Checks and Balances...
Oct. 15th, 2004 09:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
acroyeari've said it before, and i'll keep saying it again.
with a republican congress (even a moderate-republican senate), BushCo can push through almost any agenda they want.
If you're worried about Kerry doing something stupid, keep in mind that the Repubs are hardly likely to lose the Senate. The point of the system is checks and balances, that no one side gets too powerful to run the nation without restraint.
So Kerry is hardly going to get anything of his agenda pushed through without serious debate, discussion, and compromise, AS IT SHOULD BE. Especially his health-care plan (ill-conceived, based too strongly on the canadian plan that we already know doesn't work too well).
Don't vote for Kerry because of what he may or might not do specifically, vote to restore checks and balances and restraints of power...
And ALWAYS consider that the next three supreme court appointees (and there could be that many or more by the time the next term ends) WILL set the tone of the nation for the *next 25 years*. Remember that all of Reagan's appointees ARE STILL IN THERE.
Do you want a supreme court that doesn't give a rats ass about individual rights? the supreme court is our last stand for our rights and the constitution that asserts them and the means by which they are protected.
It is my fervent belief that having Kerry-appointed moderates (over Bush-appointed conservatives with the same attitudes as his own cabinet) is FAR more important to the future of this country than anything else, be it health-care, tax cuts, how to handle iraq. Those are all short-term things and yes they're important, but they'll be forgotten in 5 years. But the impact of a supreme court nominee will be felt for generations.
That court is our lifeline to our children's future, the last check on the mob-rule that has been taking away power of the individual and giving it to the corporations of the world.
with a republican congress (even a moderate-republican senate), BushCo can push through almost any agenda they want.
If you're worried about Kerry doing something stupid, keep in mind that the Repubs are hardly likely to lose the Senate. The point of the system is checks and balances, that no one side gets too powerful to run the nation without restraint.
So Kerry is hardly going to get anything of his agenda pushed through without serious debate, discussion, and compromise, AS IT SHOULD BE. Especially his health-care plan (ill-conceived, based too strongly on the canadian plan that we already know doesn't work too well).
Don't vote for Kerry because of what he may or might not do specifically, vote to restore checks and balances and restraints of power...
And ALWAYS consider that the next three supreme court appointees (and there could be that many or more by the time the next term ends) WILL set the tone of the nation for the *next 25 years*. Remember that all of Reagan's appointees ARE STILL IN THERE.
Do you want a supreme court that doesn't give a rats ass about individual rights? the supreme court is our last stand for our rights and the constitution that asserts them and the means by which they are protected.
It is my fervent belief that having Kerry-appointed moderates (over Bush-appointed conservatives with the same attitudes as his own cabinet) is FAR more important to the future of this country than anything else, be it health-care, tax cuts, how to handle iraq. Those are all short-term things and yes they're important, but they'll be forgotten in 5 years. But the impact of a supreme court nominee will be felt for generations.
That court is our lifeline to our children's future, the last check on the mob-rule that has been taking away power of the individual and giving it to the corporations of the world.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 08:08 am (UTC)The main point I disagree with is you characterization of Kerry and his potential appointees as "moderate." He is liberal, has characterized himself as a liberal, and has been rated one of the most liberal senators in the nation by several groups (of all political persuasions -- conservative, nonpartisan, and liberal). The "most liberal senator" label only applies to the last 2 years.
So why would anyone suppose that a liberal president would appoint moderate judges -- especially given that Kerry has said he will use a "Roe v. Wade" litmus test to screen out *any* potential of the judge limiting of abortion rights?
To my mind the choice is between a candidate who will appoint "strict constructionist" judges, and one who will appoint "legislating" judges.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-15 09:59 am (UTC)Its a different issue now. restoring the illegality of something that has been legal for 3 decades is a reactionary policy that I simply can not and will not condone in any way shape or form.
2) Did Clinton (a hard-core liberal when he first got to office) appoint nothing but liberals? No -- he was forced to appoint moderates (and over time became one) simply to deal with an increasingly conservative-moderate congress.
Again, my entire damned point is CHECKS AND BALANCES. A moderate/conservative republican senate wouldn't (or shouldn't) LET Kerry get away with appointing nothing but Liberals.
The job of the senate is to approve presidential appointees, OR REJECT THEM if it is not in the best interests of the country for such a person to serve in such an office.
Tell the senate to do their damned job and you won't have to worry about Kerry appointing an "activist judge" (if you want to use the right-wing radio term for it, which Bush himself has used on occasion).
But to put someone in office who could and would (in my opinion, granted) appoint reactionary judges whose sole purpose in life is to let a republican administration and congress get away with anything they damned well please and at the same time systematically undo the last 50 years of decision-making is something I simply can not condone.