Comments on: Random Saturday Things

By: Peter Lawler

Peter Lawler — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 13:22:38 +0000

Mr. Wolfe, What you say about SWANN etc. is true. But someone what might add that the Court shouldn’t and probably can’t, over the long run, decide what needs to be decided by an election–such as the election of 1936 or 1860. I actually don’t think that the mandate issues are anywhere near as important as those surrounding slavery, the founding of the welfare state, or abortion etc. But still, the effectual truth of striking down will be to politicize the Court still more.

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 01:12:28 +0000

I read the Constitution and prefer to understand it as it was written and not with a nativist bias. Where does it describe “natural born” as defined above by prsmith? Jinadal and Rubio are “natural born” by US legal definition.

By: CJWolfe

CJWolfe — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 19:26:59 +0000

@PLawler-

Peter, I don’t think I agree with your point about judicial restraint and Obamacare. Just because a case is decided 5-4 doesn’t mean it was done out of “judicial activism,” and just because a case is decided unanimously doesn’t mean it was done out of “judicial restraint.” Sure, a 5-4 or a plurality decision may hold less weight, and it may be a telltale sign of judicial activism, but it’s by no means a necessary implication. There was a long stretch of extreme judicial activism during the Warren Court and many of those cases were decided unanimously- including one of the big busing cases, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg. I am actually not in full agreement with Alex Bickel et. al. that “judicial activism” is necessarily a bad thing either, but that’s a different beef

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:46:46 +0000

“For that, I label you a traitor.”

Heavens to Betsy.

“than losing the millions of votes such a choice would cost” I think you should have said tens of millions. If you are going to exaggerate the size of the dead end birther-first constituency, go all the way.

By: kismetique

kismetique — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 13:53:33 +0000

Kate, I sure hope you are not being serious, least you let your ignorance show. Perhaps you’re just”feeling” your way around this blog. Now ,if you were being serious perhaps you should actually read the constitution for the answer to your question.

I’m with prsmith. I’ll have to stay home or maybe vote third party with a Rubio or Jindal VP, as they are not eligible.

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:14:09 +0000

prsmith, if what you write is true, how were our first presidents, through Jackson, at least, elibible for the office? None of their parents had been U.S. citizens at the time of their birth and those men were merely citizens because they had been born on the soil that became the U.S..

Try thinking instead of feeling your politics.

By: prsmith

prsmith — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 02:22:22 +0000

“I’m also for the Republican Party ignoring their theories of presidential eligibility.”
————-
For that, I label you a traitor. You do understand why.

“If either Jindal or Rubio are the right choice, they will bring in more votes than will be lost from the die hard WND constituency.”
——————-
Possibly but I still maintain that finding other qualified candidates makes more sense than losing the millions of votes such a choice would cost. But you do it your way.

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 01:14:08 +0000

Bob, I’m not against anyone voting for whatever principles they think they have.

prsmith, I’m all for the birther-first remnant voting whatever way they want. I’m also for the Republican Party ignoring their theories of presidential eligibility. I don’t think they rise to the level of meriting scorn from major public figures (me on the other hand…) There are lots of fringe elements. If either Jindal or Rubio are the right choice, they will bring in more votes than will be lost from the die hard WND constituency.

By: Robert Cheeks

Robert Cheeks — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 00:25:22 +0000

Pete, Pete, lighten up, take a breath! Two fingers of bourbon over ice, and gather yourself. But, please, remember politics and ethics/morality go hand in hand. We really shouldn’t vote against our principles.

By: prsmith

prsmith — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 23:36:43 +0000

Clever reparte, Pete, but meaningless. Do you not understand the implications of a significant percentage of the base voting 3rd party or not voting at all in the presidential election because of an ineligible candidate on the ticket? Why take that chance? There are other good candidates – just don’t pick Rubio or Jindal.