Rick Perry

[Maniacal]

Wow, I am shocked that he is a nazi.

Well no not really.

 

[Quackers]

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, because of, you know, its Constitutional role and established precendent. If you were to disregard the precedent set in Marbury v. Madison, then you would be disregarded the basis and validity of our entire judiciary.

Wait, what? not agreeing with precedent questions the validty of the juridciary?
In England some judges fall into line with the "spirit of the law" or the recent "precedent" concerning that part of the law. It is completely healthy sympton of the English common law system and unless the precedent is enshrined in legislation it remains only precedent. Since your legal system is based on ours, i imagine the similiarties keep what I said true.

 

[mangxema]

That's a scary idea, having a President be Bush on steroids. The Bush era was terrible. Deficit spending, multiple wars, the TSA treating Americans like criminal suspects because they bought a plane ticket, massive entitlement programs, government spying on citizens.

I hope we never see another administration like that again.

IMHO the inevitable comparisons to Bush II will be the biggest obstacle.

 

[Cutlass]

Wait, what? not agreeing with precedent questions the validty of the juridciary?
In England some judges fall into line with the "spirit of the law" or the recent "precedent" concerning that part of the law. It is completely healthy sympton of the English common law system and unless the precedent is enshrined in legislation it remains only precedent. Since your legal system is based on ours, i imagine the similiarties keep what I said true.

Precedent is just precedent here too. But until it's overturned or the law changes to counter it, it's still the law of the land.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The most important precedent established in Marbury v. Madison is the supreme Courts decision that it has the right to overturn federal statues deemed unconstitutional. The Constitution itself does not grant the Supreme Court any such authority. That power of (Federal) Judicial Review was discussed by some of the founders and promoted in some of the Federalist Papers, but remained controversial. The Anti-Federalists, the same people responsible for the Bill of Rights, opposed giving such power to the judiciary.


Also, a plain reading of the constitution should reveal that the law overturned in this case really was not unconstitutional. The issue here was that Marbury was petitioning the Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus ordering Madison to deliver him his commission for the office of justice of the Peace, which had been signed, sealed, but not delivered by the outgoing administration. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave them the authority to do so. The Supreme Court ruled that he had a right to the commission but that they had no authority to issue the writ because the statutes was supposedly unconstitutional. It was supposedly unconstitutional for granting original jurisdiction in a case where the constitution would grant only appellate jurisdiction. They ignored the following line of the constitution which explicitly gave congress the right to make exceptions to this, which surely allows then to grant original jurisdiction in a broader set of cases. Furthermore, this case did involve "other public ministers" and thus was not in any way outside the bounds that the constitution itself set for original jurisdiction. (Also, Chief Justice Marshal of the court really should ave recused himself for a conflict of interest, as he was another late appointment of the outgoing administration, who had been Secretary of State in the outgoing administration and was the brother of the man whose duty it had been to deliver Marbury's commission in the first place.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts [...] and writs of mandamus [...] to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

 

[Red Door]

Doesn't this make him just slightly better than Bachmann?

No, but only because he has a chance of winning while Bachmann does not.

 

[GoodGame]

I think people supporting Rick Perry is just waiting for him to dance Jesus' way into town, flare his nostrils, and ejaculate confetti.

So, no.

Lulz, that is quite an image.

 

[bombshoo]

IMHO the inevitable comparisons to Bush II will be the biggest obstacle.

He's already fighting it, raving on about his blue collar upbringings and what not. He has also already has made several comments about how he went to Texas A&M instead of Ivy League schools and actually flew missions in the Air Force.

 

[Ajidica]

Lulz, that is quite an image.

It isn't like madviking came up with that by himself.
Like a good viking, he stole it from somewhere.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Wait, what? not agreeing with precedent questions the validty of the juridciary?

That's not what he's saying. Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review in the US, so to disregard that particular precedent is what calls into question the validity of the judiciary.

 

[downtown]

He's already fighting it, raving on about his blue collar upbringings and what not. He already has made several comments about how he went to Texas A&M instead of Ivy League schools and actually flew missions in the Air Force.

The personal narratives of Perry and Bush couldn't be more different. Bush was a blue-blood New Englander, Perry was a poor West Texas kid. Their similarities come from their policies, not their demographics.

 

[Azale]

The personal narratives of Perry and Bush couldn't be more different. Bush was a blue-blood New Englander, Perry was a poor West Texas kid. Their similarities come from their policies, not their demographics.

Except I doubt Perry would bother with realistic immigration reform. It's ironic that Perry is going to try to play up the difference between the "country club" Bush's and his common man roots or whatever when the guy has basically governed from an ivory tower his entire tenure.

His most lasting accomplishment is his strong patronage network and strengthening of the governorship (while supposedly "shrinking government"). His actual policy accomplishments? He passed a stupid tax swap, lowering income tax and raising business taxes, that has led to a not insignificant part of our budget woes. His other major policy initiatives? A major toll highway that would have required eminent domain seizure of rural land across the state, and a required HPV vaccination for sixth grade girls, both massive failures in Republican majority legislative sessions.

That's it. He is a figurehead for a "conservative" (real conservative those aforementioned policy initiatives were) movement in this state that seeks to strip away government at every step without consideration to it's consequences, all the while pretending that somehow we have developed leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the country and immunized ourselves from the recession. We haven't and we haven't. It's a massive fraud, just like Perry himself.

 

[Laurencius]

"Rick Perry is what happens if Lex Luther distilled down George Bush essence in a laboratory and crossed it with gun powder and semen from the finest thoroughbred in Lubbock, and then strapped that concoction onto a nuclear missile and shot it into the <snip> sun! And then, waited, waited, waited, until one day, on the anniversarry of the Alamo, a solar flare, yada yada yada, Rick Perry!" - Jon Stewart, The Daily Show.

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cutlass]

Wow! Rick Perry Threatens Bernanke, And Says More QE Would Be "Almost Treasonous"
Joe Weisenthal and Zeke Miller | Aug. 15, 2011, 10:20 PM

The politicization of monetary policy is being taken to a brand new level.

ThinkProgress reports:

Speaking just now in Iowa, Perry said, &#8220;If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I dunno what y&#8217;all would do to him in Iowa but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas. Printing more money to play politics at this particular time in history is almost treasonous in my opinion.&#8221;

The remark appeared to be in response to a question from an attendee at the event, but it does not seem to be off the cuff. In the video (below) Perry corrects himself after misspeaking: "It's almost treacherous &#8212; uh &#8212; treasonous, in my opinion."

It seems the Fed is yet another "independent" institution that's getting ground down in the gears of politics.

Asked if he though the Fed was out to help President Barack Obama, he said &#8220;if they print more money between now and this election, I would suggest that&#8217;s exactly what&#8217;s going on,&#8221; ABC News reported.

Even currently in Washington, Obama has been unable to fill FOMC seats due to fierce Republican opposition.

The funny thing is, if Rick Perry wins, his term will overlap with Bernanke's current term.

Interesting comment from former Treasury and Bush administration official Tony Fratto: "Gov. Perry's comments about Chmn. Bernanke are inappropriate and unpresidential."

http://www.businessinsider.com/rick...es-money-printing-is-almost-treasonous-2011-8

 

[MagisterCultuum]

We we saw Perry on the news this evening my father, who is leaning towards voting for him, commented on how good the governor's George W. Bush impression is and wondered by he does it all the time.

 

[Ajidica]

For someone who views QE as treason, I'm sure he would agree that ignoring the SC is treasonous.

 

[madviking]

He's already fighting it, raving on about his blue collar upbringings and what not. He already has made several comments about how he went to Texas A&M instead of Ivy League schools and actually flew missions in the Air Force.

Reading about anti-intellectualism makes me face hurt.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Ignoring the Supreme Courts wouldn't be treasonous so long as the justices themselves committed treason in their rulings though.

 

[Ajidica]

Reading about anti-intellectualism makes me face hurt.

At least he actualy has the 'regular guy' background as opposed to Bush. False anti-intellectualism is worse then general anti-intellectualism.

Ignoring the Supreme Courts wouldn't be treasonous so long as the justices themselves committed treason in their rulings though.

I just thought given his very loose definition of treason I might be able to fit it in somewhere.

 

[madviking]

At least he actualy has the 'regular guy' background as opposed to Bush. False anti-intellectualism is worse then general anti-intellectualism.

Exhibit A: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61684192/Rick-Perry-s-Texas-A-M-Transcript

Exhibit B: "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
- Isaac Asimov

In essence, my face still hurts.