SORRY ... BUT IT'S HARD TO DEAL WITH THE UNEDUCATED SOMETIMES.

NEA;Z NUZE ^ | 21 February 2008 | NEAL BOORTZ

[houstonman58]

"Your “21” years explanation is a mute point. The point was that CONGRESS came up with the numbers not the CONSTITUTION. Hence the FOUNDERS who actually wrote the document contradicted everything you said in the initial post I responded to you."

You may be a dope, but you're not talking to one over here. You are applying a very typical 'bait-and-switch' tactic here with your mind numbing statement. I am saying that democracy's fingerprints are found all over our country's system of government, past and present, and that this is undeniable. I pointed to the fact that even our (Appeals) Court system has, and always has had, a democratic means of decision making, (majority rules). You come back with something about the Constitution allowing Congress to appoint as many judges to these appeals courts as they wish, and they indeed have appointed an ODD number of justices for all but 21 years of our blessed history, clearly showing that they wanted a democratically styled Appeals Court and Supreme Court system. Since the Constitution doesn't mandate a certain number of Appeals Court justices, that only shows that the Founding Fathers were open to a majority rules Court system, or some other type of system. But it certainly does not endorse your assertion that the Framers somehow would have disapproved of the democratic, majority opinion rules system that has predominated our Court system for most our history.

It's actually laughable, your agrument, because leaving Congress wide open to appoint how ever many justices they want to place into the Appeals Courts only means that the Founding Fathers left this part of the Court system up to the people. And Congress, (representing the people), decided to make the Appeals Courts like themselves, a system where majority rules. You cannot deny historical facts, even with silly bait and switch tactics. You have nothing to argue about here if you're paying attention and being honest. The Constitution allows for a democratic, majority rules Appeals Court system, and that's exactly what we've had over the centuries.

[rollo tomasi]

Your a dope and “bait and switch”? At least I am coherent enough to understand what the difference is between being a democracy and exercising democratic practices are.

We use democratic principles but we were set up as a Representative Constitutional Republic (If the “people” are wise enough to sustain it).

Do the people decide Appellate Court outcomes? Do the people elect members of the appellate court? No an oligarchy does no matter how the court is configured USING democratic practices. Are you now going to say we are not only a democracy but an oligarchy as well?

I figure one can make the case for that as well, in fact 40 million plus are dead not because of democracy or adhering to the explicitness of the Constitution but the exact opposite, the personnel opinions of an oligarchy (By exercising democratic PRICIPLES to reach a decision). Or are you telling me the “people”, being a Democratic nation and all, voted for Roe v. Wade? “Of course rollo we are not a direct democracy but we are a democracy though” circular logic of disinformation (Of the founders intentions) you have been spewing.

Presidents have been using the court as a means to control policy. If the right Congress obliges you have changes. That is a democracy? Do “the people” decide these things?

Why did the first session of the first United States Congress (Responsible for setting up our government in the first place) settle on the original six? Why don’t you gage into their minds and actually understand their wisdom?

By the way, how is this setting up a democracy again? Of course Presidents have tried to pack the court in their favor, wanted an odd number to avoid a split but the original Congress thought the number 6 was sufficient enough (Of course future bodies of congress and “the people” thought an oligarchy was a swell idea).

Of course you never addressed the electoral college issue. How could being a democracy and all, an actual elector could go against “the will of the people”? “But we are a democracy rollo”.

Don’t worry, we are embracing “true” democracy at a rapid pace. Soon the Constitution will be completely out of it’s cage (About 3/4 out already) and those that cry “we are a democracy” will finally realize their dream, tyranny.

Now I agree with you about todays government inching towards democracy rather than the Rep. Con. Republic. I believe we are becoming more of a democracy (Harking back to 1913 again) and in some ways direct. “The people” seem to be addicted to telling landowners what to do with their property, but as I stated before Boortz and Limbuagh understood the founding fathers who established this government. It’s a shame “the people” dropped the ball, thinking we were established as a “democracy” by letting our servants become our masters and also engaging in a sense of tyranny “ourselves”.

Now do I have to pull out all the quotes/Federalist Papers/Anti-Federalist papers warnings of not containing safeguards (From “turning into” a democracy) - - about how the United States is not a “democracy” from those that CREATED this country in the first place?

Frankly this “dope” does not have the time but I pointed you in the right direction.

[rollo tomasi]

“The point was that CONGRESS came up with the numbers not the CONSTITUTION.”

Forgot, apparently in your rant of “democratic means of decision making” (You are finally getting it) by elected Reps., you failed to understand what I was trying to say.

If we were a true “democracy” the founders would have placed an odd number of justices by DEFAULT and insisted when Congress expanded the court an odd number be kept by CONSTITUTIONTIONAL authority. You implied that it was always an odd number in your initial post and it was not. Had you have been honest you would of pointed out the USSC started at six, changed, went to another even number 50+ years later and to further your cause say “democracy” changed that.

Of course they settled at 6 in the beginning and gave Congress the power to expand as they saw fit. If Congress wanted an uneven number of oligarchs than so be it. How are “the people” involved in this process again? Are we not a “democracy”?

“I demand the right to vote how many Justices are on the court. Give me my democracy damn it”.

[houstonman58]

"If we were a true “democracy” the founders would have placed an odd number of justices by DEFAULT --"

Not necessarily Rollo. The judiciary wasn't defined with as much detail as the other two branches because, apparently, the Framers were content to let it evolve within our democracy. The judiciary in fact was quite slow to evolve compared to the Congress and the Administration. You can call America what you will, but you cannot deny that the fingerprints of democracy are all over our Constitution and our governmental history.