A Political Muse

A Political Muse (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> A Political Muse (1/25/2011 6:18:19 AM)
Just pondering here. Justice Scalia spoke before an event sponsored by the Tea Party Caucus of Congress. The media was pissed because they weren’t allowed to attend. Several liberal groups say that this shows that Justice Scalia is biased. The Democrats that were in attendance said it was relatively a bland speech sticking to the constitution and avoiding current affairs. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110125/ap_on_re_us/us_scalia_tea_party So here is what I am pondering. Should government be totally behind open doors? Obama, if I remember correctly during his campaign, said it would and has violated that promise repeatedly (I believe that most politicians say this to make us happy and get forgetful as soon as they take office). Is there such a thing as an open government? Should speaking engagements be limited and who determines the limits (surely not me because I would say to speak anywhere anytime to anyone). Now let’s create an example that we can use for the sake of argument (this is pure fiction created by me so don’t worry guys I am not gonna cite a source). My example: Obamacare is an opportunity for liberals to serve business by forcing people to buy their products. Then the liberals can call it something else. Citing my example, behind closed doors the liberals sat with lobbyists and representatives of the healthcare industry to garner support for their initiative. Everyone agreed that the world would go up in arms because it was pro business. To counter this, they agreed that they would call it a healthcare So Justice Scalia comes along and speaks of the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and the need for education. This is seen as bias, anti liberal imitative aimed and shows the future of the Court may be skewed against Obamacare. It is seen this way because of two very simple reasons, behind closed doors and sponsored by the Tea Party Caucus. So back to the questions. Should government bo totally behind open doors? No. If it is, then we should put our enemies on the mailing list of our plans and preparations for war. Is there such a thing as an open government? No Everyone has secrets Should speaking engagements be limited? Pick one of these 1) Yes They should be limited to whatever I believe cause anything else is a lie 2) No They should stimulate the mind. 3) Only when it doesn’t involve the Tea Party because we all know they are kooks. 4) I don’t know 5) Some other reason not described

MrRodgers -> RE: A Political Muse (1/25/2011 9:31:31 AM)
Well equating a lecture and the freedom to remain private with govt. secrecy is two different things. A lecture can be private while only the most sensitive defense secrets in govt. should remain classified or secret. All the public can do is wonder what the justice has to hide. What I want to know is why should we get a copy of the Federalist papers ? Do we need to read about debate...why ? We have a constitution for all the reference we need. If we are to read the federalist papers, then we should read up on ALL debate prior to ALL laws. The constant referral to the Federalist papers and particularly by a federal judge is to justify intellectual maneuvering resulting in activist judges seeking to legislate from the bench on the grounds...'well that's how I...I interpret not the constitution but the debate leading up to it as reflected in something called the Federalist papers.

rulemylife -> RE: A Political Muse (1/25/2011 9:45:39 AM)
The problem is Scalia has decided to turn himself into a celebrity. There has always been a dignity regarding the Court and he has taken it on himself to dumb that down.

Aylee -> RE: A Political Muse (1/25/2011 1:08:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Just pondering here. Justice Scalia spoke before an event sponsored by the Tea Party Caucus of Congress. The media was pissed because they weren’t allowed to attend. Several liberal groups say that this shows that Justice Scalia is biased. The Democrats that were in attendance said it was relatively a bland speech sticking to the constitution and avoiding current affairs. I hear that the media was upset they were not invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding as well. That is just too bad. Sometimes you just do not get an invitation. As far as reading the Federalist Papers goes, didn't we all have to do that in our high school US History class?

KenDckey -> RE: A Political Muse (1/25/2011 1:30:01 PM)
I don't necessarily disagree Mr Rodgers, however, there are a few things that could be added to the list. Like security arrangements for politicals and distinguished visitors, treaty negotiations, and others. It would be interesting tho to have police investigations records open and interrogations televised. That too falls under open government. I do believe that there is way to much done behind closed doors. Rule my take is that he is trying to make the Supreme Court more accessable and to educate people more about the Constitution. Not sure he is going about it correctly, but that is my thought.

KenDckey -> RE: A Political Muse (1/25/2011 1:31:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Just pondering here. Justice Scalia spoke before an event sponsored by the Tea Party Caucus of Congress. The media was pissed because they weren’t allowed to attend. Several liberal groups say that this shows that Justice Scalia is biased. The Democrats that were in attendance said it was relatively a bland speech sticking to the constitution and avoiding current affairs. I hear that the media was upset they were not invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding as well. That is just too bad. Sometimes you just do not get an invitation. As far as reading the Federalist Papers goes, didn't we all have to do that in our high school US History class? LOL I don't remember doing it but that was along time ago lol ugh to be young again

joether -> RE: A Political Muse (1/25/2011 1:58:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I don't necessarily disagree Mr Rodgers, however, there are a few things that could be added to the list. Like security arrangements for politicals and distinguished visitors, treaty negotiations, and others. It would be interesting tho to have police investigations records open and interrogations televised. That too falls under open government. Yes, that way when Mike, one of three guys who robbed a bank, and help kill 19 people, 'sings like a canary', his buddies who got away, can evade the law better. Good idea! And I don't recall any of the interrogations under the George W. Bush administration being televised. Oh yeah....his was the MOST secretative administration of all of them. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey I do believe that there is way to much done behind closed doors. I recall back in 2003, when America was experiencing all these weird 'brown outs'. The Bush Administration, got together with the Energy Heads of private companies, behind closed doors, off the record, and nothing given to the public. After the private debate, those 'brown outs' didn't happen to often after that. How many conservatives at the time were pissed about this? Absolutely none of them, since they all voted Mr. Bush to a second term a few months later. Mr. Obama's administration is far more transparent them Mr. Bush's. Yes, health care was put behind closed doors for a short time, because Republicans were using anything and everything in their misinformation machine, to convince Americans, that health care reform was a bad idea. Did conservatives question where the money was coming from, for that misinformation machine, and hold those people accountable? Hell No! Because THAT, would have been a responsible action. quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Rule my take is that he is trying to make the Supreme Court more accessable and to educate people more about the Constitution. Not sure he is going about it correctly, but that is my thought. There are many people that don't understand basic Economics, Law, Science, History, Education, or even Medicine. And you think educating them on the advance stuff will help? There are whole groups of people people that don't understand Climate Change, Theory of Evolution, the US Constitution, Inflation, Selling-Short, or Stem Cell Research. And every day, they show their ignorance, by bashing people that do understand it, and trying to do something good for the nation/world around them. No, Scalia is not just a 'conservative' judge; he's a biased judge. If he were a 'liberal' who was biased, would conservatives been shouting for him to be removed? HELL YEAH! Since they often state that US Supreme Judges, should not 'play politics' or legislate from the Bench'. So why are they not calling for his removal, by showing how biased he is right now?

eihwaz -> RE: A Political Muse (1/25/2011 5:28:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Should speaking engagements be limited? Pick one of these 1) Yes They should be limited to whatever I believe cause anything else is a lie 2) No They should stimulate the mind. 3) Only when it doesn’t involve the Tea Party because we all know they are kooks. 4) I don’t know 5) Some other reason not described My instinct is no limits, with a transparency caveat viz. currently serving public officials should be required to report to which groups they are, or have been, speaking and what fees, if any, they've received for doing so. An interesting issue is whether such speaking events should be mandatorily open to the public -- probably unworkable -- or at least videos, audios, or transcripts published. The idea is that it's a public good for citizens to know as much as possible about the opinions and thoughts of the individuals comprising their government. (Again, this applies to currently serving public officials.) My understanding is that the federal judiciary self-regulating with respect to public speaking and pronouncements. Obviously, judges need to be more careful than most legislative or executive officials about propriety, in particular, concerning cases or issues upon which they might be called to adjudicate. Although I really don't like Scalia and disagree with him on many of not most questions, I do like that he engages with the public.

KenDckey -> RE: A Political Muse (1/26/2011 9:51:26 AM)
Wasn't it Scalia that was summoned to jury duty. Didn't sit on a panel, but showed up. Might not have been him, but stuff like that from whichever Justice did it was a good thing as far as I am concerned. Wouldn't have hurt in my opinion if he had to serve on the panel as well. I never understood throwing people like lawyers, cops, etc off panels. Just because they know more law than the average individual? I definately agree that Scalia engages with the public. I like that too. And agree or disagree with his legal intrepretations, I think it gives him insight into what people are really thinking out there. Have no clue what he does with it, hopefully nothing, but I like the idea.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: A Political Muse (1/26/2011 10:40:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey Should speaking engagements be limited? Pick one of these 1) Yes They should be limited to whatever I believe cause anything else is a lie 2) No They should stimulate the mind. 3) Only when it doesn’t involve the Tea Party because we all know they are kooks. 4) I don’t know 5) Some other reason not described Am I missing something here? Justice Scalia met with a group of like-minded citizens and discussed political views. Unless you're suggesting that he was excessively compensated for his time or bribed or coerced in some way to influence his opinion as a sitting justice, I don't see what the issue is. (Well, okay, if they were meeting to conspire in armed insurrection, then there would grounds to intervene as well.) He exercised his freedom of speech and his freedom of assembly. I'm not aware of anything that exempts a justice, even a Supreme Court justice, from discussing politics, proposing ideas, or speaking to a group of people. I'm not aware of any requirement that the media be allowed to attend nor that the discussion be made public. The fact that his views might not be popular or are controversial or whatever is irrelevant. To suggest that Justice Scalia not be allowed be allowed to speak about his politcal beliefs or only allowed to discuss them in a public forum or not allowed to discuss them with certain groups would seem, to me, to be the controversial proposition.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125