I may be pilloried for saying this, but abortion may end up being the least severe casualty of the Roberts Court. If they overturn it outright, it will be a political watershed; they will continue to allow heavier regulation as time goes by, but I think they're unlikely to take the uncommon step of overturning precedent that has been upheld numerous times as good law.
What's really endangered is the openness of the federal courts for individuals hoping to vindicate their constitutional rights. Many constitutional rights don't have an explicit remedy attached to them. The Warren, and to a lesser extent Burger (mmmm...burger...), Court fashioned some remedies (the most famous being Miranda warnings and the integration of schools) to address that lack. The Alitos and Robertses of this world are dedicated to undoing that work, which they believe to be an improper judicial usurpation of the legislative function. (By the way, their argument is analytically reasonably good, but lacks both pragmatism and empathy.)
The federal courts once did not open their doors to the rabble who hoped to find justice against abuses by the state. They may very well go back to the old way of doing business.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 26, 2006 07:18 AMBeautifully said, larre. And why the Senators can't see that they are giving away their own power (they will become figureheads, with no ability to affect things), is astonishing. How can they believe it is business as usual?
Posted by Mary at January 26, 2006 07:35 AMDear DJ.
Great and precise post. But there in is the rub.
You want Supreme Court Justices that "feel" you say pragmatic and empathetic. I say that sounds like "feelings" to me. And that is correct. Conservatives want to limit the control of the "feelings" of our jurists. 80 year old men and women who have lost a world view from living behind the black cloaks they wear are no better than my congressmen or senators or President in deciding how to fashion a remedy when there has been a wrong....
So thanks for being precise. Because that is the issue.
I agree many of these pragmatic and empathetic opinions may have been good, but they weren't based upon the law.
I'm reminded of some old sayings.
What you win people with, is what you win them to.
The hearts and minds of American's are generally good, and sometimes change requires time. But resentment occurs when we are being told that our opinions and traditions are BAD by 5 out of 9 justices, merely because they don't feel like we do.
Let the legislative branch-legislate,
Executive-execute
and Judicial-interpret visa via the constitution without "finding" hidden within the texts NEW rights and duties.
With Alito, the Court will literally move back in time 75 years, to the Charles Evans Hughes Court of the 30s---an activist, openly partisan Court that declared act after act of FDR's New Deal uncontitutional under a variety of idiotic (but certainly not "strict constructionist") theories.
That Court was ultimately cowed by unified Executive and Legislative branches. That's unlikely to happen again.
A reactionary, partisan, activist Court can really throw some monkey wrenches into attempts to govern, despite the simplistic nonsense to the contrary coming from the "conservative" idiot gallery that posts here.
And as for championing individual rights against the power of federal and state government (the preeminent role of the Court under the Founders scheme), well, that's just ou the window entirely.
A dark era for progress in America, this is likely the last nail in our coffin. Ironically, we are the principal authors of our decline.
Posted by euzoius at January 26, 2006 07:50 AMI agree many of these pragmatic and empathetic opinions may have been good, but they weren't based upon the law.
Judicial-interpret visa via the constitution without "finding" hidden within the texts NEW rights and duties.
I don't think you, nor any neo-con, stops to think about what you are saying. All you have indicated is that a judicial decision is good if YOU agree with it. That's all. And that's why we have judges, to make decisions so we don't have to tolerate YOUR decisions. By your definition, no legislation could ever be found unconstitutional because it would have to be interpreted as unconstitutional, and the interpretation itself would be unconstitutional. Nice trap you set for yourself.
Posted by phidipides at January 26, 2006 07:52 AMI agree many of these pragmatic and empathetic opinions may have been good, but they weren't based upon the law.
You are incorrect. They are based upon a reading of the law that you believe to be illegitimate. I don't think the right-wing reading of the law is illegitimate; I believe it is crabbed, dark, ugly, and obsolete.
Judicial-interpret visa via the constitution without "finding" hidden within the texts NEW rights and duties.
Maybe. But if that's true, nobody, Right or Left, is a good judge, so we have to scrap the whole system. The right-wingers on the Court have also invented legal penumbrae, you see, including a doctrine of state sovereign immunity that far exceeds anything in the text of the Eleventh Amendment. Why? Because these supposed "strict constructionists" don't think citizens should have remedies when the State violates their rights, and the Eleventh Amendment wasn't broad enough for them to justify that outcome. So they made up the whole doctrine in Seminole Tribe and Alden v. Maine. They had no better (and probably worse) textual support than the earlier courts had for Roe, Griswold, and of course the ultimate in activist judgery, Brown v. Board of Education.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 26, 2006 08:22 AMAnyone who cannot see that the Constitution contains an inherent right to privacy is not a person to be taken seriously. That's like looking at the sun and denying that it exists in space. The reasoning in Roe may be suspect, but the result is certainly correct.
Posted by God Of War at January 26, 2006 08:30 AMI have only been saying this since ROBERTS was nominated.
Roe v Wade was sub silentio overruled right when the ink dried. The Hyde amendment effectively denied abortion to the same women who never were able to get it in the first place, legal or not: THE POOR.
Since Roe was written, only women of means have been able to get an abortion. Same shit different day. Poor women were never allowed to exercise their so-called "Right" because these fuckers were never ever going to let it happen.
Why do they want poor women NOT to abort their babies? SO THEY CAN DIE FOR PROFIT ON THE BATTLEFIELD INSTEAD.
THESE SCOTUS NOMS were ALWAYS about making Chimpy into a dictator. They're going to do it. MARK MY WORDS, THE DEMOCRATS DO NOT REPRESENT PROGRESSIVES; THEY NEVER HAVE AND THEY NEVER WILL.
THESE IDIOTS WILL ALLOW THE REPUBLIC TO GO GENTLY INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT.
I am all cried out. I am leaving this country ASAP. Good luck with your tyrrany people.
Posted by marblex at January 26, 2006 08:44 AMBang the gong folks. According to the C-Span unofficial count of declared votes Alito will be sitting on the SCOTUS next week. You can view the list at:
http://www.c-span.org/congress/alito_senate.asp
Aint Democracy grand?
Posted by Cyber Sarge at January 26, 2006 08:57 AMgood debate-no name calling I like it.
I agree and disagree. But this is a debate over the role of the judiciary. You want justices' "READING" of the law to be interpreted by "empathy" and "pragmatic" opinions. I don't have as much problem with the term pragmatic, but empathy has little if any place in our appellant courts, where laws are interpreted based upon the facts.
The judiciary, under your theory, could interpret without opposition any right upon any party. I think that although our legislative branch works slowly, its often the best way to do so. Ex: Giving women the right to vote. Would it have been better for our society to accept the argument raised by the sufferage groups then go to their legislature and convince them of its truth, or, to have merely had a good liberal group of 5 justices decide that women have that right within the constitution.
20/20 hindsight sees that the Constitution always gave a right to women to vote, IMHO. But society decided to codify it. Which is better, to codify from the bench or legislature? I don't know. Both are sometimes good remedies and both sometimes are bad.
But the underlying principle is sound, albeit, sometimes not quick to act, and that is to allow the judiciary to decide the law based upon an academic interpretation, not an empathetic view of the constitution.
Another example: You want gay marriage, then convince us, change our hearts and minds through a spirited debate, or if you dont' want our hearts and minds, then ram it down our throats (no pun intended) by having Liberal judges "FIND", as they did in Mass, a hidden "Right" contained in the centuries old document.
The end result is that if you force us to accept something that society feels is wrong, by finding a right in our constitution, then you only embitter a large segment whose hearts and minds might have changed with time through information and sound arguments....
The power of the judiciary is awesome. Kelo allowed BIG brother to take your property now, merely because 5 liberal judges said that the Constitution's Public Use could be interpreted to mean, WHATEVER BIG BROTHER SAYS IT MEANS. Want more taxes, bingo, want a casino? bingo, want to create a wetland for zebra lizards, bingo. Want to take the land because the justice is an idiot and we are going to prove a point by taking his family's home to create a hotel that will produce more in taxes? No problem....
Wow I can't believe this thread has gone on as long as it has and nobody has called Carpe or Cyber Sarge subhuman scum fascists or wrong winger bootlickers. The God of Mouth hasn't even gone militant and made threats yet.
Posted by Deuce at January 26, 2006 09:06 AMWell there wasn't name calling until Marblex showed up.....
Its not about class warfare. Abortion is about alot of things. On the one hand its the right that a mother has in doing that which see thinks appropriate for her body verses the right of the government i.e. society to dictate what she can do, verses the rights if any that the unborn child has.
Its not as simple as my body my right.
Society doesn't allow you to ingest illegal drugs. It doesn't allow you to take your body and get drunk then use your body to drive a car that might "effect" someone else, at least to the extent that legally permissive limits allow.
However the law does allow torture of small baby boys visa via circumcision. It does allow viable fetus' to be aborted when the child is partially born, merely based upon a doctor's desire to liberally construe the women's health.
There are many many, contradictory reasons why abortion should be and shouldn't be legal. Summing it all up as My body, My right, sounds simple and is easy to teach and for many to understand, but the answer to this question is much more complex than Roe v. Wade made it out to be.
They decided they knew better than us so they legislated a rule based upon tri-mesters. In effect they said that its not your body in the final three months. So yes, we can force you to have that baby if its the last trimester, but before that, it is your body, do whatever you want.
Sad that we leave the toughest societal decision of our generation up to 5 men sitting in black robes all who have passed the age of active procreation....
I'm actually not a fan of Kelo, or of the long line of precedents that made Kelo an inevitability.
Interpretation of any written document, including laws, involves making choices every time an ambiguity arises—why should a reader prefer one possible interpretation over another?
The conservative take on the law prefers interpretations that hew to a very old understanding of individual rights vs. state powers, an understanding that emphasizes stability of the legal system. Like I say, this is a mode of reading these texts, and it's respectable enough in its own way. I don't much like it, but I don't deny that it is a legitimate way to approach the law.
The libertarian take prefers readings that categorically deny the government the power to infringe individual rights in virtually any situation. Unlike the conservative reading, in the libertarian reading, individual rights trump the power of the sovereign.
The post-New Deal liberal reading of the law has features of both the other schools. Certainly, under this reading the federal government has powers over both states and individuals that no libertarian reading would allow (see Kelo). This reading also recognizes individual rights that to the conservative legal mind are an affront to the dignity of the State—such as the right to sue for constitutional violations, or the right to privacy.
None of the judges on the Roberts Court fall perfectly into any of these readings, because they are not interpreting robots, but people. Scalia is generally very conservative (statist), but he has a libertarian streak. Kennedy is a libertarian on some issues (interestingly, these tend to be the issues which make the Right wing hate him), but a conservative or liberal on others.
You have every right to prefer one way of reading over another, but you should try at least to understand when people read the law differently (and you should try to have a more finely-tuned understanding of what your own preferences actually are). Different people emphasize different values when they deal with the thorny process of reconciling the considerable ambiguity that exists in the structure of our laws.
We turn the appointment of different judges over to the political process so that the people slowly can have an impact on the Court's reading of the law. Your guys are about to get your turn that you've been waiting for, lo! these many years; that's all. America will get very, very tired of those readings in a little while, and will elect some more Democratic presidents to get the law more in tune with the post-New Deal reading which is actually pretty popular. I just hope there's something left of the America I love by the time the voters wake up and realize what your side has done.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 26, 2006 09:22 AMDear Phipdies.
I do have problems with many decisions, even ones proposed and endorsed by our president.
McCain Feingold was a HUGE violation of our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression.
The liberals endorsed this limitation. Scalia and Thomas were royally pissed and so was I.
This includes Kelo and the Juvenile death penalty case, where the liberal justices that you love, adopted European principles of society to determine that our legislatures are out of touch with what is right.
I try very hard to look at these decisions "academically". Your snipes that I only want what I want is warrantless. I want a judiciary to act within the law and to let our legislative branch do their own thing.
I rememember the line item veto. The Supremes cut that one down. I forget the basis for the opinion, but I felt like that would have been a great thing to have. Even Clinton and Newt agree-yeah Republicans wanted a Democratic president to be able to pick apart parts of their own bills.
I believe it came down the impermissive power it gave the President. I wish we could find a way to constitutionally allow this to be an amendment and give our president to kill key provisions, especially pork.
Posted by carpediem at January 26, 2006 09:30 AMI rememember the line item veto. The Supremes cut that one down. I forget the basis for the opinion, but I felt like that would have been a great thing to have.
You see, you're already going against your own doctrine of "letting the legislature legislate." If the President has a line-item veto, it would usurp Congress's "power of the purse."
A foolish inconsistency is the hobgoblin of Republican minds.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 26, 2006 09:33 AMSome rights are inalienable and not subject to majority whims. That's why we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a minority-protection instrument, as are many of the Amendments. The framers and their progeny wisely realized that many rights are claimed at birth and are not subject to legislative, executive, or populist whims via decree or referendum.
The Bill of Rights and its progeny exists not comfort the majority in tranquil times, but to protect the minority in times of turbulence. That's why Bush's deliberate, calculated, and cynical de facto suspension of the Fourth Amendment requires impeachment...it's not that fucking monkey's right to give or take as he pleases, even if the evil terrorist spawn of his family's Arabian friends is taunting him.
This is a Nation of Laws, not of Men. Period.
Posted by God Of War at January 26, 2006 09:59 AMAdd Tim Johnson of South Dakota to the list of Democratic traitors. He's voting yes on Assholito.
Fuck you, Timmy. This will not be forgotten.
Coward.
Posted by God Of War at January 26, 2006 10:06 AMAint Democracy grand?
Yup. And it also works very slowly to institute real systemic change.
That's why I've consistantly been saying that it's going to be a while, a decade at least imo, before we see any real reaction against where the neo-cons and the fundimentalists are taking this country.
People won't react until something affects them personally. And until that happens to enough people things are going to keep going in the direction they are.
Personally, I don't know why any Democrat would want to get into the Oval Office in 2008.
Posted by snark at January 26, 2006 10:11 AMI don't know why any Democrat would want to get into the Oval Office in 2008.
Maybe that's why Hillary is getting so much buzz? She gets to run for Pres, and the party gets to tell her to sit down and shut up once she loses?
Posted by pessimist at January 26, 2006 11:10 AMpessimist, I wouldn't be surprised if that were true!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 26, 2006 11:18 AMPersonally, I don't know why any Democrat would want to get into the Oval Office in 2008.
Posted by snark at January 26, 2006 10:11 AM
*****
I do. Its a sense of patriotic duty.
Posted by God Of War at January 26, 2006 11:36 AMthe democratic party needs a leader like never before..lunatics and thieves have escaped and are in charge of the asylum..they need to be put back in their cells..some padded...can anyone tell me why the democratic senators would not filibuster alito...even if fruitless..what have they got to lose?...i read one article that stated they feel they might have more of a moderate then thought in roberts...??
Posted by dennis at January 26, 2006 11:57 AMWhat if you are pro-choice... but still believe that Roe v Wade is a bad legal decision?
What if you are pro-choice... but feel that each state has the right to regulate their own laws on the matter?
What if you stand for the seperation of powers and wonder why people believe that this seperation is something that only extremist believe holds any weight?
What if you wonder out loud why we feel it is o.k. for the legislative branch to write laws that put the judicial branch into a role of overseeing the executive branch in matters that the constitution states are under the authority of the executive branch?
What if you don't understand people who think that the actions of Richard Nixon should allow congress to rewrite section II article II of the constitution?
Just curious if this person is serious about someone's view on abortion not being the point?
Posted by C.H. Truth at January 26, 2006 11:57 AMCorn Hole,
The right to privacy is not a "bad legal decision." It's a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Individual states do not have the power to regulate Constitutional rights.
Posted by God Of War at January 26, 2006 12:02 PMJudges have used Roe v Wade to say that the constitution guarantees the 'privacy' of an underage girl to have an abortion and not notify her parents...
But the constitution does not guarantee the 'privacy' to smoke pot in your own home?
Reconcile that with any degree of intelligent thought... and I will stop assuming you are just a stark raving mad liberal fanatic...
Otherwise... you are simply parroting a line of rhetoric that replaces the word abortion with privacy as if they are synonyms in the dictionary...
Posted by C.H. Truth at January 26, 2006 12:07 PMI do. Its a sense of patriotic duty.
It was kind of a rhetorical question GoW but I appreciate the sentiment. Believe me, I don't want to see this country become just another second rate nation that simply pays lip service to the notion of being "a free nation". But I really don't see how you get through to people who, as those like muckdog point out, look at their lives and say "hey, things ain't that bad" and react to Democratic candidates as if they are chicken little screaming that the sky is falling. Sure, they're looking through rose colored glasses but it's gonna take some real pain before they take those nice designer shades off.
Sorry to be a downer but I see things getting much more distressing for liberals in this country before they show any sign of improvement. George Bush's unpopularity not withstanding. It's gonna be a long road. A lot farther than 2006 or 2008.
Posted by snark at January 26, 2006 12:07 PMWhat if you don't know how to argue, so you just put together a string of unrelated inflammatory rhetorical questions?
Posted by dj moonbat at January 26, 2006 12:09 PMBut the constitution does not guarantee the 'privacy' to smoke pot in your own home?
The Constitution doesn't guarantee the 'privacy' to butcher people and store them in the 'privacy' of your refrigerator for consumption at a later date either.
See. It's very easy to string together unrelated issues.
Posted by at January 26, 2006 12:20 PMWhat if you're an ignorant reactionary GOP clown and aren't aware of the existence of an entire line of Supreme Court precedent involving reproduction rights stretching from Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) through Griswold v Conn. (1965) to Roe v. Wade (1973)?
Posted by euzoius at January 26, 2006 12:20 PM"The right to privacy is not a "bad legal decision." It's a right guaranteed by the Constitution."
cite where in the constitution
Posted by avaroo at January 26, 2006 12:41 PM"the democratic party needs a leader like never before"
agree 100%
"can anyone tell me why the democratic senators would not filibuster alito...even if fruitless..what have they got to lose?"
whatever shred of respect the American public has left for the dems. Most Americans are AGAINST filibustering strictly on partisan political grounds. No matter what party the nominee is from.
Posted by avaroo at January 26, 2006 12:43 PMArticle XI
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Are you kidding?
Posted by avaroo at January 26, 2006 01:02 PMAre you?
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:03 PMpoint to the word "privacy" in what you posted
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:08 PMCan you not read?
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:10 PM I agree many of these pragmatic and empathetic opinions may have been good, but they weren't based upon the law.
Of course they were based on law. That comment is so inane it boggles the mind how anyone claiming to be an attorney could made such a statement.
... resentment occurs when we are being told that our opinions and traditions are BAD by 5 out of 9
Apparently, it's OK if it aggress with your political agenda. That is not how constitutional government works. Did you ever hear the phrase "the tyranny of the majority"? The constitution protect minority rights from the majority discrimination.
...interpret...the constitution without "finding" hidden within the texts NEW rights and duties. Posted by carpediem
However, the legislative branch has legislated the FISA Act that forbids warrantless wire tapping. Republicans don't agree and don't want to be bothered with changing the law. As for new rights, one only need point out that slavery was included in the American Constitution. Is it a new right with slavery and Jim Crow are found to be unconstitutional? Perhaps to a Georgian, the answer would be a no, but to others, an grievous injustice has been rectified.
… laws are interpreted based upon the facts.
Some judges dispute the importance of facts. Some judges have held that proof of innocence in a death penalty case that comes late is no longer relevant.
… You want gay marriage, ... a hidden "Right" contained in the centuries old document.
It is not an issue of what I want, it is an issue of denying equal rights before the law.
…Kelo allowed BIG brother to take your property now, merely because 5 liberal judges said that the Constitution's Public Use ...… Posted by carpediem
Unfortunately for your argument, Kelo v New Haven merely upheld existing law on Eminent Domain.
"… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Which states that private property can be taken for public use if the owner is justly compensated.
It is up to the legislature to change it, but will they?
Roberts Alito Thomas Sclia are all big government justices who uphold rulings confirming Federal power over individuals, corporate power over consumers, and religious power over citizens. They vote "states rights" when the result is to their liking; otherwise, the opposite.
AGAINST filibustering strictly on partisan political grounds. No matter what party the nominee is from. Posted by avaroo
Article XI The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Posted by atQED
anon, don't do it. you'll be here for hours arguing that the term "certain rights" implies "privacy" but roo won't see it that way because he simply can't see the exact, literal word "privacy" in the article you quoted. roo really doesn't do nuance.
Posted by ann at January 26, 2006 01:12 PM"Can you not read?"
Not what's not there I can't.
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:15 PMNot what's not there I can't.
So why'd you ask me to point it out if you knew the word wasn't there?
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:17 PM1968.....lol
"Fortas became the first sitting associate justice, nominated for chief justice, to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Those hearings reinforced what some senators already knew about the nominee. As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course, Dirksen and others withdrew their support. Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination."
No, no reason for a filibuster there....
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:17 PM"So why'd you ask me to point it out if you knew the word wasn't there? "
cause you appear to think it is
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:18 PMcause you appear to think it is
I never wrote such a thing.
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:20 PMah, you posted it because you think it DOESN'T prove your case then...
lol
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:23 PMSteve, please pull the plug on this thread. We're going to have 1,000 posts from anon and anon along the lines of, "I know you are but what am I?"
Posted by ann at January 26, 2006 01:24 PMah, you posted it because you think it DOESN'T prove your case then...
It does.
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:24 PMand yet you've been unable to show where and/or how
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:31 PMand yet you've been unable to show where and/or how
It's right there. If you can't see it that's your problem.
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:33 PMAny one want to take bets on how old avaroo is. I say 12.
Posted by Goose1 at January 26, 2006 01:35 PMAny one want to take bets on how old avaroo is. I say 12.
I'd also hazard a guess that he's arguing with himself.
Posted by ann at January 26, 2006 01:36 PMAvaroo doesn't like it when someone plays his own game.
Posted by at January 26, 2006 01:46 PMAs I said. Avaroo does not come here looking for an honest exchange of ideas. His objective is to draw things out of commenters so he can contest their statements without producing a positive counterargument. He continues this with every comment that anyone who decides to engage him makes. Were he interested in an honest exchange of ideas he would produce support for the case, in this instance, that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy. Obviously, he can not do that.
Hopefully this little foray into how to debate without actually saying anything was not to disruptive.
Apologies.
Posted by at January 26, 2006 02:11 PMNo, no reason for a filibuster there.... Posted by at JActually not. After all, Cheney and Scalia go duck hunting together but Scalia still refused to recuse despite his obvious conflict of interest. Of course, as always IOKIYR. Posted by Mike at January 26, 2006 03:33 PM
Dear Moonbat,
Sorry had to make a living, couldn't play on line as much today.
Thank you for your comments. I can't disagree with them on this post, as it might take too long, but I will admit that your arguments are extremely well thought through and followed up with well organized facts and references.
I hope the debate to continue, perhaps on another thread. This one appears to have died.
I don't recall your other posts, specifically. Unfortunately, I usually only remember the posts of those that have threaten me and my family with physical violence and death. But I will look forward to another spirited discussion on this topic.
As to the Line Item veto. I agree in theory with what you say. I didn't mean to argue either side, merely to use that as an example of how sometimes things that I would want and that is in contradiction to my parties lust for power, is also something that we fought for.
i.e. Republican congress giving Bill Clinton right to line item veto their bills.
I find it odd in a way. That Congress is so powerful regarding the budget, but not powerful enough to give some specific technical rights to the President to scatch through a few items.
Heck, they ought to make each and every expenditure and entire bill. That might have done the trick, but I could see chaos developing too.
Its politics. plain and simple
I find it odd in a way. That Congress is so powerful regarding the budget, but not powerful enough to give some specific technical rights to the President to scatch through a few items.
Hey, if you want a line-item veto, it's only a constitutional amendment away.
Posted by dj moonbat at January 26, 2006 08:37 PMFORGET the dems. they don't represent progressives.
Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, believing you're going to get a different result.
get a clue.
The DP is exquisitely progressive: it's guided by the Progressive Policy Institute. It's just that the bushmen have outprogressed them by emulating that eminent progressive Mitchell Palmer.
Posted by Cornet Joyce at February 28, 2006 10:33 PM