Congress has lost its mind... - Page 3

Bullitt · 05-29-2004, 12:17 PM

Soo.. aren't the Checks and Balances in our government the very foundation of it? If this passes, I'm leavin this damn country. No reason to stay if it's gonna get f****ed up this bad and theres nothing the other branches can do about it.
See ya'll in australia.

jaguar · 05-29-2004, 12:21 PM

Quote:

See ya'll in australia.

Trust me it isn't much better.
Beaches are good though.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-29-2004, 12:25 PM

And the sharks,...er,....dolphins are way bigger.

smoothmoniker · 05-29-2004, 01:27 PM

a'ight, I'll play devils advocate on this one.

In an age of judicial activism, a federal court can write de-facto law; for good or for ill, this is what happened in Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, [insert case here]. The opinions of 5 people sitting on the Supreme Court can alter the rule of law for 300 million people, in 50 states.

Should there not be some measure of oversight to that power? A 2/3 vote of congress is extremely difficult to get, on any matter. The only time congress would be able to exercise this power would be in cases of egregious action by the court, where the vast majority of both parties were in disagreement with the ruling of the court.

Say for example that Dubya gets to stack the court, and the court decides to overturn Roe v. Wade in all cases, even where the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Seems fairly easy to get a 2/3 vote from congress to overturn that ruling. Without this bill, you would have to get your fingers sticky in the guts of the constitution to enumerate and specify a privacy right that extends to abortion.

All this does, essentially, is lower the bar from constitutional amendment to veto override. It seems like an appropriate check of judicial power.

-sm

Bullitt · 05-30-2004, 06:12 AM

But if i'm not mistaken, the Judicial Branch ( the Supreme Court) has no power to take any action on its decisions. It has to rely on the other segments of the government to do its bidding. So, this would pretty much bring the Courts down to the level of a whining little brother who can't do jack and no one listens to him (noone being Congress).

xoxoxoBruce · 05-30-2004, 07:13 AM

Aren't the henchmen of the Supremes the lower courts, who do have the power to enforce those decisions. They can jail your ass for contempt (even well earned contempt), leaving you no recourse. I don't think you can even appeal a contempt order, but I may be wrong on that.

Torrere · 05-30-2004, 09:53 PM

And once Congress has the power, will the President want it too?

xoxoxoBruce · 05-30-2004, 10:03 PM

Of course he will, so will Radar.

05-30-2004, 10:22 PM

The president will want whatever he's told he wants by corporate America. Radar just wants to kill 'em all.

classicman · 06-10-2009, 01:30 PM

bump...

U.S. House restricts ethics probes

Quote:

Convinced that many members of Congress had lost their moral compass, voters sided with Democrats and thrust Republicans from power.

But when the limelight faded, the controversies took an unexpected twist: Democrats, now in control, sought to block or limit prosecutors from gathering certain evidence of corruption against members of Congress on constitutional grounds, complicating the criminal cases against the two Republicans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the Democratic leadership joined with top Republicans to continue a years-long tradition authorizing the House general counsel's office to intervene in outside investigations of its members.

Through court filings, the bipartisan coalition sought the exclusion of evidence it said was obtained in violation of Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause protects the legislative branch from meddling by the other two branches, declaring that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place."

Mrs. Pelosi's office makes no apologies. There is "no incompatibility between adherence to the constitutional protections of the Speech or Debate Clause and the effective investigation and prosecution of members of Congress accused of wrongdoing"

You just gotta read this article - There is no difference in these people they are all the top dogs when it comes to corruption greed and power-grabbing.

ZenGum · 06-10-2009, 08:33 PM

Interesting thread ... LMAO at Clod's form letter.

What happened about the original bill?

TheMercenary · 06-10-2009, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

bump...

U.S. House restricts ethics probes

You just gotta read this article - There is no difference in these people they are all the top dogs when it comes to corruption greed and power-grabbing.

Demoncrats call that "transparency"....

TGRR · 06-11-2009, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

This can't be happening.

You bet your life it is.

TheMercenary · 06-12-2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

bump...

U.S. House restricts ethics probes

You just gotta read this article - There is no difference in these people they are all the top dogs when it comes to corruption greed and power-grabbing.

That is just rich. What a bunch of wankers.

Urbane Guerrilla · 07-06-2009, 10:50 PM

The phrase "Gadarene swine" occurs to me.

05-29-2004, 12:17 PM	#31
Bullitt This is a fully functional babe lair Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Akron, OH Posts: 2,324	Confused Soo.. aren't the Checks and Balances in our government the very foundation of it? If this passes, I'm leavin this damn country. No reason to stay if it's gonna get f****ed up this bad and theres nothing the other branches can do about it. See ya'll in australia. __________________ Kiss my white Irish ass.

05-29-2004, 12:25 PM	#33
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	And the sharks,...er,....dolphins are way bigger. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-30-2004, 06:12 AM	#35
Bullitt This is a fully functional babe lair Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Akron, OH Posts: 2,324	Hmm. But if i'm not mistaken, the Judicial Branch ( the Supreme Court) has no power to take any action on its decisions. It has to rely on the other segments of the government to do its bidding. So, this would pretty much bring the Courts down to the level of a whining little brother who can't do jack and no one listens to him (noone being Congress). __________________ Kiss my white Irish ass.

05-30-2004, 07:13 AM	#36
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Aren't the henchmen of the Supremes the lower courts, who do have the power to enforce those decisions. They can jail your ass for contempt (even well earned contempt), leaving you no recourse. I don't think you can even appeal a contempt order, but I may be wrong on that. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-30-2004, 10:03 PM	#38
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Of course he will, so will Radar. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

05-29-2004, 01:27 PM	#34
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	a'ight, I'll play devils advocate on this one. In an age of judicial activism, a federal court can write de-facto law; for good or for ill, this is what happened in Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, [insert case here]. The opinions of 5 people sitting on the Supreme Court can alter the rule of law for 300 million people, in 50 states. Should there not be some measure of oversight to that power? A 2/3 vote of congress is extremely difficult to get, on any matter. The only time congress would be able to exercise this power would be in cases of egregious action by the court, where the vast majority of both parties were in disagreement with the ruling of the court. Say for example that Dubya gets to stack the court, and the court decides to overturn Roe v. Wade in all cases, even where the mother’s life is in imminent danger. Seems fairly easy to get a 2/3 vote from congress to overturn that ruling. Without this bill, you would have to get your fingers sticky in the guts of the constitution to enumerate and specify a privacy right that extends to abortion. All this does, essentially, is lower the bar from constitutional amendment to veto override. It seems like an appropriate check of judicial power. -sm

05-30-2004, 09:53 PM	#37
Torrere a real smartass Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,121	And once Congress has the power, will the President want it too?

05-30-2004, 10:22 PM	#39
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	The president will want whatever he's told he wants by corporate America. Radar just wants to kill 'em all.

06-10-2009, 08:33 PM	#41
ZenGum Doctor Wtf Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Badelaide, Baustralia Posts: 12,861	Interesting thread ... LMAO at Clod's form letter. What happened about the original bill? __________________ Shut up and hug. MoreThanPretty, Nov 5, 2008. Just because I'm nominally polite, does not make me a pussy. Sundae Girl.

07-06-2009, 10:50 PM	#45
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	The phrase "Gadarene swine" occurs to me. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)