Supreme Court battles, and my battle with freepers

[Martin Eden]

I've been waging battles in an open political forum with freeper-types, and I thought I'd share.

freeper 1:

Well, I agree that it will be the Mother of all Battles, since the leftists' agenda depends absolutely on leftist judicial activists on the Court ignoring the Constitution and permitting the unconstitutional parts of their agenda to stand. That has been the procedure since the 1930s or earlier, and has continued to this day. Without such permissive justices, the huge expansion of Federal power since that time, probably wouldn't have happened.
--snip--
But the next Court pick, will indeed be the Mother of all Battles... because the desperate leftists will be literally fighting for their political lives, with nothing left to lose. And, it is looking more and more like this coming M.O.A.B. will have the same outcome as that other, earlier M.O.A.B. predicted by another big-government advocate in the early 1990s.

We can only hope...!

Me:

If you value the Constitution, you should oppose this president and his Supreme Court nominees. Bush asserts he has the authority to wiretap American citizens without warrants, imprison American citizens without charges, and ignore US law. His issues signing statements when he signs legislation, stipulating that he will interpret and obey the law as he sees fit. This administration has turned the Freedom of Information Act on its head -- keeping secret from the American people the workings of their own government. Whistelblowers are punished, and industry lobbyists are placed at the head of agencies created to be watchdogs over those industries. The influence of corporate cash in our government and electoral system threatens the integrity of our representative democracy.

If you don't like the power of the federal government or the idea of Big Brother -- if it's something you're passionate about -- you should devote your energies to opposing this adminisration and the judicial nominees intended to rule in favor of its abuses of power. Samuel Alito, as a legal counsel in the Reagan administration, advocated the "unitary executive" concept of expansive presidential powers.

We are a nation of laws established by Founding Fathers who understood that power corrupts, which is why they created a constitutional government balanced by the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. This balance is under seige by the current administration that you so avidly support. Be careful what you "hope" for.

freeper 2:

You omitted an important part to your statement. Let's try this again.

"If you value the Constitution as it could be(or should be), you should oppose this president and his Supreme Court nominees".

It is the stated objective of this president to appoint those who will strictly interpret the Constitution as it was intended, not as someone would "wish" for it to be.

Now, are you a believer in the "living" constitution, or are you a believer that rules are meant to be followed as they were intended? Do you play chess? Or, do you play Bridge? How about poker? I ask this because I, for one, would not wish to play any of these games according to "living" rules. I would hope the rules do not change, so as to maintain stability and order.

So, which camp do you really belong? I am fairly certain of the answer, but I would love to see you make it official.

Me:

"It is the stated objective of this president" -- there's the rub right there. I put no credibility in the "stated objective" of this president, especially when he seeks to subvert the "intended" constitutional balance between the branches of government.

You can go take a hike to your "camps." I will not classify myself according to your notion of dividing everyone into one or the other, which allows for little or no diversity of thought within a given camp. I will simply tell you what I think. You will then no doubt tell me we don't share a tent.

There is no escaping the fact that the Constitution IS a "living" document, as it as been amended 27 times and INTERPRETED throughout its existence. The primary dispute, as I see it, centers on Article I, Section 8; more specifically, what is referred to as the "Commerce Clause."

Most of the public furor is about abortion and Roe v Wade, but I think that pales in importance. Personally, I don't think government should have the right to prohibit a woman from terminating her pregnancy while the fetus is not viable, but I wouldn't cast my vote on the basis of that issue. There are worse things than leaving those laws up to the individual states.

What would be worse, in my opinion, would be to reverse the body of law and legal precedent that has empowered the federal government To regualte Commerce ... among the several States. The first paragraph of Section 8 declares that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Paragraph 4 also mentions uniform laws. The need for replacing the Articles of Confederation with a more empowering Constitution arose, in part, from disparate laws and uncontrolled economic competition between the states that stifled the country's economy.

Admittedly, I am no constitutional scholar. The Supreme Court Justices who established the body of law and legal precedent inherent in today's federal regulations understood the Constitution much better than you or I.

Of course, not all legal scholars are of one mind. The so-called "strict constructionists" that Bush favors have a different interpretation.

However, considering this president's disregard for the checks and balances of the Constitution and how he favors large corporations, methinks his concern is less for the principles of the Constitution than for the profits of those who helped put him in office.

Big business has fought government regulations tooth and nail every step of the way. Sure, some regulations are overly complex and unecessarily burdensome, but on the whole they do what they were designed to do -- promote the general Wefare by protecting the health, safety, and economic security of American citizens against pollution, unsafe working conditions, corporate malfeasance, etc.

Maybe I'm inclined to take the side of working people because in the 1920's & 30's my family was active in the union movement that fought for safe working conditions and a living wage. Or maybe I just like to breathe clean air and hope to preserve the resources and ecological viability of this planet for generations to come.

The real motive of Bush and his ilk regarding the Supreme Court isn't about preserving the Constitution for the benefit of the American people; it is for serving the interests of corporate profit by externalizing corporate expense. It is expensive for coal-burning power plants to clean their emissions and conform to the New Source Review as originally written. When Bush rewrote those rules, those expenses were transferred to downwind families in the form of increased healthcare costs and shortened lifespans.

If environmental regulations and myriad other federal laws that protect the American people were enacted on a state-by-state basis we not only would have a bewildering 50 sets of regulations, we'd have a race-to-the-bottom in states' attempts to attract business by removing these safeguards -- not unlike the race-to-the-bottom we are seeing in the export of good American jobs to cheaper labor overseas.

Corporations have found that a few hundred thousand dollars donated to political parties can make them millions or billions of dollars in subsidies, relaxed regulations, or reduced scrutiny of their operations. If you think this will achieve some kind of free market utopia that floats all boats, think again. Think of the deregualtion that led to the savings & loan fiasco and Enron. Think of Love Canal and all the other Superfund toxic sites that are no longer funded for cleanup, and the increased toxicity in our bodies that is sure to follow decreased regulation.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think corporations are evil. I work for a corporation. Corporations are profit-driven, which is as it should be. Also as it should be is a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" in which the people, through their federal government, pass laws that regulate Commerce and promote the general Welfare, which is the essence of our representative democracy and not inconsistent with the "intent" of the Founding Fathers.

More at:
http://www.itsallpolitics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170792#170792

[Historic NY]

1. Looks like you have been holding up.....

I see the freeper comment: "since the leftists' agenda depends absolutely on leftist judicial activists on the Court ignoring the Constitution and permitting the unconstitutional parts of their agenda to stand. That has been the procedure since the 1930s or earlier, and has continued to this day. Without such permissive justices, the huge expansion of Federal power since that time, probably wouldn't have happened."

Interesting he must be talking about Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Court with more Justices. Apparently the Freeper would have rather had the country continue in its downward spiral of the depression - pre-war period where millions were w/o food, work or other assistance. FDR made this move in an effort to stave off the courts activitism in undoing what plans and programs he put forth to get the country moving again. Just go back and think about them and how much they made this country change and prosper. How many imporved peoples lots. In FDR's plan he took the country off the gold standard, which apparently upset a lot of business people. The SCOTUS some several years later almost overturned his decision on a 5-4 basis. I would ask your Freeper friend, that if the people thought FDR was so bad, how come he was elected 4 times. Apparently freeper don't care about the general good or welfare.

When he rants about Social Security, tell him to turn in his checks. We wouldn't have a SS mess if the government began paying off on the IOU's its left behind after taking OUR money. FDR's plan didn't include the government getting its greedy hands on the money after it flowed in.

Shrub now presides over the largest expansion of the Federal Government in over 30 yrs. (Homeland Security) which shows it can't even protect us from weather related emergencies.

[Martin Eden]

4. FDR

FDR's one attempt to pack the court failed, yet freeper 1 -- if that's what he's referring to -- calls it "the procedure since the 1930s or earlier." Rethugs are always complaining about government taking our money, but it is THEY who deny the existence of the Social Security trust fund and would exclude the government's obligation to pay benefits to those who've paid in.

These freepers are so blinded by the right-wing propaganda they swallow for brekfastlunchanddinner they can't see that Bush and his kind pose the greatest threat to constitutional safeguards and represent the REAL danger of federal power and Big Brother.

Their opinions are fed to them by organizations funded by corpoartions that pretend to stand for conservative principles when in fact it is essentially an investment to increase profits at the expense of the useful idiots I've been debating and of all Americans -- except perhaps the richest 1% in the SHORT term.

[NMDemDist2]

2. well done, but you're awfully intelligent in your arguments

are you sure they understand all those big words? not to mention the big ideas.. :rofl:

[Martin Eden]

6. Yeah, I should pretend I'm talking to their president

But I can't bring myself to be an enabler in the dumbing-down of America.

[WearyOne2]

3. well done..but banging your head on a brick wall is more fun

[Martin Eden]

5. Don't knock it ..

... until you've knocked it a few times.

You've probably already done that, and I agree that the chances of changing any of their opinions is next to zero. However, I've found that such battles sharpen my writing skills and compel me to think from more than one perspective.

The vast majority who use those forums are already heavily entrenched in their politics, but I think I come away with better arguments for persuading people who are still within reach. Politics is very much the art of persuasion; the fact that polls fluctuate indicates there are many who can yet be persuaded.