Author |
Message |
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24886
|
|
     |
|
Slayer1
Title: ,,!,, for you know who
Joined: Sep 23 2008
Posts: 4274
|
Quote: |
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.
"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes. |
Isn't this removing more power from the courts and giving it to the legislature, which kind of deters the purpose of a three branch government?
I always thought the reason for the supreme court was to see if the law that was in place was constitutional....
|
|
|
  |
|
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24886
|
Yeah, that's a stupid idea too.
Oh wait, I'm supposed to be playing devil's advocate.
Um, I mean, that's a great idea. Huzzah for Perry!
|
|
|
     |
|
Slayer1
Title: ,,!,, for you know who
Joined: Sep 23 2008
Posts: 4274
|
With such an astounding Huzzah, I shall tip my hat to Perry! HAIL PERRY
|
|
|
  |
|
username
Title: owner of a lonely heart
Joined: Jul 06 2007
Location: phoenix, az usa
Posts: 16135
|
um, i thought supreme court justices didnt have life tenure. just as long as they are in good mental health and able to perform their job. which i guess can be interpreted as lifetime tenure.
|

Klimbatize wrote: |
I'll eat a turkey sandwich while blowing my load |
|
|
     |
|
Optimist With Doubts
Title: Titlating
Joined: Dec 17 2007
Posts: 5042
|
Well perry did look like he had a chance to score the nod. So no worthy candidates for the elephants then?
|
|
|
    |
|
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24886
|
I guess it's Romney. He's the only GOP candidate who's not psychotic. Sure he's changed posititions on a bunch of issues, but that's the nature of politics. He's been smart enough not to say anything batshit crazy, which I don't think can be said for a single other GOP presidential candidate.
|
|
|
     |
|
Optimist With Doubts
Title: Titlating
Joined: Dec 17 2007
Posts: 5042
|
Yes but everyone is attacking the so called "obama-care" when Romney originated it.
|
|
|
    |
|
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
|
username wrote: |
um, i thought supreme court justices didnt have life tenure. just as long as they are in good mental health and able to perform their job. which i guess can be interpreted as lifetime tenure. |
It's a lifetime appointment and they can only be removed by death, retirement, or impeachment.
Quote: |
Isn't this removing more power from the courts and giving it to the legislature, which kind of deters the purpose of a three branch government?
I always thought the reason for the supreme court was to see if the law that was in place was constitutional.... |
Yep. While I do agree the SCOTUS has gotten pretty creative in throwing their will around, they can only do so within the framework of the Constitution. And if they really screw up, you can currently override them with a 2/3 vote in both houses, as long as you get 3/4 of the states to go along. It's called an Amendment.
What this guy doesn't get is that judges aren't supposed to be accountable to the people. They're accountable to the law. The system was set up to remove as much influence from the other two branches on the Judicial branch as possible exactly for that reason. If you want to change a judge's ruling, go and change the law.
I also love how this guy wants to make the judges more accountable to the people, yet take away the direct election of the most disgustingly entitled politicians in Congress.
As for his other wacky ideas, if you really want to get rid of the Income Tax, you don't need to repeal the 16th Amendment to do it. The 16th just gives the government the right to do it, not a requirement to. Get off your soapbox and go introduce a bill to remove the income tax and see how far it gets you (hint - not very far). And it won't made a damn difference in how much we pay, it just means the states will need to raise that money instead. They'll probably charge more.
A balanced budget amendment is a nice idea, and I'd support it.
His last two are just pandering to the base. No matter where you stand on these issues, they are not issues of enduring significance that need to be enshrined in our Constitution as "allowed" or "not allowed". He's just advocating using the "nuclear option" to win on issues the Religious Right are currently losing on.
|
|
|
  |
|
Fighter_McWarrior
Title: Gun of Brixton
Joined: Jun 05 2011
Location: Down by the River
Posts: 1087
|
UsaSatsui wrote: |
A balanced budget amendment is a nice idea, and I'd support it. |
I disagree. A balanced budget is a great thing, but there are times in which the government has to run a deficit to get through a bad situation. A constitutional amendment doesn't allow for that flexibility.
As for Perry, every politician in Washington has a sketchy relationship with the constitution. They follow it to the letter only when it's convenient for them and use it to badmouth their colleagues who are just as guilty as they were.
|
|
|
  |
|
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24886
|
Optimist With Doubts wrote: |
Yes but everyone is attacking the so called "obama-care" when Romney originated it. |
The bill that passed supposedly isn't what Romney wanted. In any case, as much as I hate the health care that passed under Romney, at least he has real ideas. I don't always agree with him, but at least he's not psychotic. I don't think the GOP has another candidate I can say that about.
|
|
|
     |
|
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
|
Fighter_McWarrior wrote: |
UsaSatsui wrote: |
A balanced budget amendment is a nice idea, and I'd support it. |
I disagree. A balanced budget is a great thing, but there are times in which the government has to run a deficit to get through a bad situation. A constitutional amendment doesn't allow for that flexibility.
|
A balanced budget amendment would have to include a provision for deficit spending in emergency situations for me to support it. The one mentioned in the article does.
|
|
|
  |
|
Klimbatize
2010 NES Champ
Title: 2011 Picnic/Death Champ
Joined: Mar 15 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 5000
|
Syd Lexia wrote: |
Optimist With Doubts wrote: |
Yes but everyone is attacking the so called "obama-care" when Romney originated it. |
The bill that passed supposedly isn't what Romney wanted. In any case, as much as I hate the health care that passed under Romney, at least he has real ideas. I don't always agree with him, but at least he's not psychotic. I don't think the GOP has another candidate I can say that about. |
Right now, even with the poor performance from Obama, the only real chance Republicans have at winning the Presidency is Romney. Right now, most people are too busy to look into the crazy horseshit some of these "frontrunning" GOP candidates have said, done, or stand for. When the primaries start more people will are enough to actually take a look at this guys.
Once they do, they'll see that people like Bachmann and Perry are too dumb and crazy to actually be President. People like to throw Ron Paul's name around, but he has no legitimate shot. Sorry, too many of his ideals are too out there for the average American. Gingrich? He's not really running; his just needs to keep his name relevant and I don't think he has any real desire to be President. Why take that pay cut? Same with Palin. No fucking way she makes a serious bid for President. She wants to keep her name out there because it helps her get paid millions to talk on FOX News, but she bailed on being a governor to sell books and get paid for talking to inbreds. She makes so much money now she would never seriously give that up.
So now you have Romney. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to this guy as President because he's actually more liberal than many people realize. The flip-flopping is to keep his chances up in a GOP party that is currently being run by the religious right and hypocritcal teabaggers. If he can just keep them off his case, the fact that Romney is a Nortern Republican will be a big pull. Teabaggers will vote for whoever is the Republican nominee no matter what, and being a former New England governor will give him some pull with moderates and even liberals. Then, throw in the fact that the racists will be out in force (a bit redundant since I already mentioned the teabaggers) and Obama hasn't done much to keep the minority voters energized (hell, to keep ANY of his supporters energized)--it's all a recipe for Romney to be President.
If, however, anyone else is nominated from the GOP, Obama wins a second term. At least, that's how it looks right now.
|
|
|
   |
|
Ash Burton
Title: AshRaiser
Joined: Nov 10 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 1044
|
Syd Lexia wrote: |
I guess it's Romney. He's the only GOP candidate who's not psychotic. Sure he's changed posititions on a bunch of issues, but that's the nature of politics. He's been smart enough not to say anything batshit crazy, which I don't think can be said for a single other GOP presidential candidate. |
Sad state for the GOP, I hope Romney survives the primary as he is probably the only one who wouldn't send this country into the abyss. Perry is a flash in the pan, he will continue to expose himself as the C average student he is. Everyone else is bat shit crazy. Romney seems like a moderate conservative, but we have that now and it isn't working so unless Paul pulls off a miracle it should be business as usual in DC.
|

joshwoodzy wrote: |
Ash is probably just home humping his SNES collection.
|
|
|
   |
|
UsaSatsui
Title: The White Rabbit
Joined: May 25 2008
Location: Hiding
Posts: 7565
|
Klimbatize wrote: |
So now you have Romney. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to this guy as President because he's actually more liberal than many people realize. The flip-flopping is to keep his chances up in a GOP party that is currently being run by the religious right and hypocritcal teabaggers. If he can just keep them off his case, the fact that Romney is a Nortern Republican will be a big pull. Teabaggers will vote for whoever is the Republican nominee no matter what, and being a former New England governor will give him some pull with moderates and even liberals. Then, throw in the fact that the racists will be out in force (a bit redundant since I already mentioned the teabaggers) and Obama hasn't done much to keep the minority voters energized (hell, to keep ANY of his supporters energized)--it's all a recipe for Romney to be President. |
Seriously. I'm not the world's biggest Romney fan, but I can't deny he knows his shit and would do the job well. I can't say that about any other GOP candidate.
Damn shame that the right wing talking heads will drag the guy through the mud, particularly when he was praised as a hero last year next to McCain.
|
|
|
  |
|
The Flaming Schnitzel
Title: Tsar of all Russias
Joined: May 10 2011
Location: Minsk, Belarus
Posts: 810
|
My fear is that America will actually pick one of those crazies...and Obama shouldn't even run for a second term, in my opinion. I mean, he should cut his losses now. No one says you MUST run for a second term...If the democrats want a chance at Presidency, they need a different candidate. As it is, however, I predict (and hope) Romney wins.
|
|
|
  |
|
Syd Lexia
Site Admin
Title: Pop Culture Junkie
Joined: Jul 30 2005
Location: Wakefield, MA
Posts: 24886
|
Well, Obama could beat someone like Bachmann, Perry, or Santorum. His approval ratings may be awful, but even a half-decent ad campaign on his part would energize minority voters (who usually turn out in comparatively low numbers) to reelect Obama so that some "crazy ass cracker" doesn't end up as President.
|
|
|
     |
|
Rogue Hippo
Title: Lone Wolf Hippo
Joined: Jun 28 2010
Location: America's Wang
Posts: 245
|
But can the religious right actually elect a Mormon? There was just poll going around the news networks that said Mormons were the 3rd most distrusted religious group in America just behind Muslims and Athiests.
I don't agree with it. I think he's the best GOP candidate by far. But the religious right doesn't vote for people based on logic or qualifications. I think they'll have a hard time fully mobilizing to support a Mormon.
It's possible they hate Democrats more than Mormons which might give Romney a chance to beat Obama if it ever came to that. But first it'll be Mormon VS "Normal Christian" during the primaries. I don't know if he can win that.
|
|
|
   |
|
username
Title: owner of a lonely heart
Joined: Jul 06 2007
Location: phoenix, az usa
Posts: 16135
|
is atheism a religion?
|

Klimbatize wrote: |
I'll eat a turkey sandwich while blowing my load |
|
|
     |
|
King
Title: CTE
Joined: Apr 27 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 1506
|
I just want a choice, Ron Paul isn't going to make it, I don't know if he is running, and even though I have voted for him in the past Nader will never get elected, both parties don't give two shits or a flying fuck of a rats ass about most if any of us, and people wonder why I am registered independent, granted in my state I cannot vote in any primary but then again there really aren't any choices there that represent me anyway so I dunno
|
|
|
  |
|
@om*d
Title: Dorakyura
Joined: Jul 10 2010
Location: Castlevania
Posts: 4226
|
I always hope for the worst when I see a bunch of pitiful candidates like the ones currently running for president. When I say hope for the worst, I mean that the absolute worst candidate wins. There is nothing quite as comforting as knowing that the majority of people who live in the same country as you are completely fucking retarded and would choose any of these imbeciles to run for president. I think anybody who wants to actually be president should not be allowed to be president. We might as well appoint our president like we appoint people to serve on a jury. Totally fucking random. We would probably get better candidates than we have been getting.
|
|
|
   |
|
King
Title: CTE
Joined: Apr 27 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 1506
|
What kind of letter from your employer or academic institution do you need to get out of Presidential duty? I mean shit jury duty is hard enough to get out of
|
|
|
  |
|
Fighter_McWarrior
Title: Gun of Brixton
Joined: Jun 05 2011
Location: Down by the River
Posts: 1087
|
It's really all about the economy. Obama could win easily enough if the economy is improving by election day. It doesn't even have to be great, but if there is a consistent, month by month drop in unemployment leading up to November, he'll probably win comfortably. If it stays stagnate or gets worse, you can expect a comfortable Republican victory. And even at that, Romney is the only one who has a real shot at beating him.
|
|
|
  |
|
SNESGuy
Title: El Duderino
Joined: Jul 31 2010
Location: Da D.C
Posts: 1831
|
|
  |
|
Red_Mage
Title: Palutina's Guardian
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Location: Eastern Illinois U
Posts: 251
|
Baaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha
|
|
|
  |
|
|