Rick Perry
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
You support Kelo and Citizens United?
My political ideology says no, but it is United States Law now based on Judicial interpretation and I accept that. Besides, this isn't about me, is it?
I do believe in the US Constitution. I don't believe it gives Courts the power of Judicial Review. I'm glad it exists, to be sure.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson's team looked into trying to hit Perry on it and they determined it was no use because the electorate either didn't care or approved of it. "It takes a lot of guts to kill an innocent man"
No, because he hobnobs with the major figures of the New Apostolic Movement, to name a few, as well as dudes responsible for spreading hateful political messages to Uganda that has led to their recent crusade against homosexuals.
These are the kinda guys who don't believe in the separation of Church and State, they don't believe in religious tolerance, and they don't believe in equal rights for homosexuals. They are disgusting and even if Perry is manipulating them for political gain (and I'm not sure it's that simple), he doesn't deserve anyone's vote.
Great post! The only other thing I have to add is that Texas also has the highest income inequality in the entire country.
That's the other thing that really agitated his party.
So, how do you plan to support the assertion that Obama's leadership in the White House has been "traitorous"?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly spell it out doesn't mean it can't be done. Look for a mention of the government being allowed to levy taxes to support an Air Force. It clearly spells out navy and army, but no air force.
It is like that with judicial review. It has been the modus operandi for the Judiciary for so long that it cannot be removed from the courts tast under the Constitution without emasculating the entire system of checks and balences.
I can't imagine that holding country-wide. But I could be giving some Americans too much credit.
Mulberry vs Madison was pretty controversial at the time... among people who actually wrote the Constitution.
Dreadnought
Deity
I didn't say that; I meant that people are very critical of Perry and seemingly silent about Obama, even with recent events.
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
Just showing the courts can be wrong with two recent examples. Both were 5-4, so four supposed experts looked at the same case and came to the opposite conclusion. And it was the conservative wing that didn't like Kelo and the liberal wing that didn't like Citizens, so you can't even argue that one side has worse judges based on those two cases.
Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott were horrific miscarriages of justice. So are less famous decisions like the one in the 19th century that allowed Illinois to ban women from practicing law. Those decisions were wrong beyond question but the Supreme Court ignored its duty and issued the decisions it did.
madviking
north american scum
What do you suggest to improve justice?
The point is not that the Supremes can be wrong. But that if a legal principle stands for a great many years without serious challenge, then it's accepted as the law of the land. Texas v. White was 150 years ago. Not much chance that it will be overturned. Marbury v. Madison (1803) is even older, and pretty much the bedrock of the system as it has grown since then.
Yes, the Supremes can be wrong. But there's a point at which things are simply accepted as the law of the land. Of course, that changes as well. See Brown v. Board of Ed. But it takes a long time for things like that to change.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Truth isn't defined by the number of people who accept it.
duckstab
Child of Noble Family
Of course the courts aren't infallible. Others have referenced Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott case, which are rightly and universally condemned today.
The judiciary today isn't even independent or politically neutral, if indeed it ever was.
But what the judiciary is, is the ultimate arbiter of what is "Constitutional" and "legal" in this country. And we need that to be the case for the simple reason that we could not have a functioning democracy at all if Presidents, Congress, and state governments were free to interpret the Constitution according to their own narrow interests.
You can still disagree with the judgment of the courts, even act to have their decisions overturned or negated. It's hard, but that's a good thing.
Bestbank Tiger
Deity
Kelo has been fixed in a lot of places because even though the SCOTUS ruled that there was no constitutional right being violated, there is now a state constitutional right or a statutory right in a lot of the country. That's not as strong as a federal Constitutional right but it's better than nothing. In cases where the courts decide there is no Constitutional protection for X, you just create a legal protection.
In the larger scheme of things is we should have a clear understanding that precedents are a guideline but are not set in stone. If a precedent has been reaffirmed several times it should be stronger, as should a 9-0 decision like Brown as opposed to a 5-4 decision.
What are you trying to say? What should I be criticizing Obama for that I currently criticize Perry for?
No, but blind belief doesn't equal truth, either. All you seem to be doing at the moment is saying, in effect, "Well, you shouldn't criticize Rick Perry for saying things that are almost treasonous, and are certainly wrong, according to the well-established law of the law which almost everyone accepts, because I think the Supreme Court was wrong." Well, we think the Supreme Court was right, and I think most Americans agree. So why shouldn't we criticize Rick Perry?
Dreadnought
Deity
Well, Perry's statements have also been blown a bit out of context, just as any other politicians' words are.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Which is exactly why religion is separated from state.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Perry however would prefer if it wasn't.
Similar threads
