Jump to content

THE NEXT FOUR YEARS


Guest zipperzone
This topic is 6639 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Guest zipperzone

There is a lot of talk about the dangers of anointing "The Idiot" as leader of the free world for the next four years. The international press in particular is uniquely united in forcasting doom and gloom should such a prophecy come to pass. (And I should perhaps add here that I think it is inevitable - so hang onto your seats, it's going to be.........)

 

The negatives that are most often quoted are:

 

(1) The War, the cost of same and the reputation the US has lost and will continue to loose in almost all of the world.

 

(2) The war on terror

 

(3) The Economy

 

(4) The gay marriage debacle.

 

While these are certainly concerns, looking at it realistically, we probably won't personally see our day to day lives change all that much, based on the above, should "The Idiot" be elected.

 

As I see it - there is a much more worrisom facet that gets very little air time. And that is what HE will be able to do to the court system, during the next four years. HE will appoint judges of the same fervour and religious persuasian as he has exhibited and these judges - especially the Supreme Court's lifetime appointments - will change the fabric of American for decades to come. And you will be effected on a daily basis.

 

In my opinion, this is the greatest evil he will do to the country. Call me wrong, but it's the way I see it coming down!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming he did appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court, what specific changes would you expect? His appointees would be people who do not believe in using the court to legislate and mandate social change. Yes, they might rule that the states can legislate against abortion, but most states would have a majority favoring abortion and very few would legislate against it. Such a court would not order the states to allow gay marriage, but would leave it up to the state legislatures. I would not expect much change in the area of criminal procedure or civil rights. They probably would rule that affirmative action is discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause except for very limited circumstance. But you are greatly exagerating the potential change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hah! This court (and these "conservatives") only believe in states rights when it's convenient and fits their own ideology. Otherwise, they're every bit as "activist" as the "liberals" are accused of being. The most glaring recent case in point, of course, was the outrageous intrusion of the Supreme Court into the State of Florida's electoral process, suspending the recount of votes in the disputed Gore-Bush election, and awarding the election to Bush BEFORE THE RECOUNT PROCEDURES HAD BEEN COMPLETED. This grossly violated an immemorial precedent that the administration of election procedures are a state matter, and all three branches of the Florida government were feverishly working to complete a recount while also resolving disputes like how "dimpled" ballots should be counted (different counties had dealt with them inconsistently), whether absentee ballots that arrived after the statutory deadline should be counted, etc. The Supreme Court simply stepped in and stopped the State of Florida dead in its tracks. States rights, my foot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest zipperzone

>But you are greatly exagerating the potential change.

 

And you, my dear Merlin, are living in a dream world. Just wait and see! Let's have this same conversation 3 years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

>>But you are greatly exagerating the potential change.

>

>And you, my dear Merlin, are living in a dream world. Just

>wait and see! Let's have this same conversation 3 years from

>now.

>

Zipper:

 

You are correct, and as for Merlin, it is a well-known fact that swallowing Republican shit causes hallucinations and delusional thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>As I see it - there is a much more worrisom facet that gets

>very little air time. And that is what HE will be able to do

>to the court system, during the next four years. HE will

>appoint judges of the same fervour and religious persuasian as

>he has exhibited and these judges - especially the Supreme

>Court's lifetime appointments - will change the fabric of

>American for decades to come. And you will be effected on a

>daily basis.

 

 

What gets very little media coverage are the races that will determine control of the Senate. No one has yet ruled out a shift to the Democrats -- it's possible, although not very likely. It's equally possible that the Republicans will add to their advantage; even Daschle's prospects are not too bright in South Dakota.

 

Any court nominations by Bush will have to pass muster with the half dozen most liberal Republicans. After the election, though, Bush will swing toward the moderate wing anyway. He's an opportunist, not an ideologue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid he's a combination of the two. He's both an opportunist AND an ideologue. And he won't veer towards the center. He could have done that in his first term, when he ran as a "compassionate conservative" who'd be a moderate, but turned out to be as hard right a president as the U.S. has seen. If the Republicans keep control of Congress he'll have to continue the course, because the extreme right wing has taken control of the Republican party and to get re-elected Republican congressman mostly have to reflect that extreme right wing. "Moderates" are strictly window-dressing in today's Republican party. The real party is what's reflected in the party platform, which is horrifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> "Moderates" are strictly window-dressing in

>today's Republican party. The real party is what's reflected

>in the party platform, which is horrifying.

 

According to a recent Newsweek poll:

 

==Looking ahead to the next presidential campaign, a majority of registered voters (50%) said they would like to see former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani run for president in 2008 (65% of Republicans), followed by Arizona Sen. John McCain (48%, 47% of Republicans), and Arnold Schwarzenegger (22%, 30% of Republicans), if the Constitution were changed to allow foreign-born U.S. citizens to run.==

 

This year, Bush may be able to convince a slim majority of voters that we have not lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. By 2008, it will be obvious from those disasters that Republicans can't win on foreign-policy issues. To win on domestic issues, they have to move toward moderation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

In order to post in the Political Issues forum, all members are required to acknowledge that their post is in compliance with our Community Guidelines.  In addition, you acknowledge that it meets the following requirements: 

  • No personal attacks: Attack the issue not the person
  • No hijacking: Stay on the subject of the thread 

  • No bullying, hate speech or offensive terms/expressions

In addition, if the moderators feel someone is reporting content simply because if it’s political stance (such as but not limited to reporting it as off topic but not other off topic replies by those that agree with your stance), the reporting person may receive a warning as well.

Content that does not comply with the above requirements will be removed.  Multiple violations may result in a loss of access to this forum.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...