"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:03:04 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"rbowman" wrote in message
Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of The Supreme Court was
to
rule on the constitutionality of a law, not to legislate. I thought to
legislate was the job of Congress.
So Roberts says when he isn't busy legislating.
stuff snipped
In his defense (and it hurts to say it) he's also well aware that the
normal
process of the SC invalidating a law - and then Congress reworking that
law
to be within the Constitution's framework - has broken down. If the SC
strikes down a law for a particular, although small technicality, the
results now are that we won't have ANY law to replace it because Congress
has basically abdicated their role in that process.
So Roberts is faced time and time again knowing "if I vote Nay then the
small technicality will end up controlling the issue in its entirety."
That
is a little bit backwards from what the Frowning Fathers intended. I
suspect he feels forced to legislate because Congress often won't. )-:
Yeah, that's what he basically implied. But I suspect it would not be
hard to find cases where he had no trouble throwing out a law he
DIDN"T like because of a technicality even knowing that congress would
be too grid locked to fix and repass it.
I suspect you're correct. I have to admit I haven't read all his
rulings/decisions but I've seen enough to conclude that a lot of these 5-4
decisions will be revisited under a new Chief Justice, especially if the
composition of the court changes from retirements. If the R's can't regain
the Whitehouse, that's four more years worth of opportunities to change the
balance of the Court to the left.
Speaking of the Supremes, I've been reading that Mike Huckabee has been
saying we should just ignore the court's recent gay marriage decisions and
follow the dictates of God. He also came up with quite a novel
Constitutional reading of abortion.
This is a quote from a recent Rolling Stone article about the Republican
primary race:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...n-car-20150812
Just what I [Huckabee] said," he quipped. "It is the job of the federal
government to protect the citizens under the Constitution."
He went on to explain that even the unborn were entitled to rights of "due
process and equal protection." The attendant reporters all glanced sideways
at one another. The idea of using the 14th Amendment, designed to protect
the rights of ex-slaves, as a tool to outlaw abortion in the 21st century
clearly would have its own dark appeal to the Fox crowd. But it occurred to
me that Huckabee might have had more in mind.
"Are we talking about sending the FBI or the National Guard to close
abortion clinics?" I asked.
"We'll see when I get to be president," he answered.
Huckabee smiled. Perhaps alone among all the non-Trump candidates, Huckabee
knows what kind of fight he's in. This GOP race is not about policy or
electability or even raising money. Instead, it's about Nielsen ratings or
trending.
That's a pretty astute observation seeing as Trump's antics on national TV
have boosted his ratings into the stratosphere. Worse, still, is that
others have caught on to Trump's tactics. Huckabee's "marching Jews to the
ovens" comments boosted his ratings enough in the polls to get to the "grown
up" debate table.
Clearly the Republican Party has no idea how to handle Trump. Let's hope
they figure it out before he does a Perot pirouette and pivots the party out
of any chance of winning the 2016 election. This current "Hunger Games"
primary pretty much says, point blank, "We don't have anyone who's really
electable or palatable to the extremists in the party." I think, for that
reason, the race will devolve into a Trump v. Bush fight with Trump turning
independent if the thinks he's been dissed. He ALWAYS thinks he's been
dissed so I see it as a forgone conclusion. Oh well.
My biggest fear is that if (or when) the superheated Chinese economy
collapses that they'll find some excuse to begin military actions in the
South China Sea and beyond as a "stimulus means." After all, WWII is what
it took to finally rekindle the US economy after the 1929 crash. It's a
time-honored method of turning around a bad economy. Hitler was able to
take the badly defeated and economically ruined country like Germany to near
world-domination because he built such a powerful military machine. I
afraid that the Chinese will emulate his policies and use its out of work
citizens to build up their military might. Their stock market woes may be a
sign that their economy is in deeper trouble then even they realize.
--
Bobby G.