Maury & Connie dis the Constitution now.. MSNBC

[annabanana]

They are saying what would be different (bad) if we ALWAYS followed the Constitution.. I think this show is going to be a real bad thing

[Patchuli]

1. I think we should dis Maury and Connie then!

I doubt that the vast majority of Americans are going to buy dissing the Constitution. I really do. It has protected U.S. for over 200 years and I predict that people who disrespect it, will not be respected by most of us. Wow, and I always thought Maury was reasonable...tsk tsk.

[Eric J in MN]

3. They were actually coming out against a limited interpretation

of the Constitution which allows school segregation, etc.

Connie Chung just didn't phrase the issue very well.

[sandnsea]

6. Not really

There's been lots of polls that when people are asked about provisions of the bill of rights, majorities often say some of those rights go too far. I think there's been polls that had a majority giving them up all together. This was a long time ago, nothing to do with 9/11. People have really been brainwashed into thinking the bill of rights is only for liberal lawyers and criminals.

[Eric J in MN]

2. That isn't what they meant.

They were saying that we shouldn't have a limited interpretation of the Constitution which allows school segregation and bans on contraception.

Connie Chung just didn't phrase the issue very well.

[sandnsea]

4. That was a very liberal show

It is taking the right wing frame and showing how stupid it is when you show the actual cases they're saying are activist. I can't recall seeing anything in the show that I thought was a gratuitous plug for the right wing. Only thing I thought was that it will be too corny to appeal to liberals or to the Olberman crowd. I'd like for the show to work because I like their philosophical approach.

[Eric J in MN]

5. The opening segment interviewing a friend of Samuel Altio

who is now a law professor at Pepperdine wasn't liberal.

[sandnsea]

7. It wasn't conservative either

He was very nice and presented a personal view of Alito. They could have had a right wing mouthpiece, but they didn't. I thought they managed to present the problems with an Alito nomination without turning anybody off with gratuitous bashing and also not really presenting many right wing talking points either.

[Eric J in MN]

15. I don't think that Alito's friend really believes that

his rulings will resemble Sandra Day O'Connor's more that Scalia's.

I considered him a right-winger with an agenda of saying things to help get his friend on the Court.

[sandnsea]

26. Point being

They didn't trot out Jeff Sessions or Ann Coulter. They brought on somebody who wasn't your typical rabid right winger, just someone saying nice things about his friend. Ho hum. zzzzzz.

[Doctor_J]

23. Pepperdine is the most right-wing college in the nation

after Liberty. That's where Ken Starr now gets paid.

[Atman]

20. It wasn't conservative, either? COME ON!

It was the only part of that pap-fest I watched, I figured, okay here we go, another BushCo cheerleading squad. I heard that guy saying how Alito was actually very moderate, like Sandra Day O'Conner, because he testified before the hearings that he would carefully consider the constitution, just like Sandra did! It was inane blather. Using Alito's own self-serving, heavily coached lie-fest as proof that he isn't the person he has already demonstrated himself to be in his own writings is simply nuts, and it demonstrates that Maury and Connie have no more intention of playing "journalist" on this show than Sean Hannity does. Not one question about Alito's writings, they just let this guy spew Alito's talking points.

[sandnsea]

25. Well you should have stuck around

They covered some of his decisions, at some point in their Alito segment. The guy did not get on there and blather on about activist judges and upperdown vote and bla bla bla, they could have chosen someone alot worse than that guy. That was the equivalent of having Colmes on to present the liberal view. Yeah, the O'Connor comment was comical, but by the end of the segment I don't think anybody thought he'd be a Sandra Day O'Connor. And by the end of the entire segment, people should have figured out exactly what is threatened by an Alito confirmation.

[jenmito]

8. I agree...

They were saying the "strict constructionists" are not the best kind of judge, since we'd still be segregated, no privacy, etc. They said to counter the "activist judges" charge, libs. should call them "reactivist judges" (or something like that). I also agree the show is too corny at times, like with their little "bits" between stories or how they hold hands, Maury acts jealous, they "argue," etc.

[sandnsea]

11. The bird/turkey thing

Obvious cliche isn't funny to me. And the weird radio thing Maury was doing at one point. They are both smarter than that, and it's annoying as all hell when smart people pretend to be dumb because they think that's all the masses can handle. I wouldn't mind some smart banter, and smart humor. Olberman works because it's smart and off-beat, not cliche, and he banters with us. He knows we get the jokes, so he doesn't dumb them down or explain them. Maury and Connie need to figure that out.

[jenmito]

13. I agree again...

I love Olbermann. Maury and Connie probably won't last very long at this pace. Their viewers aren't dumb like Faux viewers.

[BlueCaliDem]

14. Probably more smart that corny because...

...isn't that what it takes to keep a show on broadcast corporate-owned media that isn't slanted (or wholly fallen) to the right?

I remember, not to long ago, Phil Donahue was on a show (I believe it was Larry King, or something) wherein he tells about how he was canned by MSNBC because they "don't need real dissenting voices against the war in Iraq" aka "no bad-mouthing Bush and his cronies".

He claimed, that his only biggest mistake, was that he didn't bring his own show (that had higher ratings than Soft-er-Hardball) with more humor, because that appears to be the ONLY way any show that isn't fully dedicated to promoting rightwing/republican views and slants, will stay on.

Think Keith Olbermann's "Countdown"; Jon Stewart's "Daily Show", Bill Maher's canned "Politically Incorrect".

I think both Maury and Connie are really SMART; making a (far too short) half hour weekend show to counter-balance (somewhat) Russert, Stepha-whateverhisnameis, and Leslie Blitzer's shows.

Hmm...1 against 3, and they STILL have to put silliness and humor in it in order to keep a progressive show broadcast.

Again I ask: What liberal media bias???

[Eric J in MN]

16. I like the half-hour length.

I'd probably tune into more TV news-analysis shows if they were a half-hour instead of an hour.

[sandnsea]

24. That sounds about right

So the key to keeping them on the air, because it's better than the alternative, is to write and say how funny they are. Shoot, I can do that!

[hlthe2b]

9. Liz Winstead is producing the show....

(formerly of AAR's Unfiltered)

thus, I highly doubt there is any intent to put forth a conservative bias.

[NYCGirl]

12. And don't forget that Lizz Winstead also created The Daily Show.

I hope this is a success for her.

[Eric J in MN]

17. Thanks, I didn't know Lizz Winstead is the producer.

A couple of the guests (Melanie Sloan of CREW, Dahlia Lithwick of Slate) are regulars on "The Al Franken Show," and so there is a connection to AAR.

[tocqueville]

10. I don't know what those two stand for

but the idea in itself is discussable. There is kind of a myth in the US that the constitution is "the perfect constitution". And that some geniuses wrote that perfect document 200 years ago. It is true that the US constitution with some others at that time (The French of 1792 for example) were tremendous advances for mankind and have served model for other democratic constitutions.

But things have changed, man and ideas have evolved. That's why many constitutions in Europe have been rewritten to the better, while the US has stayed very much the same besides some amendments.

You can discuss :

1) is the Presidential system and indirect representation the ideal system ? Many democratic countries have a parlamentary system or a semi-presidential system to avoid "legal" overtakes of power like the one we are seeing in the US today.

2) The role of the judiciary is unique in the US and the Supreme Court has virtually no counter-powers to teh difference from all other democratic countries. Which leads to a final word given to "9 old men" appointed for life, instead of to a majority democratic vote. Roosevelt wanted to change that and was harrassed by those days freepers claiming he wanted to "kill" the constitution. The present Alito situation gives you a little idea of what this major flaw can lead to with a lifetime appointed judge...

3) there are plenty of other aspects too : other countries have included for example bill of rights far superior to the US bill of rights, including women rights, abolition of the death penalty, environmental rights, animal rights, CLEAR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE etc... which gives modern constitutions a far more decent approach to modern values than the US constitution does. They write down the stuff, make it law and don't wait that some half-senile bigot (in many cases) TRANSLATES Jefferson's thinking 200 years after, when words didn't even have the same meaning.

The assessment that things would be "bad" if the constitution always would be followed is of course stupid and a call to illegality. The right thing to do instead is to settle down and write a modern Constitution worthy of American ideals and have it endorsed by a vast majority of the population. Obviously nobody has the guts to do that, people don't even approach the problem that way because they are are caught into the mythical idea of the
"perfect" constitution. There is no such thing and it will never be.

And the belief that the actual constitution has always protected and saved Americans is a myth too. If it was the case, Bush hadn't even happened or in the case he did, would have been ALREADY removed...

rant over

[Eric J in MN]

18. Regarding the judiciary, I think we should raise the minimum

age of someone starting on the Supreme Court to 70 years old, so that they won't each be there so long.

In a democracy, power isn't concentrated in few hands. Raising the starting age of Supreme Court justices to at least 70 would help with that.

[President Jesus]

19. Maury Povich, Bush campaign donor

it's fact. a link to his campaing contributions: http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Maury_Povich.php

[goclark]

21. Isn't he suppose to present to RFepub. view and she the Demo?

I watched it one time and it seemed pretty silly to me.

Maybe I missed something.

I'll try again.

[sallyseven]

22. I think that Peperdine University

is the school that Star wanted to be pres. of. He is teaching there now. Not a liberal place.