World Politics and Ethics! - Page 11

TeapotScar · 04-04-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binkie

The Supreme Court has always had a balance of two right-wingers, two left-wingers, and three moderates. Basically decisions are up to the three moderates, as the right will always side with the right and the left will always side with the left. This is why the judiciary nominee is such a big deal for Democratic Senators. The balance could be thrown off and that's a big deal, especially right now.

As for the analogy/hypothetical: the Iranians don't want another revolution like the one in '79. They want their regime to change, but slowly and through legitimate political means. They don't want the US coming in and ousting their current regime for them. They want to deal with this on their own. So saying I want to overthrow the Bush administration is like saying "All Americans" refers to the small minority of anarchists out there in the comparison. There aren't a huge number of Iranians that want to really topple their own government. The majority just want it to change peacefully through the reformist movement.

Ummm.... "could be" thrown off?

Binkie... You know you're just lying... why do you do this? Not one of the "moderates" you speak of are democrats, making it 7-2, with the republicans in the lead. The democrats are worried *now* about losing the Supreme Court? I don't know what democrats you've been talking to there, hun, because at my house, we had a little saying around November of last year: "If we don't win this time, Republicans will have control over all three branches of government."

Binkie · 04-05-2005, 11:26 AM

7 to 2 if you're looking at Party affiliation. Stevens is Republican, but because he has sided with the other two Democrats so many times before, he's considered a part of the liberal wing on the Supreme Court by the media.

These moderate Republicans have also generally sided with the left on abortion issues in votes that always turn out 5 to 4. Greer, the judge that refused to reinsert the tube into Shiavo is also a Republican. The thing about judges is, they don't play politics with the courts. It's much more about where these people personally stand on issues in their own mind rather than being a red and blue thing.

CptSternn · 04-06-2005, 08:35 AM

If you are looking at party lines - check the house website and see dozens of reps that votes against party lines. By your line of reasoning, the congress is equally divided and bush doesn't control it because on some votes people stray from party lines.

Only problem is it works the other way too - at the end of the day the court it controlled by the repubs, no matter how you look at it.

Slán

-S

Binkie · 04-06-2005, 09:22 AM

Find me a Republican Senator that votes with the Democrats on every issue, not just one or two. Justice Stevens does that on the Supreme Court, despite the fact that he's a Republican.

Yeah, "Republicans" control the Supreme Court, but since they are generally never in contact with party members or the media, they really don't have ties with it beyond the title. Not that it would matter, because as I've pointed out, and you can certainly look up on your own, politics do not rule the courts. If they did, abortion would probably still be illegal and Terri Shiavo's feeding tube would have been reinserted.

creepylittleshit · 04-06-2005, 10:54 AM

I think it is ridiculus that marijuana is illegal and crimanlized in America. If a drug that makes most people violent and arrogent is legal (alcohol)then why isnt a drug that mellows people out legal??? You know you just don't hear about the angry pothead who came home and beat his wife because he was stoned!

It may not be that good for you but it's hardly worse than whats already legal.

The only reason it is illegal is because the DuPonts wanted to come out with polyester back in the day and hemp was too much competion. The goverment had investments in there company and did not want to see there investments go down the drain. Wasn't like they cared about the fact that polyester is bad for the envoiroment and hemp wasn't.

On top of that if you get caught with enough of it you can get yourself a felony. Then you can't vote and you'll more than likely spend a good five years or so in jail. All that seems a little much for smoking something that should not have been crimanalized in the first place.

WolfMoon · 04-06-2005, 11:26 AM

Actually my X smoked pot and he beat the crap outta me on a regular basis.No alcohol or any other drugs,just pot.And he was a very violent person.

creepylittleshit · 04-07-2005, 02:44 AM

Sorry to hear that.
Some people are just violent by nature. From what I have seen most potheads are pretty laidback, but angry people are angry people no matter what they are on. :|

TeapotScar · 04-07-2005, 03:36 PM

Many of you know Granny (she's taking a break from the social stigmata that is gothic.net... or maybe she's finally doing her homework. Whichever.), and she's usually a pretty mellow pothead, until you're one-on-one with her, in which case she can be a snappy little arrogant BITCH! She'll yell and whine and ohhhh my goddddd. You know how it is.

But usually that'd be if she didn't smoke *enough* or if she was coming down, or if she *thought* she was coming down. So maybe Wolfie's ex wasn't good about keeping his stash fully supplied? I don't know- I'm sorry you had to go through that.

Note on Granny's behalf: She rocks so much more hardcore than anybody else, even when she's super mean. And I'm really mean when I'm coming down from speed (which is TOTALLY understandable- I mean seriously.), so she's not the bitchiest girl in this room, I'm pretty sure. Or maybe she is- I don't know. We're pretty even.