|
|
On October 24 2012 13:21 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:46 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:43 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:40 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:36 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:28 turdburgler wrote:
how can you claim obama is anti gun when all hes done is give out socialised guns to poor mexicans? HAHAHA oh God that was good. But really, has Obama even touched guns during his term? He said he is going to ban "scary looking guns" and he did try to block a bill that would allow concealed carry on all government property (including parks). He knows that trying to push for gun control laws will only result in his losing the election. I suggest you look at his record as a federal senator and a state legislator though and the various statements he made prior to running for president. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama wants to slap on stricter gun control laws. Unfortunately he can't afford to so it's not really something gun lovers should fret about. If he wins the election, what's to stop him from trying? The public opinnion in the usa has also become more flexible on this subject it seems after the latest shooting sprees from young adults.
I hope you're joking, the majority of the people are doubling down on gun rights; all of the recent polls show that the favor ability of loose gun laws and of the National Rifle Association are on the rise. We've been moving in the general of looser gun laws for a couple of decades now, with concealed carry being implemented in every state (except Illinois). Also, the right to concealed carry on college campuses slowly being implemented in more and more states.
|
On October 24 2012 13:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:16 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote:the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty. On October 24 2012 13:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 24 2012 12:53 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:46 Souma wrote:
[quote]
How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you? Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable? Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them? No such thing as a "natural right." you can make a universalizing moral claim (and I often do), but that's not the same as a "natural" right Morality is another argument altogether, but if I go out and attack or steal from someone, I am violating their rights as an individual. yeah, I agree, but not their "natural rights" edit: scratch that, I don't really believe in "rights." the action would be immoral however Good edit. Rights are completely incompatible with your philosophy. And yet, the left are always prattling on about "rights" to health care, education, etc. We know what they really mean, that rights are what the state feigns to bestow upon the subservient public. i cant think of a better answer than, yes? i cant be bothered to get in to a philosophy debate at 5am but i dont see whats inherently wrong with a social contract that exchanges taxation and all that entails with certain rights which may or may not be natural to a person anyway. What's wrong, and what has always been wrong with the social contract, is that it involuntarily imposes itself upon individuals. And no, telling people to leave their home country is not a valid argument for implied consent, it's simply expressed extortion. would you agree theres a natural contract between a mother and child born from the biological need to continue the gene pool? would that then extend to the tribe as a means to secure strength against rival familes? family > tribe > village > country if you accept a family has a natural contract to help each other based on the requirement coded in us all to survive you can extrapolate a social contract. This logic breaks down as soon as you move beyond survival. Public education is a good thing, but it cannot be considered so necessary as to be called a "coded" or "biological" contract. A distinction must be made between coercion imposed by the environment, and coercion imposed by people.
As a human being myself, equally affected by coercion imposed by both the environment and other people, I'd rather the government actively work to minimize both forms of coercion and to maximize my freedom of choice and capacity to make informed decisions. Being technically free according to some rationalistic definition of negative rights, but not having the capability to make my own choices in reality, would not be much of a consolation.
|
On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified.
By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Mainly Bush but Obama's done stuff too (NDAA, expanding warrantless wiretaps, etc.).
|
On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
|
On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
iirc, signing statements were a Clinton addition.
edit: well, he was one of the addition, along with reagan/bush sr.
And yes, you are misinformed. Obama uses the executive power more aggressively than any past. Although it's been a constant trend for some time, by both parties.
|
On October 24 2012 13:12 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:02 turdburgler wrote:the great thing about posting on /r/politics around US election time is you can rack up 1000 karma in 1 day without even trying. man dem internet points so tasty. On October 24 2012 13:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 24 2012 12:53 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:50 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:46 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:45 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 12:43 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Actually, there is no relation to the "right to life" and the right to bear arms. There is also no right to self-defense. There is also no right to private party or ownership of your labor. These things are not constitutionally based. Actually, they are. The right to bear arms is in the federal constitution and in almost every single state constitution. Additionally, the Constitution states that the government CANNOT take away one's life or property without due process, which can easily be interpretted as respecting them as rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution though, they come from nature; the Constitution only protects are already pre-existing natural rights. How do rights come from nature? Did a tree suddenly speak to you? Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable? Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them? No such thing as a "natural right." you can make a universalizing moral claim (and I often do), but that's not the same as a "natural" right Morality is another argument altogether, but if I go out and attack or steal from someone, I am violating their rights as an individual. yeah, I agree, but not their "natural rights" edit: scratch that, I don't really believe in "rights." the action would be immoral however Good edit. Rights are completely incompatible with your philosophy. And yet, the left are always prattling on about "rights" to health care, education, etc. We know what they really mean, that rights are what the state feigns to bestow upon the subservient public. i cant think of a better answer than, yes? i cant be bothered to get in to a philosophy debate at 5am but i dont see whats inherently wrong with a social contract that exchanges taxation and all that entails with certain rights which may or may not be natural to a person anyway. What's wrong, and what has always been wrong with the social contract, is that it involuntarily imposes itself upon individuals. And no, telling people to leave their home country is not a valid argument for implied consent, it's simply expressed extortion.
The state will always have to involuntarily impose itself upon individuals, how else would you deal with criminals?
And if the state does not do it, then the people themselves will involuntary impose themselves upon other individuals to get revenge or compensation for damage.
Even in an anarchy this would happen.
The state just expanded upon this underlying principle of human interaction by aplying it to other social aspects.
I realy dont see a way around it and therefor i find this argument kinda irrelevant
At one point people will, organised in groups(states) or by themselves alone, have to involuntarily impose themselves upon others just to survive and maintain a decent life together.
I find a state does this in a much more reasonable way then people individually.
|
On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:
Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable?
Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them?
Actually I have always thought that they are not acceptable because the law say so.....
The reason why the law need to forbid people from committing those acts are because they disrupt the stability of society/ civilization. Basically if a society allow its people to kill each other and steal from each other, that society cannot become a big civilization and would have been stuck in stone age.
In nature, killing and stealing is the normal thing to do; every animal fight for its survival, so that is actually the "natural" way of life. Law and regulations are not "normal" if you view from this perspective.
|
On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject? Obama's done everything Bush has done and more.
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
On October 24 2012 13:50 DarkwindHK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 12:47 Swazi Spring wrote:
Okay, so do you think murder, theft, rape, etc. are acceptable?
Do you think they would be acceptable, even if laws were NOT in place against them? Actually I have always thought that they are not acceptable because the law say so..... The reason why the law need to forbid people from committing those acts are because they disrupt the stability of society/ civilization. Basically if a society allow its people to kill each other and steal from each other, that society cannot become a big civilization and would have been stuck in stone age. In nature, killing and stealing is the normal thing to do; every animal fight for its survival, so that is actually the "natural" way of life. Law and regulations are not "normal" if you view from this perspective.
Small society is natural for humans though. It's one of the major reasons that we are where we are today. Big brain capacity alone wouldn't suffice. Edit: And I would argue that big society is just as natural today, even if the family will always be the core group. We're a very adaptive species.
|
On October 24 2012 13:52 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject? Obama's done everything Bush has done and more. How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
|
On October 24 2012 13:54 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:52 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject? Obama's done everything Bush has done and more. How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing). He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
|
anybody watch the 3rd party candidate debate? that was pretty entertaining to watch
|
On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject?
Let's not forget that Obama even continued providing military support for the Libyan rebels without legal authority. That's a pretty big expansion even if it is unlikely to be repeated soon.
|
On October 24 2012 13:52 HellRoxYa wrote:
How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing).
As wrong as he is about some other things, he is right about this one. The immigration thing is another example. He just declared it's the new policy without regard for Congress. It's not that I completely think it's ridiculous... the partisanship is seriously deadlocking our government's ability to function. Having a forceful President the past 20 years or so had actually solidified things a little bit. However, there is no doubt (from a non-partisan view) that President Obama has continued the trend of increasing executive powers that we've seen since Reagan.
|
On October 24 2012 14:11 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:54 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:52 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject? Obama's done everything Bush has done and more. How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing). He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill. I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before.
The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was actually proposed by the Obama administration. In addition, Obama has extra-judicially murdered at least one American citizen and he launched Operation Fast and Furious without the permission or knowledge of the Mexican government. He has also ordered massive drone strikes in Pakistan.
|
On October 24 2012 14:35 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 14:11 Signet wrote:On October 24 2012 13:54 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:52 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject? Obama's done everything Bush has done and more. How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing). He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill. I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before. The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was actually proposed by the Obama administration. In addition, Obama has extra-judicially murdered at least one American citizen and he launched Operation Fast and Furious without the permission or knowledge of the Mexican government. He has also ordered massive drone strikes in Pakistan.
Some of that is inaccurate: Americans had been held without trial before, such as Jose Padilla; also, gunwalking started under Bush, though it increased under Obama. Overall it's true, however, and Obama receives little criticism for this because it's awkward for both Democrats and Republicans to point it out.
|
On October 24 2012 14:35 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 14:11 Signet wrote:On October 24 2012 13:54 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:52 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject? Obama's done everything Bush has done and more. How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing). He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill. I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before. The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats.
This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
|
Presidential power has always stricken me as an incredibly unusual evolution. In almost all arenas of life the people in charge aggressively expand their spheres of influence and it is the job of the people within those arenas to keep them in line. With the president it seems like it is the people who keep pushing responsibility onto the president while whoever is filling the office is run ragged trying to at least have a say on issues he will be blamed for one way or another.
The media is holding the office hostage as they manipulate expectations and political narratives. Those who advocate removing power from the office need to, in the same statement, shift the blame as well or we will never see change.
|
On October 24 2012 13:54 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 13:52 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 12:59 sam!zdat wrote:On October 24 2012 12:58 Souma wrote:
iirc Congress decides how many seats should be available on the Supreme Court. seriously? damn, I hope not. that was a good factoid. I thought I learned something about a president increasing size of SC in middle school or smth... I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject? Obama's done everything Bush has done and more. How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing). He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill.
what has obama done wrong with the patriot act? it's like the gun lovers always say it's not the weapon but how you use it. i don't hear about obama using the patriot act against innocent americans.
|
On October 24 2012 14:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 14:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 14:11 Signet wrote:On October 24 2012 13:54 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:52 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 24 2012 13:29 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 24 2012 13:19 Souma wrote:On October 24 2012 13:18 turdburgler wrote:On October 24 2012 13:17 Souma wrote:
[quote]
I just double-checked, and Congress does indeed decide how many justices can reside on the Supreme Court. The last time the court size was modified was in 1869. when you get down to it, doesnt congress decide everything in the US? Not everything. The President has been expanding the powers of the executive in recent times. Let's not forget that Congress can only confirm/deny judicial nominees. In the end, the President is the one who nominates them. It is very hard for Congress to reject a Supreme Court nominee since they are usually quite qualified. By "The president" you mean Bush right? Because Obama's been reluctant to use the same measures. Or am I misinformed on the subject? Obama's done everything Bush has done and more. How about some specifics? I'm not about to take your word for it (your inner partisan is showing). He's supported and continued pretty much every abuse of power that Bush did, including the Patriot Act. He's also passed some of his own, like the NDAA and the free-speech trespass bill. I think the controversial part of the NDAA has been in every iteration of that bill since 2001. On the larger point though I agree, the executive branch has become even more powerful under Obama than before. The right to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial was added at the end of 2011, and was reportedly proposed by Obama and other top Democrats. This is completely false. It is Republicans who supported including that provision in the NDAA. Obama even threatened to veto the bill, until Republicans agreed to somewhat water it down while using the deadline to still get their way. When an amendment was introduced in the House in order to prevent the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial (the Smith-Amash amendment), it was shot down in the House by Republicans (163 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted for it).
Obama actually wrote in his signing statement that he didn't agree with the LIMITATIONS the law placed on his ability to detain Americans, and his Justice Department has fought against challenges to the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
