PDA

View Full Version : Scalia suggests that MAYBE the XVII Amendment wasn't such a good idea; DUmp implodes



Adam Wood
11-16-2010, 05:40 PM
A complete freak-out (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x522862) over something they don't even understand, not even meant to be a serious proposal, and simply hypothetically discussed during the course of a public verbal sparring match between Scalia and Bryer (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/12/scalia-breyer-spar-supreme-court-issues/).


Joanne98 (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-15-10 01:58 PM
Original message
Scalia Jumps On The Anti-Seventeenth Amendment Bandwagon



One of the most bizarre developments of the last several months is the growing right-wing calls to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, the provision of the Constitution that empowers voters — as opposed to state legislatures — to elect their senators. On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia joined Senator-elect Mike Lee (R-UT) and Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) in opposing the century-old amendment:

Scalia called the writing of the Constitution “providential,” and the birth of political science.

“There’s very little that I would change,” he said. “I would change it back to what they wrote, in some respects. The 17th Amendment has changed things enormously.”

That amendment allowed for U.S. Senators to be elected by the people, rather than by individual state legislatures.

“We changed that in a burst of progressivism in 1913, and you can trace the decline of so-called states’ rights throughout the rest of the 20th century. So, don’t mess with the Constitution.“

ThinkMoonbat link (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/15/scalia-seventeenth/).



Let the freakout begin!



MBS (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-15-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. isn't it completely inappropriate for Scalia to have a public

opinion on a constitutional issue like this????????
"Bizarre development" is sure the word for this. What do they hope to gain????
Bizarre times, all around.
That's right, Moonbat Being Stupid: conservatives aren't allowed to have opinions. :rolleyes:




beyurslf (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-15-10 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. I guess I don't understand why they would want to do that.
Um, because it's what the Founders actually intended, so that we don't have shit like the Alaska Senate count going on right now, and because it actually brings representation closer to the governed. Those old dudes were pretty smart about keeping governance as close to home as possible. They did it so that greedy little worms like you don't get to have the federal government taking money out of everyone else's pocket to pay for your cheetos and pot.



stevenleser (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-15-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I think state legislative races are much easier for Republicans to manipulate with money

You can easily overwhelm your average candidate for state legislature with $100,000 thrown at their opponent. There is little media interest in these races and thus you can completely define yourself and your opponent with more money.

Once the state legislatures are controlled, they control the senate as well and can stop any progressive legislation from being passed at either the state or federal levels. Diabolically smart.

Uh huh.

http://i54.tinypic.com/apcqpf.gif



eppur_se_muova (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-16-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. Exactly. Politics is always more corrupt at the local level. That's the First Law of Politics.

This is why the Repugs are always so eager to "turn control over to the states". Remember those Reagan-era "block grants"?

When corruption occurs at the national level, there are that many more watchdogs ready to bark. At least until Repug owners and publishers bought them out and muzzled them.

No, dumbass, it's not. That's complete bullshit and you know it. Local politics is governance close to home, where local people can watch it. Which is easier to watch: your mayor and council member in a small town three blocks away, or some elected royalty a thousand miles away and shielded by the Beltway?



Cosmocat (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-15-10 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. Not that the constitution does not provide for ...

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ...

This is one of those things that drives me to the point of wanting to throttle conservatives ...

THEY and only THEY are the preservers of the constitution, but at the same time, they get to pick and choose what parts of it they like and do not like ...

Hey! Shit-for-brains! No matter how much you don't like it, we get a say in Constitutional Amendments, too!!

Moron.




Donnachaidh (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-15-10 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
10. Time for the Congress to start impeachment proceedings against Scalia and Alito

How fucking obvious does it have to be? These are political hacks -- NOT SC judges. Get them OUT.

Monk06 (1000+ posts) Mon Nov-15-10 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. Scalia should be impeached. His political grandstanding is improper for a sitting Justice of the SC



He should shut his festering gob or run for office.Good luck with that, moonbats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase).





Idiots. The lot of them.

ralph wiggum
11-16-2010, 05:45 PM
This is not the first time I've heard the DUmmies complain recently that "the right-wing wants to get rid of the 17th amendment." But the DUmp is the only place I've read it.

Oh well, whatever drives them ape-shit.

Adam Wood
11-16-2010, 05:55 PM
This is not the first time I've heard the DUmmies complain recently that "the right-wing wants to get rid of the 17th amendment." But the DUmp is the only place I've read it.

Oh well, whatever drives them ape-shit.I'll freely say that my feelings wouldn't be hurt in the least if it were repealed. It would be a much better way to keep the feds in check, and you wouldn't have Robert Byrd up there for a thousand fucking years sucking up taxpayer funds. But I'm completely realistic that amending the Constitution is (intentionally) a very slow and difficult process, and I don't expect it to happen any time soon.

Just because it's a slow and difficult process doesn't mean that it's infallible. I think that the XVII Amendment was a big mistake. Lots don't share my view on that, or else they (as is the case with DUmmies) aren't intellectually curious enough to bother trying to find out. But those very same DUmmies and otherwise intellectually incurious people sure don't have any problem with saying that the next Amendment was a great big fucking mistake (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am18). Somehow, that's different.

Madisonian
11-16-2010, 05:58 PM
I guess opinions on amendments are limited to democratic congress critters that, like health care bills, they have not bothered to read.

NJCardFan
11-16-2010, 06:32 PM
I guess opinions on amendments are limited to democratic congress critters that, like health care bills, they have not bothered to read.

Now you're getting it!

FDK
11-16-2010, 07:38 PM
This is not the first time I've heard the DUmmies complain recently that "the right-wing wants to get rid of the 17th amendment." But the DUmp is the only place I've read it.

Oh well, whatever drives them ape-shit.

I've heard of it outside of the DUmp, Go here and search on 17th:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/login.php?

(I"m not a CFL person BTW. I have a friend locally active in R politics who deals with them so that's how I know of them.)


But agreed, anything that gets DU's panties in a bunch is fun to me.

noonwitch
11-17-2010, 10:27 AM
I oppose rescinding the 17th amendment. I don't think it will ever happen. The public perceives it as their right to vote for their senators at this point, and attempts to change that will be perceived as taking away voters' rights.

But Scalia is not the chief justice, and he is just expressing an opinion that he probably doesn't share with the majority of the court. Also, legal types like him like to have intellectual arguments with peers about such issues. It's their form of entertainment.

PoliCon
11-17-2010, 12:58 PM
I guess opinions on amendments are limited to democratic congress critters that, like health care bills, they have not bothered to read.

QFT.

Madisonian
11-17-2010, 06:59 PM
QFT.

Whew... glad I looked up QFT.
I am not always sure of all the net shorthand so I thought it could stand for something like Queer Freaking Troll or something similar.:o
I know a lot of hardcore bikers that do not think FTW stands for "For The Win".

PoliCon
11-17-2010, 10:00 PM
Whew... glad I looked up QFT.
I am not always sure of all the net shorthand so I thought it could stand for something like Queer Freaking Troll or something similar.:o
I know a lot of hardcore bikers that do not think FTW stands for "For The Win".

IDK. Net shorthand is making it into every day life. I was talking to my BFF and the topic came up and he was all like @TEOTD, text language can be AFAIK, 2M2H unless you get the 411. I was all like - AAMOF, 1337 is easier to understand. He was all like - you know 1337? NALOPKT. I was like WTF! 1337 is easy.












TTFN! LOL :D