I really wonder what Delay's antics will have on the voters; specifically, whether bowing out after the primary in order to keep the seat Republican will alienate significant numbers of them. I think I would feel insulted if my representative quit after the primary, trusting that I would blindly vote for whoever filled his spot in November.
There are certain things that the state cannot deprive you of, no matter how popular the deprivation might be to the majority, which does not perceive itself as affected by the loss. Is there any limit to where your states' rights argument would end (replace all references to abortion in your post with any of the following: free speech, separation of church and state, right to jury trial, right against self-incrimination)?
Disclosure often is considered insufficient where consumers/the public lack sufficient knowledge or power to assess the scope of the conflict. Ethical canons in the legal profession sometimes cannot be evaded by disclosure, nor by a client's acknowledgement of the conflict and willingness to continue the representation (such as where a criminal lawyer represents two defendants and the defense of one is predicated on assigning blame to the other, or where the lawyer has a commercial interest in her client's failure; in the context of judicial ethics, judges are required to avoid both actual conflicts and the appearanc of such conflicts, whether or not they actually exist). Congress has also found that disclosure is not enough in the context of federal electoral contributions (for-profit corporations must submit disclosure reports to the FEC and additionally maintain a heavily-regulated PAC if they wish to contribute to federal elections).
All of that said, I wouldn't see why Jerome wouldn't still be able to blog about issues that are unrelated to his other business ventures, so perhaps all of this hand-wringing is misplaced.
when and on what issues do you think we should fight the president, if at all? what is your master strategy for taking back this country?
opposing roberts has several tactical advantages in addition to showing our constitutents that we actually have some spine and are willing to fight for the issues we claim to represent. i have read elsewhere (i can't remember where anymore) that the roberts nomination will be a test run for the next SCOTUS nominee. if roberts, who is perceived to have no real skeletons in his closet and no clearly stated ideology, only squeaks by with a few extra votes, bush will probably be precluded from nominating someone even more radical the next time. so yeah, every fight counts.
I agree with your larger point as well: hang the Republicans on this in the short term, then fix things when we return to power. 2041 is an awfully long way away, and it would be absolutely disastrous for our country if the Republicans clung to power that long.
to cover the $125,000 level or so? Wouldn't that essentially cover all of SS's problems for the next century? This is such a simple solution, but everyone is afraid of the word "tax," even if it were to be applied to the upper class. So far as I understand it, people who make $80,000 or less pay payroll taxes on their full income, while anyone who makes above that threshold does not have to pay the taxes on any additional income earned. Since Bush is also using the populist frame (of cutting benefits on the rich moreso than on the poor), why don't we run with it by announcing that no benefits will be cut, but that everyone, including the rich, must pay their fair share?
2 guys I hung out with a lot in college and who came to college as Republicans saw the light and embraced the Democratic party. One of them was gay and came around, I think, because it was so obviously hypocritical of him to support a party that actively hates people of his sexuality. The other I'm not so sure about, but he also became an atheist after hanging out with me extensively (from being a devout Lutheran), so maybe I was just a good/bad influence on the guy (or good/good, depending on your own religious viewpoint).
that the Republican party can only draw support so long as they have an external Other to villify, whether that be blacks, gays, the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, liberals, whatever. They need an enemy to vilify because their defining characteristics are being non-introspective and reactionary, lending credence to the idea that they're "tough on crime/terrorism" and will keep us safe in frightening times.
The problem is, now that they so clearly control all branches of the federal government and many state governments, they have to work overtime to manufacture an enemy to retain their support. That, I think, is primarily why their rhetoric has become so vitriolic even as they've grown in power.
I agree with that poster that we might be speaking in too much legalese and that we need to make our argument meaningful to the person on the street - not quote a bunch of cases to prove we're right. Public opinion is not an appellate court. Perhaps emotional arguments such as that poster's are more persuasive on this one than logical arguments?
Good points all, but I wouldn't criticize Marbury in the way that you're doing. Before establishment of the Republic, colonial courts such as the Privy Council overturned legislation that violated precepts of established law, and state courts had done the same under constitutions similar to our current federal one. Marshall also lifted his argument in Marbury almost entirely from Hamilton's Federalist No. 78, so to say that there was no precedent for Marshall's opinion is just not true. Also, there are at least two possible interpretations of Marbury - a broad reading and a narrow reading. The first is what has come down to us - that the Supreme Court alone has the power to interpret the Constitution, a point made forcefully by the Court in the 1960's in the face of states' resistance to anti-discrimination laws. The second is that each branch has the power to interpret the Constitution, but that the Supreme Court's interpretation is binding as to parties hauled into court.
I agree on the state court issue - my fed courts professor's opinion is that the state courts were always conceived to be the final safeguard against the removal of federal question jurisdiction from the federal courts.
I would also reiterate that the question as to whether or not Congress can abolish Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over federal and constitutional questions is by no means resolved. See Scalia's dissenting opinion in Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988), for the argument that such jurisdiction could be eliminated in at least some cases. Now, personally I think his argument there is bullshit on several levels, but then again he is still on the Court. The majority passes on Scalia's argument, stating only that a statute enacted to deprive federal courts of hearing constitutional claims would raise "serious constitutional question[s]."