and democracy a little more, maybe. alito's a strong supporter of hte president's right ot... basically... do whatever he wants "in a time of war," as is the republican congress

so we basically have a dictator now who won't act like one, hopefully, but he basically has that power. full control of the federal government by one man.

I hear that prague is nice this time of year.

1/31/2006 11:37:05 AM

That all sounds rather dire.

1/31/2006 11:38:52 AM

BUT HE GONNA STOP THEM KILLN ALL THOSE LITTLE BABIES

1/31/2006 11:45:27 AM

I don't even care about abortion if we can keep our democracy. I'd be willing to sacrifice that for separation of powers

then again, i'm not a woman, see, so I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THEIR BODIES

1/31/2006 11:47:13 AM

One d00d on t3h court ain't gonna end separation of powers.

1/31/2006 11:52:10 AM

no, but if he sways the vote he will. And it's not like i'm saying there will be a law passed that says "the president doesn't have to be checked by the other 2 powers," and the supreme court will say "yep, that's true." I'm saying individual laws that show abuse of powers by one singular power have ALOT more chance of standing now. With the president, the majority of congress, and the supreme court all basically on the same page, I'd say we're in trouble.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

1/31/2006 11:53:13 AM

Justices in Favor of Roe v Wade: Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Kennedy

That is 5. As you know, there are only 9 Justices on the Supreme Court - that looks like a majority to me. Where do you think Roe v. Wade is going within 6 months?

1/31/2006 11:57:28 AM

i dont know, republicans havent had good luck with their appointed judges so far

1/31/2006 11:57:40 AM

^^ DG is just preaching the end of the world.

Somebody's got to do it.

1/31/2006 12:00:13 PM

if all 5 of them hold on, you're right.

but even then, that's not what I'm most worried about.

1/31/2006 12:12:53 PM

Democracy won't go anywhere but after this terrible presidency, the public's confidence in government will be way worse then it ever was...and it was pretty shit to begin with.

Honestly though, I think the American people deserve it.

Any democratic nation thats willing to give up freedom for "security" that really limits freedom rather then actually securing the country really doesn't deserve to be democratic.

1/31/2006 12:16:58 PM

What do you mean it's not what you're worried about? You posted "I give roe v. wade 6 months." Now you admit that Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere within 6 months. So why did you lie? Why did you post a dishonest thread title?

1/31/2006 12:17:03 PM

Why, why, why? Why is the sky blue?

1/31/2006 12:22:18 PM

I really don't understand this whole "check on the president's power." Would you rather weild war-making powers to an unelected aristocracy immune from political fallout? Would you rather the 9 wage war as opposed to an elected president that has to answer questions?

First, democrats scream and yell and scream and yell about wiretapping but then they want to give war-making/checking powers to an unelected body... I don't quite understand that. The SC justices don't sit in on intel hearings, they don't sit in on cabinet meetings, they don't get memos about the workings of the defense department.

Prague may be nice, DirtyGreek, but hopefully you'll be able to get out before the next ethnic cleansing that befalls Europe every 50 - 100 years.

1/31/2006 12:45:23 PM

Quote :

"I really don't understand this whole "check on the president's power.""

I'd say that's pretty obvious from the rest of your post. You must've missed that lesson in civics.

1/31/2006 12:47:47 PM

Quote :

"I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THEIR BODIES"

YOU'VE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD

THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO

JUST BECAUSE

1/31/2006 12:48:15 PM

Quote :

"Why, why, why? Why is the sky blue?"

Water vapor.

That is actually a good answer to my question as to why liberals lie -- their brains are full of water vapor.

1/31/2006 12:49:54 PM

it's actually because of gasses in general, the most prominent of which is nitrogen

Quote :

"Honestly though, I think the American people deserve it. "

sadly agreed.

and wolfpack, I didn't "lie." when I said I wasn't as worried about abortion, i was referring to this comment i'd made earlier:

Quote :

"I don't even care about abortion if we can keep our democracy. I'd be willing to sacrifice that for separation of powers"

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 12:59 PM. Reason : .]

1/31/2006 12:59:20 PM

But then why did you title your thread roe v. wade six months? With no basis for such a prediction?

Even so - would you really give up abortion for "separation of powers"? Maybe we can work out a point of agreement - I am in favor of separation of powers myself.

1/31/2006 1:02:32 PM

Quote :

"The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air. However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue. "

But more importantly, what makes every liberal say that Alito is in favor of letting Bush do whatever he wants? I mean, aside from from the left yelling it over and over again. Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Yes, he said that some governmental agencies fall under the executive branch, but this isn't new. And he basically preached on stare decisis for a good portion of his hearings. Just because he is conservative doesn't mean that he in favor of overturning a prior ruling (Roe v. Wade, or any other). Even if Wolfpack2k is going to suck his dick because he's a catholic, he's still a judge, and I believe (and hope) that he rules on the basis of the law and not his opinions.

1/31/2006 1:08:16 PM

Quote :

"Rayleigh scattering"

Not to be confused with Raleigh scattering...

1/31/2006 1:18:05 PM

I'm about 80% convinced that the powers-that-be on the Right are fully aware that they benefit a SHIT TON more politically with Roe v. Wade staying as is.

It's not going anywhere, DirtyGreek. Not unless you live in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, or South Dakota.

1/31/2006 1:58:35 PM

Actually there is a fairly sustainable argument that a Constitutional ruling could be set up in such a way that bans abortion in the entire country (by applying equal protection of the laws to unborn children as a suspect or quasi-suspect class), or at least to allow a federal statute banning abortion.

1/31/2006 2:06:42 PM

If that's true, then I'd imagine there's a fairly sustainable argument that a Constitutional ruling could be set up in such a way that enrolls just-fertilized eggs into Social Security in the entire country (by applying equal protection of the laws to unborn children as a suspect or quasi-suspect class), or at least to allow a federal statute recognizing fetuses as citizens.

1/31/2006 2:09:02 PM

Fairly. You have to realize the great power of a Constitutional ruling, and the great power of the Necessary and Proper clause here.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 2:13 PM. Reason : add]

1/31/2006 2:12:53 PM

Quote :

"Prague may be nice, DirtyGreek, but hopefully you'll be able to get out before the next ethnic cleansing that befalls Europe every 50 - 100 years."

Doesn't matter. I give it 6 months before Bush and Alito (whom I shall henceforth refer to as Bushalito) send all political opposition to labor camps! [/apocalyptic liberal]

1/31/2006 2:19:09 PM

my birthday is on a saturday this year

if they fuck that up by making us all nine months older
i might have to kill someone

1/31/2006 2:20:57 PM

Quote :

"Maybe we can work out a point of agreement - I am in favor of separation of powers myself."

too bad your boy alito isn't

1/31/2006 2:46:35 PM

the american public will not stand by while abortion is outlawed

the republican party will not push too hard on this

it is a sleeping giant, and they know it

1/31/2006 2:59:15 PM

I'm so tired of hearing all this hysteria about how the separation of powers is jeapardy due to one-party control of the legislature and presidency. And now this added rhetoric regarding the judiciary

the branches of government still exist! Just because they agree with each other, or even just agree to go along with the president does not mean that there is no more separation of powers. They have simply decided to work their power in unison.

AT ANY TIME ANY BRANCH CAN STILL BREAK FROM THE STATUS QUO

until there comes a day when a branch of government is made subservient by another branch (as opposed to voluntarily cooperating with the other branch), don't talk about separation of powers or dictatorships.

Our government is still operating just as it was designed.

There's no constitutional requirement that the three branches be at odds with each other. Just because you are personally at odds with the majority, doesn't mean there is a Presidential dictatorship. If you've got a problem with it, WIN A FREAKING ELECTION

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 3:11 PM. Reason : s]

1/31/2006 3:10:10 PM

^^ That's exactly my point. They realize that seeing Roe v. Wade overturned would be disastrous politically for the GOP.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ^^]

1/31/2006 3:11:40 PM

Quote :

"I'm so tired of hearing all this hysteria about how the separation of powers is jeapardy due to one-party control of the legislature and presidency. And now this added rhetoric regarding the judiciary"

this, to be clear, is not what i'm saying. It is dangerous that they control all 3 houses, but that's not what I'm worried about. I'm worried about most of them thinking it's a-ok for the president to get extra powers during wartime such as warrantless searches and locking people up without a trial

1/31/2006 3:24:39 PM

If they think it is ok, THEN IT IS OK

once you guys win some elections, then you'll start making use of those checks and balances and you'll make it "not ok"


but for now, YES, it is ok because the other two branches of government have given him their blessing.

quit whining. win public support.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 3:27 PM. Reason : s]

1/31/2006 3:26:09 PM

Yeah. It looks like Excoriator's arguing with bigfoot there.

I don't see anyone confusing the issue of having three branches of government agree politically with anything relating to separation of powers. Well, no one except this guy:

1/31/2006 3:28:40 PM

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 3:33 PM. Reason : Oops.]

1/31/2006 3:30:52 PM

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 3:33 PM. Reason : Ooops x2.]

1/31/2006 3:31:30 PM

Quote :

" "Why, why, why? Why is the sky blue?" Wolfpack2K: Water vapor."

Good God you are stupid. Please stick to being a pundit for the right. kkthx.

1/31/2006 3:32:31 PM

Quote :

"alito's a strong supporter of hte president's right ot... basically... do whatever he wants "in a time of war," as is the republican congress so we basically have a dictator now who won't act like one, hopefully, but he basically has that power. full control of the federal government by one man."

we don't have a dictator. we have a properly functioning government whose branches have agreed to allow a greater extent of the president's power.

Once one branch changes its mind, the president's power will be checked and balanced.

Are you guys claiming that your own argument is a straw-man? because this is how DG opened the thread.

1/31/2006 3:39:36 PM

Actually, no. What you're talking about in no way relates to what's meant by the system of "checks and balances."

The Congress is Republican. So what?

Judgeships are sliding right? Big deal.

The President wholesale ignored a law passed by Congress requiring him to obtain warrants from the judiciary in order to wiretap domestic phone calls? Total absence of check or balance.

There has been no blessing on this. Otherwise Specter wouldn't be holding hearings on the matter.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ...]

1/31/2006 3:46:59 PM

Quote :

"I hear that prague is nice this time of year."

indeed...i will buy your plane ticket

1/31/2006 3:49:09 PM

So first you claim in bold, "TOTAL ABSENCE OF CHECK AND BALANCE" but then in the same breath you reference Specter's hearings on the matter as an example of how the president's actions violated the system of checks and balances.

seems to me, the system is still functioning.

wtf are you crying about

1/31/2006 3:55:09 PM

wait

if you're just buying plane tickets to europe

i got some vacation time

holla

1/31/2006 3:55:10 PM

Quote :

"So first you claim in bold, "TOTAL ABSENCE OF CHECK AND BALANCE" but then in the same breath you reference Specter's hearings on the matter as an example of how the president's actions violated the system of checks and balances. seems to me, the system is still functioning."

Due, of course, to the altruism of our leadership and not a series of leaks in the press (not an official branch of government) that some are suggesting were themselves acts of treason, right? Specter's hearings on the matter aren't happening until at least 5 years after the activity began and would not have happened at all if the NY Times hadn't broke the story.

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 4:02 PM. Reason : ...]

1/31/2006 4:01:53 PM

Why does it matter so much? I would be okay with Roe?Wade standing so long as no government funds on ANY level were used to pay for abortions. If women want their right to choose, let them pay for it. Let the hatemongering commence.

1/31/2006 4:02:53 PM

I'm not far from agreeing with that.

1/31/2006 4:06:58 PM

Quote :

"Due, of course, to the altruism of our leadership and not a series of leaks in the press (not an official branch of government) that some are suggesting were themselves acts of treason, right? Specter's hearings on the matter aren't happening until at least 5 years after the activity began and would not have happened at all if the NY Times hadn't broke the story."

Bush has been briefing the congress about this since it started. The checks and balances are working perfectly. What we're seeing now is public pressure starting to exert its own influence in the system.

Please don't be that guy who claims that Bush's briefings were meaningless because congress' hands were tied. Thats total BS. They could have gone into closed session at ANY TIME. But they didn't - why? because they agreed with the president. ergo, the system works, has worked, and will continue to work.

1/31/2006 4:06:58 PM

The point -> .

You -------------------------------------------------------------> .

How did the President's briefings of Congress change the fact that he was bypassing the judiciary, as was federally mandated?

1/31/2006 4:09:01 PM

He claims that he was allowed to. Going forward, this argument will be hammered out in court or in congress..... I wonder why? oh gee, maybe because separation of powers is still working.

1/31/2006 4:13:08 PM

Quote :

"Excoriator: He claims that he was allowed to."

Assertion != Fact

Quote :

"Excoriator: Going forward, this argument will be hammered out in court or in congress..... I wonder why? oh gee, maybe because separation of powers is still working."

No thanks to the executive branch.

1/31/2006 4:16:25 PM

Quote :

"Assertion != Fact"

no duh, but if the separation of powers was as broken as you guys are claiming it to be, ("Total absence of check or balance."), then his mere assertion would never be challenged.

It is being challenged. Separation of powers is alive and well. You don't have an argument. Stop whining and win some elections.

1/31/2006 4:26:39 PM