Politics as cult

[peter_speckhard]

Peter,

All valid points.   However, you forgot one thing. The SCOTUS that allowed Roe V. Wade was much more liberal than the current court, which is a conservative majority. If a conservative majority finds that a President of like mind on social agendas  has violated the constitution, then it must be pretty serious. Indeed, he appointed two of them, if I am not mistaken. 

I also don't think that violation of the law on one hand allows violation of law on the other. You can argue that   Roe V Wade is wrong, a mis-interprteation of the law, or reading into the Constitution something that is not there. You can certainly argue it is unconstitutional or  usurping of powers. However, it is the law of the land. 

However, that does not mean on another legal issue the Court should rule in ignorance of the Constitution. You argument would hold more water if this was the Warren court or a more liberal court. Then you could say it was all politics.  But a conservative court taking a conservative President to task is something interesting.

   It is is difficult for me to see how you can argue a conservative majority is correct  on most issues but on basic rights like habeas corpus it is somehow wrong.  There  are reasons for majority and dissenting opinions. In this case the majority found a violation of law in these decisions and the administration lost.


Jeff Ruby

All that happened in both cases is that the executive and judicial branches disagreed, which is not unusual. It isn't that it is weird for the court to be wrong-- the courts as fallible as the congress of the president, both of which also I agree with sometimes and disagree with sometimes. Is there really no institution which you would say is correct on most issues but wrong on this or that issue? The bigger issue is the nature of modern warfare. The Clinton adminstration opted to treat terrorism as a crime/law enforcement issue, which manifestly did not work. The Bush administration opted to treat it as a warfare issue, but that rendered all kinds of prior categories and definitions useless, meaning that to what degree terrorists were enemy combatants or merely criminals became a matter of dispute that needed to be worked out with congress and the courts. Some of the time everyone agreed, some of the time they didn't. But to characterize a disagreement in classification of people who represent a new category in a new kind of warfare as a dangerous power-grab by the president seems a bit sensationalized. And anyway, as I understand it the new administration will be keeping the Bush guidelines on these matters in place in order to give the PE sufficient flexibility to take up the matter as he sees fit. If it were so manifestly an atrocity, it would be no trouble to promise now that the policies would change on day one of the new administration. Armchair quarterbacks so often gain a new appreciation for the game when they face a pass rush.   

[jrubyaz]

I guess I am trying to understand how closing Gitmo, which is not a done deal but something that is being looked at seriously, is "keeping the Bush guidelines" in place.

Jeff Ruby 

And anyway, as I understand it the new administration will be keeping the Bush guidelines on these matters in place in order to give the PE sufficient flexibility to take up the matter as he sees fit. If it were so manifestly an atrocity, it would be no trouble to promise now that the policies would change on day one of the new administration. Armchair quarterbacks so often gain a new appreciation for the game when they face a pass rush.   

[grabau14]

Lord, have mercy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&eurl=http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

[jrubyaz]

Yes, a nice unbiased source 

I like the rap music playing too in the background.

Let me tell you how these work. Interview 25 or 50 or 100 people, you are bound to find some ignorant folks.  Why, gosh, even some people who can't name any books they have read recently  or  name one newspaper or magazine they have read in the past few months , and  not  being able to come up with one title at all! 

In meantime, in case you didn't notice, the election is over. Ignorant voters abound on all sides, in all parties. I am sure you could have made a film about McCain, Nader, Barr, or Paul and come up with the same thing.

I thought we had put the election threads to rest for a while until January 20th. Or at least the Cabinet being named.

Jeff Ruby

Lord, have mercy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&eurl=http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

[ghp]

Yes, a nice unbiased source 

I like the rap music playing too in the background.

In meantime, in case you didn't notice, the election is over. Ignorant voters abound on all sides, in all parties. I am sure you could have made a film about McCain, Nader, Barr, or Paul and come up with the same thing.

I thought we had put these threads to rest for a while until January 20th.

As other denizens of this fine establishment have pointed out on other threads (IIRC,AITID), there is no such thing as unbiased sources or reporting. (and if they haven't pointed it out, they should have...)

Yes, let's not do a post mortem, not while there's a coronation, er, inauguration to count down to. And remember, don't be critical of the PE, because to do so now is unpatriotic according to Joy Behar, and we wouldn't want to get on the bad side of the political/ethical thinkers of The View roundtable... 

[jrubyaz]

You can do all the post mortems you want. Never said anyone was above critique. Interesting you didn't comment on how videos like these are done.

Just remember I was right    (sorry, I was actually too low with my 324 electoral vote  count  predication five days before the election,my error ).

And I am most concerned you are watching  The View      . Peter and I agree on one thing, I  quit the talking heads and screamers on all sides, a long time ago, I like the Newshour with Jim Lehrer or CSPAN.


Jeff Ruby

Yes, a nice unbiased source 

I like the rap music playing too in the background.

In meantime, in case you didn't notice, the election is over. Ignorant voters abound on all sides, in all parties. I am sure you could have made a film about McCain, Nader, Barr, or Paul and come up with the same thing.

I thought we had put these threads to rest for a while until January 20th.

As other denizens of this fine establishment have pointed out on other threads (IIRC,AITID), there is no such thing as unbiased sources or reporting. (and if they haven't pointed it out, they should have...)

Yes, let's not do a post mortem, not while there's a coronation, er, inauguration to count down to. And remember, don't be critical of the PE, because to do so now is unpatriotic according to Joy Behar, and we wouldn't want to get on the bad side of the political/ethical thinkers of The View roundtable... 

[Darrell Wacker]

You can do all the post mortems you want. Never said anyone was above critique. Interesting you didn't comment on how videos like these are done.

Just remember I was right    (sorry, I was actually too low with my 324 electoral vote  count  predication five days before the election,my error ).

And I am most concerned you are watching  The View      . Peter and I agree on one thing, I  quit the talking heads and screamers on all sides, a long time ago, I like the Newshour with Jim Lehrer or CSPAN.


Jeff Ruby


Oh, and Jim Lehrer is certainly straight down the middle 

[jrubyaz]

More so than either Fox, CNN, or MSNBC , from right to left.

Jeff Ruby

You can do all the post mortems you want. Never said anyone was above critique. Interesting you didn't comment on how videos like these are done.

Just remember I was right    (sorry, I was actually too low with my 324 electoral vote  count  predication five days before the election,my error ).

And I am most concerned you are watching  The View      . Peter and I agree on one thing, I  quit the talking heads and screamers on all sides, a long time ago, I like the Newshour with Jim Lehrer or CSPAN.


Jeff Ruby


Oh, and Jim Lehrer is certainly straight down the middle 

[Darrell Wacker]

More so than either Fox, CNN, or MSNBC , from right to left.

Jeff Ruby

You can do all the post mortems you want. Never said anyone was above critique. Interesting you didn't comment on how videos like these are done.

Just remember I was right    (sorry, I was actually too low with my 324 electoral vote  count  predication five days before the election,my error ).

And I am most concerned you are watching  The View      . Peter and I agree on one thing, I  quit the talking heads and screamers on all sides, a long time ago, I like the Newshour with Jim Lehrer or CSPAN.


Jeff Ruby


Oh, and Jim Lehrer is certainly straight down the middle 

Not sure I agree with your assertion here, but it's really hard to argue either way given the subjective nature of it.

[hillwilliam]

Yes, a nice unbiased source 

I like the rap music playing too in the background.

In meantime, in case you didn't notice, the election is over. Ignorant voters abound on all sides, in all parties. I am sure you could have made a film about McCain, Nader, Barr, or Paul and come up with the same thing.

I thought we had put these threads to rest for a while until January 20th.

As other denizens of this fine establishment have pointed out on other threads (IIRC,AITID), there is no such thing as unbiased sources or reporting. (and if they haven't pointed it out, they should have...)

Yes, let's not do a post mortem, not while there's a coronation, er, inauguration to count down to. And remember, don't be critical of the PE, because to do so now is unpatriotic according to Joy Behar, and we wouldn't want to get on the bad side of the political/ethical thinkers of The View roundtable... 

I'm amazed that you know about the brilliant political/ethical thinkers of 'The View', I certainly wasn't aware of them. However, I have seen some outtakes on CNN with the blond woman singing the praises of Sarah Palin.

Once again my pet peeve, extreme partisanism, has reared it's ugly head. I would have to disagree with Ms Behar but seem to remember similar assertions being made about criticism of President  Bush prior to our invasion of Iraq.