OK, maybe not so much with the Ron Paul

[clevermanka]

Well, this is a little disappointing. Just goes to show that they really are all bastards, every single last one of them.

How, exactly, can someone think it's a good idea to disallow courts from considering certain cases? Disagree with rulings all you want, but to tell courts they aren't allowed to hear cases about alleged violations of the separation of church and state? I'm mystified.

And sad.

On the other hand, I guess I don't have to worry about possibly voting Republican next year.

Thanks to some clarification from _luaineach, I'm back in the maybe-possibly-Ron Paul camp. Which on one hand I find hysterically funny, and on the other, rather terrifying. I suppose this is exactly why I have never registered as a Democrat, or given money to the general Democratic Party.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_luaineach/]

How, exactly, can someone think it's a good idea to disallow courts from considering certain cases?

Because he does not feel these are, or should be, *federal* issues; the state courts can do whatever they want with them. That's pretty consistent with his views on everything else involved in limiting the federal government.

[mckitterick.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is Paul's way of guaranteeing that a conservative Supreme Court can't start disassembling personal liberties that certain states are granting (medical marijuana, gay marriage, abortion rights, and so on). If this passes and you live in a liberal state, you're (theoretically) safe from a Fascist Federal gov't; if you live in a conservative state, well, you might want to change things there or move.

Today I'm liking Paul more than any of the other candidates because of how he's the only one shedding light (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071203/truthdig) on the Bush atrocities against our Treasury (http://mckitterick.livejournal.com/467747.html) - that's our money, and the damage being done to US credibility is damage being done against us.

[clevermanka.livejournal.com]

Ah! I see. So it's a state's rights issue. OK. I can see his point of view on that one. Thanks for clarifying.

I still think they're all bastards, though. Some might just be less bastards than others. =D

[tessagratton.livejournal.com]

LOL. And you know, one of the reasons I *am* a registered Democrat is because I find the idea of not allowing federal courts to balance the state courts utterly appalling. Especially when it only focuses on *certain* issues.

With regards to the Supreme Court, that would undercut so much of their power to balance out the president and congress. Maybe not directly, when it has to do with state laws or constitutional amendments, but indirectly. Hi, Mr. Bush. We'll overturn this when it comes from the states, so you shouldn't even BOTHER. Or vice versa.

[clevermanka.livejournal.com]

I find the idea of not allowing federal courts to balance the state courts utterly appalling.

I can definitely see both sides. But with the Supreme Court continuing in the same direction it's been headed for the past eight years...I can't say that putting some power back in the hands of the states is a bad thing.

[tessagratton.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but that's sort of like Bush instituting all these illegal programs (like wire-tapping), forgetting that maybe next year it will be his enemies using the same laws.

[clevermanka.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying I agree with it. But I can at least understand and comprehend both sides of the argument.

Violating civil rights and privacy in the interests of so-called national safety, that I can't sympathize with at all. Also, I don't think Bush was forgetting that maybe next year it would be the other side using the same laws. I think he was banking on the fact that the neo-cons would remain in power for ever and ever amen.

[chronovore.livejournal.com]

I think it would be cool if, right now, Bush and Cheney could be considered "unlawful combatants" and be subjected to arbitrary wiretapping without a warrant.

Or, hey, extraordinary rendition.

A boy can dream, can't he?