Can and should the US Attorney General trash the will of the majority of voters in a state by manipulating other laws to carry out his/her wishes ?

This is not a left/right issue. The issue should be whether the legislature or judiciary determine what should be law ?

btw.. The far right Christian Conservative movement is getting larger by the minute. They are organized, spend $ to push their agenda, and becoming a stronger voting block at each new election. They are relatively low key and are not interested in trashing their opponents. Their growth is from the centralist of both parties that are disappointed.

This Oregun issue is a heads up on the future. Should a small group, I think 9, people decide an issue for the whole country instead of letting the issue be decided by democratic debate? Should morality be decided by the people or the Feds ?

Hold on, not so fast :)

I'm not arguing that the Supreme Court shouldn't have the ability to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. The framers knew what they were doing, and the judiciary plays an important role in the system of checks and balances.

So if Oregon, for instance, passed a law that all women were required to wear veils when in public, I fully expect that law would survive about 10 minutes of judicial review. Think it can't happen? Read Brown v. Board of Education. ***** happens, and the courts are sometimes the last bastion from "tyranny of the majority"

My point is that all these labels, judicial restraint, legislating from the bench, strict constructionist, blah blah blah, mean very little. Its attaching a simplistic label on some very complex issues. When President Bush tells us that he wants a "strict constructionist" on the Court, that’s just code for someone that will strike down Roe v. Wade. Without the presumed meaning, you can wear that label and come out on just about any side of any case, it means nothing.

I want Supreme Court justices that are committed to individual liberty. I want them to strike down laws that impinge on personal freedom, and uphold laws that keep the government out of our lives.

Rodeo,

If life does not begin at conception, when does it?

Who's the bigger fool, the non-economic Republican who votes with his heart, or the Democrat whose thinking is so one dimensional that he can't (or won't) fathom such behavior, so writes it off as stupid?

The issue isn't complex beyond the morality.

Should the Supremes and the Attorney General be able to trash the will of the voters ?

If you are a citizen that firmly believes that abortion is murder, that it amounts to mass genocide, I agree that you have no where to go but to support Bush.

I wouldn't call you names for doing so, as long as you understand the trade-off you are making. If abortion, or gay marriage, or right to die trump the fiscal insanity going on in Washington, trump the massive wealth-shifting, trump the limitations being put on individual freedoms, and trump the incompetence we have seen from this administration, then voting Republican is a valid choice.

I'd disagree with your conclusion, but I'd respect it.

I don't see that kind of reasoning from Bush supporters. Look at this board, it just doesn't happen. They latch on to "conservative" and "liberal" labels, and fight to the death without any sense of what they are fighting for or against.

There's a difference between standing up for what you believe in and being duped. I think most administration supporters have been duped.

I'm sorry Jim, I can't answer that. I just feel in my heart that in the first trimester, a woman should have the right to choose whether to carry to full term. I would encourage them to, I would do everything possible to encourage them, I just would not force it upon them.

Exactly.. this is called voter debate in a democracy. The voters should control the Legislature and they do. If their representatives don't perform they vote them out. The Judiciary should only interpert the laws that the voters want.

This one is not a Left/ Right issue at the Fed level.

So Rodeo,

If reasoning trumps all other concerns, and if you do not believe life begins at conception, please provide a reasoned analysis of your belief of when life does begin.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but I'm a little scared of the statement "the voters should control the legislature". To me, this brings of images of "majority rule", which I don't think is what we really want.

Again, maybe I'm missing the point, but what - in your situation - would stop voters from enacting unconstitutional legislation?

Mike

If it's unconstitutional then it's against the law of the US.

You don't want "majority rule" in a democracy?

ok

We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic.

What really pisses me off about the Oregon assisted suicide thing, (and a number of other subjects) is how it got the the supreme court at all.

The volume of garbage that the American people are subjected to in the name of Interstate Commerce is staggering.

Now enough of this political crap, I have the day off, and I'm going racing.

Have a nice weekend, all.

Tom

I thought that, technically, we were a republic and not a democracy.

Just asking the question, though. Thanks.

Mike

On the State and Federal level it is not so much "majority rule", but rather highly focused special interests getting what they want. I think legislatures today are kind of go-along get-along kinds of places. You pass my bill and I will pass yours. Look at the growth of government spending if you dont believe me.

That dear friends is how folks get to retire at 62 and live on the govenment tit until they die at 90..

99% of what they do is spend money and create laws on how money can be created and confiscated. Up or down votes on great issues only happens in the movies..

I don't believe that logic and reason trump everything. I love art, for instance. I can look at a painting and discuss whether I like it, but logic and reason will have no part of that discussion. Music, theatre, literature, the same. And of course Religion. You can't make a logical argument for or against a higher being, either one has faith or one does not.

Truth and beauty (meaning ultimate truth) can't be reduced to some mathematical formula.

When life begins is not a scientific question in my mind, its a moral one. I know that you could get experts to give you valid scientific/medical reasons on any side of the issue, but in the end I think Roe v. Wade gets it reasonably right. That's because I feel that, not because some scientific proof convinced me one way or the other.

Rodeo,

Thank you for the thoughtful response. But how can Roe v. Wade get it "reasonably right" if it's a moral question? There are only two sides to this question. Either abortion is the killing of a human being or it is not; first trimester, second trimester, "partial birth", whatever. Those distinctions are mental constructions to rationalize a heinous, unconscionable act of selfishness. Sadly, those who find comfort in these constructions have been duped. Some people "feel" the Jews should be eliminated or Native Americans and so on. Again, thank you for the discussion.

I thought this might be an interesting discussion, and it has been. What I didn't expect is this absence of duped, party-line, "yeah what about Clinton" trash I usually see. Again, very good discussion.

I am particularly impressed with Rodeo's assessments and observations. Very lucid. Clearly, good libs and good cons are, in reality, just a thin membrane apart on the real issues. If that.

Just a thought, but what's the hold up on the "Morning-after Pill" then. The FDA is being politicized over that issue and one official just resigned because of it.

It works before contraception. So no life is terminated. Why such strong conservative opposition to that?

Dan

Dan,

Now we get down to defining the moment of conception... Is it when sperm and egg meet or when the zygote implants on the uterine wall? If you believe the former, the morning after pill is abortion, if the later it is not.