Jury's Out on U.S. Democracy:Justice Anthony Kennedy

[cal04]

The United States is not making the case for freedom, democracy and Western law to the rest of the world, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Saturday.

``Make no mistake, there's a jury that's out. In half the world, the verdict is not yet in. The commitment to accept the Western idea of democracy has not yet been made, and they are waiting for you to make the case,'' Kennedy said in an address to the American Bar Association.

Kennedy, 70, said he fears many parts of the world are not yet convinced that the American form of government as designed by the framers of the Constitution guarantees a better way of life.

``Our best security, our only security, is in the world of ideas, and I sense a slight foreboding,'' he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5996803,00.html

[Jacobin]

1. Didn't this douche vote to install the Boy King?

And he's whining about 'democracy?"

[jobycom]

3. Yeah, Kennedy's the self-important, wishy-washy one.

He's a bit smarter than Thomas, but not the smartest. Souter claimed he almost swayed Kennedy to vote the other way. He's one of the weaker justices. Seems to make some decisions based on his own feelings of importance than on the merits of the case.

[unblock]

8. let's not forget that this guy IS the swing vote these days....

a sad statement indeed.

that he senses even a "slight" foreboding is a small blessing, and when it comes to today's court, we must be grateful for the little crumbs they toss our way....

[jobycom]

9. The good thing is he sees himself as a balancing factor

and with the right swing of the court and the nation, he may swing our way more often. But he really does seem to make decisions based more on how he thinks the nation should swing than on a solid ideology. He's an odd fellow, the little I've looked at him.

[unblock]

11. the thing is, where does the fulcrum lie?

the fact that he is a swing vote at all is what's crazy.
to the right of him is out-and-out right wing insanity, and the fact that this holds his sway half the time is scary indeed.

[jobycom]

12. True, but I think for him the fulcrum is the Court itself.

That's what I mean about the way he votes. He looks at the Court and decides "It's decisions have been to conservative/liberal lately, I'll bring balance to the force to push it the other way." Problem is, he's the biggest swing vote, so the Court leans whichever way he does. I think he knows that, I think he makes his decisions based on this idea that he should create a balance by siding with one, then the other, side. But with O'Connor gone and clear right-winger in her place, there will be fewer times that the court leans left without him. So I think he may start leaning left more often than before.

He's a flake, but he's at least less dangerous than the Four Demons--well, three demons and their non-thinking puppet. I'm sure you know who I mean.

[smokey nj]

2. I hope Justice Kennedy will consider that sense of forboding.....

when considering his opinions. I also hope he's taking care of himself, getting enough rest, and following doctor's orders for any ailments he may have.

[Nikki Stone 1]

4. This is the eminent domain justice-completely undermining private property

for the common man, the basis of true democracy.

[SensibleAmerican]

14. Which the other 4 liberal justices signed on with him on

n/t

[Peace Patriot]

5. They don't mean democracy. They mean global corporate predation.

If you just translate the thing, when they say it, then it will be clearer. All of South America, for instance, is rejecting US-based global corporate predators. But they are NOT rejecting democracy, in the sense that most of us mean it--government of, by and for the people. Far from it, they are embracing REAL democracy, transparent elections, will of the majority, rule of law, fairness and justice. It's the miracle of Latin America. So corporatists are feeling a little sad these days. Nobody loves them. They have for too long presumed that democracy was for the fat-cats, the predators, the super-rich. Remember what Rumsfeld said: freedom = the freedom to loot (--of the looting of Baghdad). He meant it. They can't conceive of democracy for all.

Look how they set up Iraq--as a corporate looting party. No interest in democracy, really. And these same dudes--the ones Kennedy installed--have long opposed self-determination for any peoples. They were the Iran-Contra thugs (turned the Nicaraguan revolution bloody and destroyed it), destroyed the political left in El Salvador with death squads, kidnapped the democratically elected president of Haiti, recently, and removed him from office, and applauded the attempted miltary coup in Venezuela in 2002, another kidnapping and attempted removal of a democratically elected president. They don't want democracy for Iran. They want to return the Shah and inflict another 25 years of torture and oppression on the Iranian people.

So when they say "democracy," convert it in your mind to something like "looting expedition" and in some cases "Murder Inc."

Now re-read it:

-----------

The United States is not making the case for global corporate predation, looting expeditions and Murder Inc. to the rest of the world, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said Saturday.

``Make no mistake, there's a jury that's out. In half the world, the verdict is not yet in. There are still many looting opportunities. The commitment to accept the global corporate predators' idea of democracy has not yet been made, and many are rejecting our case,'' Kennedy said in an address to the American Bar Association.

Kennedy, 70, said he fears many parts of the world are not yet convinced that global corporate predation as designed by U.S. fascists, who spit on the U.S. Constitution, guarantees a better way of life."

``Our best security, our only security--the security of our right to profiteer off the poverty and suffering of others--is in imposing this entirely false idea of democracy on the rest of the world, and I sense a slight foreboding,'' he said.

-----------

[orwell]

6. Translation...

...Freedom means stuffing our form of government, economics, militarization, and culture down your throat.

Now why wouldn't those poor backward bastards embrace that?

[Selatius]

7. No, the jury is in. The two-party system we have sucks.

It is ultimately not very representative of the will of the people.

If a nation were to call a constitutional convention, they would more likely look at systems that allow multiple parties and wider diversity than the system found in the US. A system that too easily allows just one political party to dominate all levels of the government is a flawed system, in my frank opinion.

[jobycom]

10. The nation wouldn't reject it,and the proof is that there is no requiremen

for a two party system. It's what the people have developed. Proportional governments have lots of parties, they put them all in government, but when it comes to forming the government, there are two leaders and they have to form coalitions with other parties until one forms a minority. We do exactly the same thing, except we choose our ruling coalition and our opposition in the primar, rather than after the election. It's a good system. Everyone who is out of power wants to rewrite the system to put them back in, but no system would give us more power. The liberals and the neocons would both e fringe parties, and the small amount of influence on a new government we formed would be minimal, just as it is now.

I like the two party system. It's more functional and more responsive than others. Our problem isn't the system, it's that over half the nation disagrees with us, because the other side lies, and has stolen the media. We just have that back.

[Selatius]

13. I politely disagree

The US Constitution was written at a time before the rise of political parties. George Washington and others simply didn't trust political parties. It is my view that if they had known then what we know now about the nature of party politics, they would've adopted a system that would've made it difficult for a single political party to gain a majority of the seats. If they distrusted political parties, why would they adopt a structure that would readily allow one to dominate? They wouldn't, in my mind, but they didn't have the benefit of hindsight either, nor would they have had the 200 years of democratic records to draw upon from several other nation-states that operated on democratic principles either.

The difference between our system and proportional representation isn't that we form coalitions in the primary vs. forming it after the general election. The difference is in how power is exercised. I would not trust a political party to police itself anymore than I trust it to rule alone.

The reason I favor a multi-party system is that if any party within the ruling coalition attempts to strong-arm the agenda, the other parties in the coalition are free to withdraw their support on the spot and stop the damage. There is no such defense mechanism in the current system.

Aside from that, I say we also lack certain other democratic mechanisms such as a fully-funded public campaign system. At best, it's partial funding.

[jobycom]

16. Thanks! I have had too few polite disagreements lately!

You make a great historical argument, and I can't really disagree on the first paragraph. But my basic point was that since there is no requirement or even structure for parties in the Constitution, there is nothing to stop third and fourth parties now, other than that people don't want them. Surely, funding and state election structures are impediments, but they are not prohibitive. A smaller party can arise, find funding, get on the ballots, and run campaigns, and win small victories if they had a message people liked. If you put twenty Greens in the House, they would form a coalition that the Dems would work with.

Most people just don't want one. The needs that a multi-party proportional representation system fulfills are fulfilled in our primaries. John Murtha and Dennis Kucinich and John Lewis are all in the same party on paper, but they are as worlds apart as if they were in three different parties. Our coalitions are formed, just as in a proportional system, but only within the parties. I agree with you that parties aren't good at policing themselves, but any form of proportional representation will ultimately require parties to police themselves, or each other. And they have the same problem we have no. One party can still gain a majority, and that party will still dominate government, and all the other little parties would have less, not more, power to challenge them.

Maybe we'd have enough parties that someone would have to form a coaltion, and we'd have a party able to withdraw to stop whatever madness arose. But again, we have that power now. A handful of Republicans now could stop it if they wanted to. If you have a multi-party coalition, those in the coalition would want to stay in power, and would be just as beholden to the majority party as in our system. No one stopped Blair. In fact, they couldn't even get rid of him, even though no one likes him, because of the party structure.

I just see no reason to change. Changing our system won't fix what's wrong with this nation.

I also don't like public funded campaign systems, or at least not for anything over local level. A candidate or party who can't convince donors to give them money isn't likely to be able to do much once in office. Either not enough people agree with their message, or they just aren't skilled enough to do all that is required in office. That, and with as little money as public funding would provide, it would be far easier for a demagogue to get into power, since his opponent wouldn't have enough resources to counter. It's hard enough now, and we fail quite often now. I think public funding would make it worse.

The problem is, as I see it, that people want to fix a system that isn't any worse than any other. A multi-party, proportional system would have its own problems, and in no time at all the wealthiest would game it, too, and we'd be no better off, and may even find ourselves worse off, with our opposition forces spread even thinner and bickering even more destructively amongst ourselves. The only real solution is to work our system. Win the votes. Make people see it the way we do. A multi-party system wouldn't make that any easier--we'd still have to win the votes and make people see it the way we do, and the conservative party would still have the money and thus the media on their side, and we'd still have to win elections the old fashioned way. Might as well do it within the system we have. I can't think of a single major issue over my lifetime that would have turned out differently with a multi-party system. The coalitions, the voters, the attitudes, would all be the same. All an MP system would do would be to change the method that was used, not change any of the outcomes.

[SensibleAmerican]

15. If I had to define the Supreme Court, I would it like this

Rights Oriented - Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Rights Oriented - John Paul Stevens
Minimalist/Rights Oriented - David Souter
Minimalist/Rights Oriented - Stephen Breyer
Minimalist/Rights Oriented - Anthony Kennedy
Minimalist: Samuel Alito
Minimalist: John Roberts
Originalist/Minimalist: Clarence Thomas
Originalist: Antonin Scalia

Personally, I would like Stephen Breyer to be the centrist vote, though I believe if John Paul Stevens dies when there is a Republican President, McCain, Bush, or Giuliani, I think that the center will become either the new justice or Alito/Roberts.

[leftchick]

17. I thought the headline meant here in the US

he is a jackass.