Which is the better gamble ? Take the issue to this SC which has ruled against it already or take the issue to the next supreme court with new appointees that were confirmed by Daschle ? Which is the bigger gamble ?
Up until a few days ago I saw this entire issue in a single dimension just like the majority of Freepers did but I was wrong. There are several congruent issues here which make the question of which action is best for the constitution less like a one dimensional comic strip and more like a multiple plot novel.
I was one of the first here who saw this differently. Many Freepers won't ever see that, more and more are "getting it", and a whole bunch of Bush haters won't ever get it but they will just moan about the issue of the day.
Since you asked, allowing it to hit our Constitutional backstop is the biggest gamble of all in my opinion.
We are passing bills to look good on TV and expecting the SC to play "goalie"
That bothers me on allot of levels and it's a clear cut violation of their oath. That's all the reason I need to oppose CFR. No political formulas, mental aerobatics or tit for tat rundowns of which party is scoring what media points where are necessary.
I hope you aren't including me in your list, because I am honest about Bush. I can and do say good things about him, he just doesn't give me allot of reason to cheer him on as of late because of CFR (which won't lose my vote) and Amnesty (a total dealbreaker)
Don't blame me, or anyone else here who doesn't have a nice word for him over this because he (and Congress) put these issues on our plate, not the other way around.
Actually, the majority of my scorn is reserved for the House because those traitors voted Dick Armey's Constitutionality clause down flat.
They knew what it meant and made a decision to spit on their oath and pass this bill. The Senate did it too (not as flagrantly though) and now it's dubya's turn.