Posted on 04/15/2005 4:56:59 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
It is in some states & it would be foolish not to recognize the direction that these thing go.
The original basis for protected classes was women, minor children & "the incompetent", since the laws originally precluded any of them from voting. The special protection for women should have been worked out of the system after the 19th became the law of the land.
I know the 14th has been expanded to mean that race was a viable basis for the creation for another, new special class, but it took the Civil Rights Acts to actually do so. I'd like to stuff the 14th genie back into it's bottle again, but know that it will take a mighty sledge hammer to do so.
I could be wrong but I think that some court declares an act of Congress or a state legislature unconstitutional on a shocking average. I'd love to know the rate.
I heard some bytes of the Scalia, Breyer and O'Connor exchange (it seemed to me that O'Connor was uncomfortable being forced to be unflatteringly compared to Scalia and Breyer was blissfully unaware). Scalia mentioned his confirmation but at that time, the general perception was that you replaced conservative with conservative and liberal with liberal. At least, that is what we are told when people ask about what happened with Clarence Thomas.
In any case, judges are becoming a huge issue and I stand by my proposal to limit lower court Federal judges to 10 (or maybe 15) year terms.
Originally, there was no cloture. One senator could prevent a vote under original senate . But you are right, it was not done to stop legislation. But then, orginally, there was not much legislation.
That is why we have voting, especially on very devisive issues. One thing we do not do is allow 5 oligarchs to arbitrarily become social engineers.
But there also wasn't the Onanistic filibuster either. The Senators actually had to debate continuously.
I don't recall saying that the law is contradictory. The law is never contradictory in an absolute sense, just sometimes in a state of tension. Something always is found to trump something else. Judges always decide.
With modern communications, it would not take many to keep a filibuster going around the clock until the supernova. That is a red herring.
No, it's not a red herring. Because when they actually filibuster, all business in the Senate stops.
I stand for some things too, no matter what, so I admire that. But in this case, your proposal has zero chance of happening. It would take a Constitutional amendment. So, we must work with the cards from the deck which have been played.
Some call it social engineering from the court, but those who inherited favoritism from the constitution as it stood, would never vote to change the constitution in order to lose their built in advantages.
Stopping Senate business is a piece of cake. I am not sure where that leads one.
I actually think that this is an amendment that actually stands a reasonable chance of passage.
(Sheesh!)
It must be horrible to be so pessimistic about the public square. What kept the fundies in place before SCOTUS got active, or if they were not in place, what did they do that was so horrible?
From a psephological prespective, in any event, your assertions are ludicrous.
I actually think that actually, it is actually impossible that actually two thirds of the Congress and actually three fourths of the state legislatures would actually, ever, actually, actually do such an actual thing, actually.
I keep odd hours, so am looking for entertainment in the middle of the night. ;o) Besides, with the CSpan cameras rolling 24/7, anything funky on the floor when we're all asleep will get prime time coverage eventually. Shine the light of day on the debate & let it roll until it's resolved. Speachifying about minority rights are going to go look flat, if any of them goes to the fallback position of old & tries to read the phone book into the record.
I could propose a Constitutional amendment permitting the flogging of errant judges and it would pass. Restraining judicial power is certainly a populist position.
And here I thought you were good at maths. A little Britishism for you. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.