we call democracry in action, and if you believe in the democracy -- and are willing to send Americans to die in Iraq for it -- then you have to be willing to trust people to do the right thing in hard circumstances like this.

Who are the "people" in your above sentence? The Senate - who you seem to think will not do the right thing. The media? I'm confused.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Are you telling me that every single Senator would sweep this under the rug? Ted? Chuck? Even I'm not that cynical.

I'm saying there's not much they can do if they can't make the information public.

Who are the "people" in your above sentence? The Senate - who you seem to think will not do the right thing. The media? I'm confused.

Politicians respond to public pressure. Public pressure will lead to investigation/prosecution/demotion/litigation/etc.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Since the GOP has been unable to muster the requisite support to amend the Constitution and eradicate the scourge of gay marriage, Smiling Tom DeLay and your Grand Old Party will soon be seeking to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear controversies for which the GOP might not like the result.

At the risk of inspiring Not Me to post long quotations from case law in boldface, isn't it Con Law 101 that Congress can prescribe the jurisdiction of the Article III courts only to the extent it isn't granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution --- i.e., they can only limit the J of courts they "ordain and establish," which is every federal court except the SCOTUS?

Which means if you yank the J of the District and Circuit courts, all you do is multiply the original proceedings in the SCOTUS?

[dtb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Take Slate's blue-state/red-state quiz.

In a surprise only to those who think they know me from this board, I'm in the middle, but tending a little red.

I'm in the middle. Exactly in the middle.

Which is which? Is there a way to see what the right answers are, as opposed to just seeing how many red/blue points you get for each answer?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
At the risk of inspiring Not Me to post long quotations from case law in boldface, isn't it Con Law 101 that Congress can prescribe the jurisdiction of the Article III courts only to the extent it isn't granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution --- i.e., they can only limit the J of courts they "ordain and establish," which is every federal court except the SCOTUS?

Which means if you yank the J of the District and Circuit courts, all you do is multiply the original proceedings in the SCOTUS?

Perhaps Smiling Tom is relying on the resulting backlog to push an actual hearing of a Jurisdiction Impacted Case back to say, 2015. Or he's betting that at such time, future Chief Justice Thomas will convince his colleagues consistently to deny cert.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
If you really think something should be so, then you should be able to -- you know -- pass laws with the majority that you hold in Congress, or (if you really think it's fundamentally important, and don't wish treat the Constitution as casually as toilet paper) actually lead, convince people that you're right on the issue, and amend the Constitution. If you cannot accomplish your goals throught these tried and true paths -- notwithstanding your majority position, or your president's moral gravitas and ostensible support of all god-fearing, law-abiding Americans -- then you should MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.

Just to be devil's advocate, DOMA was accomplished through tried and true paths and I think we can all agree it is only a matter of time before a federal judge somewhere will choose to invalidate it.

Have I mentioned lately that DeLay needs a muzzle?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Just to be devil's advocate, DOMA was accomplished through tried and true paths and I think we can all agree it is only a matter of time before a federal judge somewhere will choose to invalidate it.

Why do we think DOMA will be invalidated? On federal Equal Protection grounds?

[SlaveNoMore]

Just because it wouldn't be a day on the PB without it, Instapundit takes note that the "non-partisan" Wilson's website is registered and paid for by the Kerry campaign

Here

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Just to be devil's advocate, DOMA was accomplished through tried and true paths and I think we can all agree it is only a matter of time before a federal judge somewhere will choose to invalidate it.

Maybe. More devoted Con Law scholars than I doubt that such an outcome is inevitable, so there's some room for debate.

However, even if that's the case, Congress can try to fashion a new law that fits within SCOTUS' ruling, whatever that might turn out to be, or -- again -- try to amend the constitution. See prior post for the two tried and true paths. Even though I might disagree with the goal, I have no qualms with the process. What infuriates me is DeLay's intent to warp the governmental structure to obtain what the tried and true cannot.

Have I mentioned lately that DeLay needs a muzzle?

Dunno, but it's a good way to start each day, don't you agree?

[Inserted Effette Liberal Comment Sure to Push Me To The Blue Tinge]: As it happens, was watching a Tivo'ed West Wing last night and saw some Republicans arguing over debatable tactics in attacking Bartlet, where one exclaims "This is why good people hate us. This thing, right here."

The Republican to whom it was directed didn't look like DeLay, particularly, but it fits so well that I can only assume that this was so only because CAA simply didn't have an actor available with the right hair.

Gattigap