[AbsolutZer0]

<A HREF="http://www.breitbart.tv/html/173183.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.breitbart.tv/html/173183.html</A><p>He argues that Roe v Wade should be decided by the legislative branch of govt instead of the judicial.<p>Now before you all spas out, understand this aspect of this theory which NEVER gets discussed....<p>The legislative branch making that decision can implement change on a very high scale through constitutional amendments, the latest in 1992. Now, this can go either way, for the positive or for the negative, but that is why the system is in place.<p>frankly, i could care less about Roe v Wade, im pro-choice and always will be unless i start believing in the spaghetti monster, but when whoopi goldberg challenges McCain on her own moronic train of thought, i started laughing.. <p>She somehow interprets his idea of of "how the founding fathers wanted it to be interpreted" to mean that the founding fathers were pro slavery, wherein his point was that the founding fathers "wanted it to be interpreted" however the times dictated. It may have been Madison or possibly Franklin who was told to have said that the constitution is supposed to be representative of the Zeitgeist, or spirit of the times as utilized in the Philosophy of History.<p>So when Whoopi seems to try to call McCain out for embracing a philosophy of change when it comes to constitutional law, I was a little taken aback... I mean poop, few countries have provisions abolishing slavery and they dont have slave labor issues..<p>What are your thoughts on the stand that Judicial Rulings should be evaluated by the legislative branch before becoming 'precedent'?<p>I personally think it would be a waste of time, but there are some landmark issues that got decided via the court rather than congress.....

 

[AbsolutZer0]

And to why I hate the View:<p>Mccain said afterward that he was trying to make THAT exact point about interpreting it for the times, when he sticks his hands out at the :30 second mark and them crazy female puppy dogs just cut him off and start talkin about how slavery would come back.... then baba wahwah goes to commercial. Weak.

 

[Copeland]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (AbsolutZer0)

more from the huffington post ( <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/rolleyes.gif" BORDER="0"> )<p><A HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/mccain-grilled-on-the-vie_n_125972.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....html</A>

 

[AbsolutZer0]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (Copeland)

You know what the difference between the Huffington Post and Drudge Report is? Drudge links to articles, mostly from the wires. Huffy writes her own drivel.<p>I felt bad, those women are freaking morons.

 

[nobbe3728]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (AbsolutZer0)

I think it would be a slap in the face to the supreme court justices...and would ultimately discredit the system of checks and balances.<p>The supreme court makes decisions based on the law... Politicians make decisions based on their own ideas (or party beliefs) that they <I>think</I> is/are right and therefore turn it into law.<p>

 

[2k2S80t6]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (nobbe3728)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>nobbe3728</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think it would be a slap in the face to the supreme court justices...and would ultimately discredit the system of checks and balances.<p>The supreme court makes decisions based on the law... Politicians make decisions based on their own ideas (or party beliefs) that they <I>think</I> is/are right and therefore turn it into law.<p></TD></TR></TABLE><p><br>SCOTUS Justices make decisions based on their interpretations of the law. Please don't be confused. If it were so black/white, there would be no controversy about who was POTUS and how many Justices would they be putting up there. Ideally, they make those interpretations without personal bias. influence or otherwise and strictly interpret the law based on the arguments laid out before them. <p>Your point about Congress is one that I would agree with. Personally, I would like SCOTUS to have review of any Congressionally submitted bill in terms of Constitutionality, among other things.

 

[RANGO]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (AbsolutZer0)

"You know what the difference between the Huffington Post and Drudge Report is?"<p>Lipstick? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0">

 

[adp]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (2k2S80t6)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>2k2S80t6</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br> Personally, I would like SCOTUS to have review of any Congressionally submitted bill in terms of Constitutionality, among other things.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>I'm not sure I understand your statement. The Court does have that review. There needs to be a dispute, first. There needs to be a case.<p>Do you mean review without a controversy? Without a case? Without a case, you lose the central tenet of our judicial system, which is that adversaries, competitors, give it their best shot, and the court therefore has the best information in front of them. It's very much a free-market sort of system. You don't really want judicial decisions made without that competition occuring, I don't think.<p>I used to believe in a system along the lines that I THINK you are suggesting, but I think that the current approach works best. Competition, and the sharp focus of brilliant minds representing their interest, gives a powerful result for society. It's how we get great products. It's how we get great service providers. It's how we get half-decent laws. Without it, you'd have the Soviet approach. One party. Hell, two parties isn't "enough" for real competition, but it's better than one. Just as two business competitors, or even three or four or five or fifty or five hundred.<p>I hope you think the analogy is apt. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/embeer.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>Plus, the Court simply wouldn't have time for such a review. They can barely cover the true controversies.

 

[adp]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (RANGO)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>RANGO</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">"You know what the difference between the Huffington Post and Drudge Report is?"<p>Lipstick? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0"> </TD></TR></TABLE><p>ha, that's a good one<p>not true, but definitely funny<p>The HP and DR are completely different beasts. Each of which has value.<br>

 

[2k2S80t6]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (adp)

I get your point, adp. I guess in reality the POTUS is the 'check' and 'balance' to the Congress on bills and has veto power when there is an issue. I think we can agree that most POTUS' have their own agenda and the alignment (or lack thereof) with Congress results in either a lot or no vetos.<p>[sigh] Eutopia only exists in our heads, I guess <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/embeer.gif" BORDER="0">

 

[adp]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (2k2S80t6)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>2k2S80t6</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I get your point, adp. I guess in reality the POTUS is the 'check' and 'balance' to the Congress on bills and has veto power when there is an issue. I think we can agree that most POTUS' have their own agenda and the alignment (or lack thereof) with Congress results in either a lot or no vetos.<p>[sigh] Eutopia only exists in our heads, I guess <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.vwvortex.com/vwbb/embeer.gif" BORDER="0"> </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Honestly, I believe what we have is pretty close to a utopia.<p>A competition of ideas is good.<p>There are barriers to that competition (ie money), of course, but it's still better than the alternatives.

 

[waccamatt]

Re: McCain on the View clip raises some interesting constitutional questions (nobbe3728)

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>nobbe3728</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think it would be a slap in the face to the supreme court justices...and would ultimately discredit the system of checks and balances.<p>The supreme court makes decisions based on the law... Politicians make decisions based on their own ideas (or party beliefs) that they <I>think</I> is/are right and therefore turn it into law.<p></TD></TR></TABLE><p> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://********************/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0">