Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Scary but not Surprising

    Posted by David Foster on February 24th, 2015 (All posts by )

    43% of Democrats believe that the President should have the right to ignore court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country.  Only 35% of Dems disagree, the remainder being undecided.

    This from a  Rasumssen poll of likely voters, which also shows that 81% of Republicans disagree with the President having the power to ignore the courts.

    Today’s Democratic Party is an enemy of American self-government, and it appears that a lot of the party’s supporters want to it be this way.

    See also my related posts:

    The Democratic Party and the drive for unlimited government power

    When law yields to absolute power

     

    12 Responses to “Scary but not Surprising”

    1. Patient Teacher Says:

      Now you seem to be missing the point of The Government. It is there for our good and to do good for the lowest and least of our citizens, who don’t get a break from the corporate interests who otherwise dominate our lives. Why else should anybody seek to become a Member of Congress or a Justice on the Supreme Court if they could not just go ahead and do the right thing? And the President represents all of us, the only office we all vote on. So the President should be able to just cut through the red tape and obstruction of the lobby crowd and other special interests and just bring justice to the People. Thankfully we have one Party that understands all of this and does not just want to wreck the lives of children, old people, and the working people. And take money away from our public schools.

    2. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Leftism has a messianic vision of utopia, if only everyone would do what they say. To impede that is to impede the arrival of utopia. If utopia must be achieved by any means necessary, so be it. The fact this has always ended catastrophically gives them not the slightest pause.

      People like Patient Teacher has no knowledge or understanding of history. PT does not see the USSR or Mao’s PRC as examples to that vision, despite how perfectly they fit. Even if PT did, what’s a hundred million (100,000,000) citizens killed to inflict that messianic vision if utopia is achieved? The fact that utopia is never achieved, only tyrannical police states, hierarchy, special privileged based on party connections, deprivation for the majority and economic collapse simply cannot be. It conflicts with that perfect vision.

      Screw you people and your “rights” as free citizens. Screw the Constitution. Screw the laws. Give us whatever we want! I think Patient Teacher is incapable of understanding what psychopathic behavior he/she embodies. A wannabe Stalin or Fidel. Afterwards, amid the pile of skulls and the smoking ruins of civilization, Patient Teacher would be saying, “…but, I meant well!”

      “Why else should anybody seek to become a Member of Congress or a Justice on the Supreme Court if they could not just go ahead and do the right thing?”

      Do you know ANY history? Even of the 20th century?

    3. David Foster Says:

      I think Patient Teacher is parodying the Left, but it’s hard to be sure because it sounds so much like the way they really talk…

    4. Patient Teacher Says:

      David, exactly. Just trying to reveal the very limited set of assumptions and shallow thinking that comprises the mindset. The law of unintended consequences is an unjust law, we refuse to be bound by its tyranny!

    5. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      PT sounds exactly like a leftist.

    6. Jonathan Says:

      Well played, PT.

    7. Andrew_M_Garland Says:

      It is impossible to parody the Left. I’ve learned that all attempts at parody need an explanation.

      Consider this recent story:

      ( http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/
      politico-wasserman-schultz-planned-accuse-obama-anti-semitism-if-dnc-job-threatened )

      “Wasserman Schultz Planned to Accuse Obama of Anti-Semitism if her DNC Job were Threatened”

      Dems resemble a pack of sharks. They have known each other for years. But, throw some blood in the water, and they will bite first and think later.

    8. Will Says:

      I’m continually thinking back to the Watergate investigations, which I remember fairly well, and just how far that sort of action would go nowadays in slowing this rolling disaster down. I just don’t see it though. Republicans seem neutered, unable to match the bastards with guile and chicanery. When you compare that one event, and the number of highly-placed characters that actually sat in jail cells, and then look at the potential tally from the past six years, it’s astonishing what could be. Perhaps something is coming, perhaps it’s just a matter of faith.

    9. Mike K Says:

      “the President should be able to just cut through the red tape and obstruction of the lobby crowd and other special interests and just bring justice to the People. ”

      Yes, the Lenin types do this so well. Chavez has done so well for Venezuela that they have begun rationing food and oil is doing well.

    10. Bill Brandt Says:

      It is bizarre that anyone should think that a president would have the right to ignore the courts. But I think we live in bizarro world.

    11. Robert Schwartz Says:

      The rot runs far deeper than most of you know. The dominant theory of law that is taught in all of our law schools and adhered to by almost all commenters, professional and journalistic, is known as “Legal Realism” [Wikipedia Article].

      A short description of legal realism is that it is the claim that 1) judges do not make decisions based on the words of laws and the application of logic to their relationships with each other and the facts of the case [realism’s description of “formalism], and 2) judges decide cases based upon their preexisting prejudices, political commitments, and policy preferences.

      If that sounds a lot like the post-modernist claim that there is no truth and everything is the will to power, then you are an A+ student and the duck will come down and give you one hundred dollars.

      To a legal realist, the description of a United States Supreme Court case is centered upon the politics of the Judges. The 4 liberal democrats will vote as they are instructed by the liberal hive mind (which of course is just another name for the mind of God), the 4 conservative republicans will vote as instructed by the Koch Brothers, and the case will be decided by how Tony Kennedy feels that morning. As far as pundits who will masticate these details are concerned, the texts of the opinions are simply nacht and nebel to distract the rubes.

      I abhor these doctrines and what they have done to the American legal system. Yet, I find it hard to think outside the box constructed by so many generations of judges and law professors.

      I will close with an assertion and an illustration.

      The assertion is that in order to be free of Legal Realism, we will have rewrite all of our laws, retire a couple of generations of judges and lawyers, and replace them with people newly trained in the new science of the law. This will be a task of enormous difficulty, and I am sadly certain that it cannot be undertaken in any environment other than the catastrophic collapse of the government.

      The illustration:

      Ohio’s oil-and-gas industry donations, ruling tied?” By Darrel Rowland and Jim Siegel • The Columbus [OH] Dispatch • Sunday February 22, 2015

      An Ohio Supreme Court justice lamented last week that “the oil and gas industry has gotten its way” in a decision that says local governments can’t regulate drilling.

      “What the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive.”

      The dissenting opinion of Justice William M. O’Neill in a fracking case was not without factual basis: Ohio’s oil-and-gas industry poured about $1.4 million into the campaign coffers of legislators and other state officials in 2013-14 — including about $8,000 for the justice who wrote the pro-industry ruling and $7,200 for another who concurred — a Dispatch computer analysis shows.

      * * *

      Catherine Turcer, policy analyst for Common Cause-Ohio and a longtime advocate for greater campaign-finance transparency, said she was taken aback by the direct linkage of public policy and campaign cash.

      “What I liked about Justice O’Neill’s opinion was his willingness to point out the elephant in the room,” she said. “In this case, the elephant got almost $1.5 million.”

      O’Neill is one of the only public figures on Capitol Square who can criticize the influence of campaign contributions and not come off sounding like a hypocrite. He raised only about $5,000 in his 2012 campaign, all from his own pocket. He did not take a single outside campaign contribution.

      Justice Judith L. French authored the majority opinion in Tuesday’s 4-3 ruling that said state law trumped local ordinances designed to keep fracking out.

      * * *

      What were the legal merits of the case? What are the relevant legal doctrines? What were the arguments of the parties? Who knows? Who cares?

      What is important is the Benjamins. And, of course, there won’t be a word about the millions spent by the environuts to propagandize their views. Nor of the sourcs of many of those dollars in Russia and Arabia.

    12. Dave L. Says:

      “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” -Andrew Jackson

      Not exactly a new sentiment, especially for Democrats.