Yes, but were you afraid after Obama got elected? I don't remember if you've had much to say about your opinion of him. Do you subscribe to the typical pro-gun attitude towards him?
This comedian Maher is sometimes entertaining, but usually just annoying - at least that's the way I find him. Non living in the States makes it easy to avoid characters like this.
I strongly disapprove of having a President who's willing to completely gut a Constitutional right if he can get 51% of the Congress to agree with him, who enthusiastically oversteps his Constitutional authority to get what he wants (my biggest issue with Bush too, BTW), and who intends to appoint Supreme Court justices who believe in a "living" Constitution that can effectively be ignored when it conflicts with their ideology. I think that continuing the accelerating erosion of the checks and balances that have always kept our government in check is the opposite of "change", and that people who think another imperial President is a great idea because this one's a liberal are fooling themselves. If that's the "typical pro-gun attitude towards him", then yes, I subscribe to it. ;)
As for Maher, I'm basically on the same page. I loved him back when I was a condescending liberal (I loved Michael Moore, too), but after a while it became clear he (and I) didn't actually know the issues as well as I'd assumed, and was basically substituting condescension for incisiveness.
These days, give me Colbert for _incisive_ liberal comedy. :)
"...and who intends to appoint Supreme Court justices who believe in a "living" Constitution that can effectively be ignored when it conflicts with their ideology."Why do you think Obama "intends" to appoint such a judge? All indications are, Obama will likely appoint a judicial minimalist. I could be wrong, but I don't think we're going to see a second coming of William Brennan or Thurgood Marshall. A "liberal" judge is simply not the same thing as an "activist" judge, and not all liberal judges (or other legal scholars) subscribe to living constitutionalism.
Short version (and I apologize for not going into greater detail):
Obama may figure there are "limits to what the courts can accomplish", but that isn't what I'm talking about. The job of the Supreme Court is to shoot down laws that exceed the authority of the lawmakers, and Obama (who's a hardcore believer in unconstitutional federalism) is exceedingly unlikely to appoint justices who'll say "no, I'm sorry, your social engineering project exceeds your authority".
Ther were some disturbing statements from the Obama campaign about justices who'd support unconstitutional liberal causes, but that isn't really necessary to interpret this situation. There's a huge gap between "I like minimalist judges who follow the flow of public opinion, and are legal pragmatists who have little use for formal limitations if they figure a given plan would help people" and "I promise to appoint Constitutional originalists who'll vigorously enforce the limits on my authority". I don't think it's wise to trust the former.
Strike "intends to appoint", and substitute "seems dangerously likely to appoint". I overstepped a bit there.
Y'know, I would've answered that survey as "afraid" right after Bush was reelected, too. Does that _also_ make me stupid and paranoid. ;)
ReplyDeleteAlso: an all-blaxploitation cabinet sounds pretty _awesome_.
ReplyDeleteYes, but were you afraid after Obama got elected? I don't remember if you've had much to say about your opinion of him. Do you subscribe to the typical pro-gun attitude towards him?
ReplyDeleteThis comedian Maher is sometimes entertaining, but usually just annoying - at least that's the way I find him. Non living in the States makes it easy to avoid characters like this.
I strongly disapprove of having a President who's willing to completely gut a Constitutional right if he can get 51% of the Congress to agree with him, who enthusiastically oversteps his Constitutional authority to get what he wants (my biggest issue with Bush too, BTW), and who intends to appoint Supreme Court justices who believe in a "living" Constitution that can effectively be ignored when it conflicts with their ideology. I think that continuing the accelerating erosion of the checks and balances that have always kept our government in check is the opposite of "change", and that people who think another imperial President is a great idea because this one's a liberal are fooling themselves. If that's the "typical pro-gun attitude towards him", then yes, I subscribe to it. ;)
ReplyDeleteAs for Maher, I'm basically on the same page. I loved him back when I was a condescending liberal (I loved Michael Moore, too), but after a while it became clear he (and I) didn't actually know the issues as well as I'd assumed, and was basically substituting condescension for incisiveness.
These days, give me Colbert for _incisive_ liberal comedy. :)
"...and who intends to appoint Supreme Court justices who believe in a "living" Constitution that can effectively be ignored when it conflicts with their ideology."Why do you think Obama "intends" to appoint such a judge? All indications are, Obama will likely appoint a judicial minimalist. I could be wrong, but I don't think we're going to see a second coming of William Brennan or Thurgood Marshall. A "liberal" judge is simply not the same thing as an "activist" judge, and not all liberal judges (or other legal scholars) subscribe to living constitutionalism.
ReplyDeleteShort version (and I apologize for not going into greater detail):
ReplyDeleteObama may figure there are "limits to what the courts can accomplish", but that isn't what I'm talking about. The job of the Supreme Court is to shoot down laws that exceed the authority of the lawmakers, and Obama (who's a hardcore believer in unconstitutional federalism) is exceedingly unlikely to appoint justices who'll say "no, I'm sorry, your social engineering project exceeds your authority".
Ther were some disturbing statements from the Obama campaign about justices who'd support unconstitutional liberal causes, but that isn't really necessary to interpret this situation. There's a huge gap between "I like minimalist judges who follow the flow of public opinion, and are legal pragmatists who have little use for formal limitations if they figure a given plan would help people" and "I promise to appoint Constitutional originalists who'll vigorously enforce the limits on my authority". I don't think it's wise to trust the former.
Strike "intends to appoint", and substitute "seems dangerously likely to appoint". I overstepped a bit there.