On 12/14/2012 10:49 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, a religious test is not supposed to apply, but sadly it seems that
> the majority of voters seem to think that if you're not Christian, you
> shouldn't run.  Hell, there are still places in the US where if you're an
> atheist, you can't testify in court (so I've heard).
>
Well, not sure about the later, though, I would suspect that, in some 
places, the courts might arrange things so that they didn't anyway.. 
But, yeah, unfortunately, the majority of people can't seem to make the 
connection between, "90% of the people running for office claim to be 
Christian.", and, "A lot of those people running for office are 
dangerous, only in it for themselves, don't care about the public, are 
corrupt, or maybe even, nuts.", and that, thus, the ****last**** thing, 
if it is at all, that should be used to make such a decision is, "The 
guy claims to believe in Jesus!" Gives me a headache. Or, maybe that has 
something to do with the indention in my desk, from the odd motion my 
head makes, every time I watch this bullshit in political campaigns?

Still, again, where is the, "Does this guy even know how much 2+2 
equals, or that its not the same thing as PI, despite what ever their 
favorite book says.", not a criteria? :p

>  From my understanding, there is no way to fire a sitting judge on SCOTUS.
> By definition, they can't do something unconstitutional, because they get
> to decide how the constitution is interpreted.  Even if the majority said
> "uh, no, you got it wrong", the supreme court justices seem to have an
> immunity to that kind of criticism.  I don't think an individual citizen
> could even sue to have one removed from the bench.
>
Yeah, which is about what I get out of it. Very scary, if you ask me. I 
don't comprehend how the heck that got overlooked, or even if it was, or 
if some assumption was made about how they could be, but was never 
directly stated. All I do know is that, by such a standard of 
"permanent" and "unassailable" position, you create two problems:

1. A party/group could, as conservatives have been trying to do, and 
have even said they intend to do, promote people there who could 
undermine the spirit of the constitution, by interpreting it the way the 
"party" thinks it should be.

2. That could backfire, and, for all intents and purposes, the justices 
could, themselves, maneuver matters, such that they hold the real power. 
It would require they act via proxies, but.. since they interpret the 
constitution, if the right laws got fiddled into it, and passed as 
"constitutional", by them, its possible, if a long shot.

It really doesn't matter though if they control the government, or if 
they simply act according to the principles of some minority party, the 
result is the same. The constitution, and new laws, get "interpreted" 
through the lens of people who have no interest in serving the 
constitution, instead of just using it to their own ends. And, that is 
**not** acceptable.

> That was Thomas, and was related to the ACA case last session.
>
> Jim
>
Ah, right, Scalia is the "other" mostly right winger. I knew it was one 
of the two.

Post a reply to this message