Wednesday, April 20, 2005

I Take That Back

You know what, I think I do want Delay to hang around until at least 2006, and maybe longer. He had more to say today about those wacky "judicial activists" (this term means people that disagree too often with conservatives). This term is supposed to mean: "An interpretation of the U.S. constitution holding that the spirit of the times and the needs of the nation can legitimately influence judicial decisions (particularly decisions of the Supreme Court)." No, this does not mean they can decide whatever they want! It just means that if there is ambiguity in the Constitution on a matter (there is plenty in a document that old), then they are allowed some interpretation. Yes, I know there will be thoughts of "it should be left to the states then like it says", which I tend to agree with, but we all know that not everything can work like that, and even most strict constitutionalists know that. Anyway, back to the matter at hand, I think Delay's obvious lack of any regard for where the American people are in this debate is just going to continue to hurt and split his party. He is vastly overestimating how conservative the country is. If 2006 turns out to be a meltdown year for Republicans, I can see maybe a defection or two happening, over to the Dems. There are several moderate Republicans that I would love to have on board, since they would also push the party slightly more to the center. There is a lot of time between now and then, but I like what I see so far.

8 comments:

nicnerd said...

So you are one of the "living, breathing" document guys. I think you hiit the nail on the head when you made a refernce to the 10th ammendment.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Why do you think it is wacky to think that the constitution truly did envision this and specifically desgned the 9th and 10th ammendment to cover what they missed. WHy do you think that we should have an all powerful federal government. Do the state governements not more accurately represent the beliefs of their local population? I think that they do. I certainly think people in my home state are more sensible than some of the liberals on the left coast or the northeastern states.

Why do you think we have jusidical review? Is it not to keep the judiciary from becoming out of synch in the power balance. Is delay wrong in his criticism of judeges writing majority opinions based on international law. I honestly do not care how they do things overseas. Thankfully I am an American and I do not have to subscribe to their socialist dreams. If their way of doing things is so much better, why is France not a superpower?

Erik Grow said...

I never said the US government should be all-powerful. There should be a great number of issues left to the states. Yes, the states have more of a finger on the pulse of the people in them. We're a huge country with myriad views on all kinds of things. Sometimes though, the country has to come to a decision on something, and half of us will be unhappy. I want to be happy about how the laws are in this country too.

He *referred* to international law. He did not EVER say we were bound by international law and you KNOW it. You are making things up to make it sound much more silly.

soundboyz said...

Tom DeLay represents a prime example of the hypocracy that is the Republican party!! I am in agreement with you Erik, he should stay around longer and give more interviews and press conferences . How the hell is a Government official allowed to suggest that Federal Judges be killed for any reason, let alone because of their views on upholding the law?

Erik Grow said...

Well, to be fair I don't know that he was suggesting that they be killed. He was simply implying that ones that don't agree with him should be removed, which is nearly as wacky as killing them.

Also, it's spelled "hypocrisy" I believe.

nicnerd said...

I must have missed the memo that said "kill judges". WTF, liberals are a strange lot.

soundboyz said...

>WTF, liberals are a strange lot.

WTF......I'm not a liberal!!!!

Thanks for the correction Erik,i'm not a great speller.

I took his comments as threats, because the Republicans later tried to link the shooting of the judge in Atlanta and the killing of the judge's family members in Illinois as direct results of people who are angry at judges for not ruling according to the constitution!!Those words could be taken as a direct threat on judges lives, and i'm sure there's plenty of right winged nut jobs that took it that way as well.

http://www.democrats.org/blog/comment/00011812.html

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/04/delay-slammed-for-threatening.php

Erik Grow said...

Nicnerd is a good RL friend of mine, but to nicnerd, if you are a Democrat, you are pretty much always liberal. There is very little purple in red-blue land to him. He's been calling me a liberal for years. Don't take it too personally.

As for Delay, yeah I know what he said. I still don't know that he was advocating killing them. Hopefully nobody took it that way. That is an interesting point about threatening a federal judge though. Hard to argue it's not a threat, though not sure if the statute would cover it if interpreted as a non-physical threat.

Two Dogs said...

Nicnerd seems to on to something if he thinks that Democrats are liberal. If it quacks, blah, blah, blah.

That damn Delay, as a matter of fact, I posted about him....

http://liberalsmash.blogspot.com/2005/04/delay-and-martinez-should-resign-now.html