Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

A Political Muse


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> A Political Muse Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A Political Muse - 1/25/2011 6:18:19 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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

Profile   Post #: 1
RE: A Political Muse - 1/25/2011 9:31:31 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		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.


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: A Political Muse - 1/25/2011 9:45:39 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: A Political Muse - 1/25/2011 1:08:54 PM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
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? 

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: A Political Muse - 1/25/2011 1:30:01 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: A Political Muse - 1/25/2011 1:31:12 PM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: A Political Muse - 1/25/2011 1:58:38 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: A Political Muse - 1/25/2011 5:28:23 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: A Political Muse - 1/26/2011 9:51:26 AM   
KenDckey


Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: A Political Muse - 1/26/2011 10:40:19 AM   
InvisibleBlack


Posts: 865
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that, I'll be over here, looking through your stuff.

(in reply to KenDckey)
Profile   Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> A Political Muse Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094