Comments on: What do states’ rights, federalism, global warming and pixie dust have in common?

By: _Jon

_Jon — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:02:48 +0000

Any suggestions on what we – as a society – can do?

This has been going on for nearly 80 years now that the courts have been ignore the 9th & 10th Amendments like this. It is very disturbing.

I’d love to see a dialog to describe the exact problem and discuss possible solutions.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:06:21 +0000

The agreement itself, which explicitly provides that it’s up to each individual Senator to make his own subjective determination as to what is or isn’t an “extraordinary circumstance” justifying a filibuster.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 05:27:45 +0000

Xrlq:

It will never happen now.

Why not? What’s to stop the GOP from saying that the Democrats are abusing it again, and as such have gone back on their word, and re-introducing the measure to remove the judicial filibuster?

By: Me

Me — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 04:49:42 +0000

This sounds like a great opportunity to nullify any state gun law that is more restrictive than the federal gun laws:

To quote the June 7, 2005 L.A. Times article…

“The Constitution makes the laws of the United States the ’supreme law of the land,’ and ‘if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail,’ Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court.”

By: CL

CL — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 04:45:38 +0000

For your information, pixie dust DOES exist! However, you are right about the rest of them. They don’t exist.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 02:36:47 +0000

Osama, being the small fish that he is could never could have done the damage to the American Republic this court has done in the last five years.

Every canary has been dead so long that they don’t even stink.

By: hellbent

hellbent — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 19:31:21 +0000

Good ol’ commerce clause! It sounds like it’s intended to promote free trade among the states, but apparently it serves just as well as an excuse to prohibit commerce. Some enterprising AG from a marijuana-producing state should argue that a federal ban on the crop acts as a defacto regulation against his state’s commercial activity. That might be a good project for the Alaska attorney general to fill up those long winter nights.

Thomas may have stood his ground this time around, but he had no problem invoking the equal protection clause to trample on state’s rights when it meant doing a favor for his wife’s employer.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:38:27 +0000

SU, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that getting rid of the judicial filibuster means no legislative filibuster, either. Certainly the constitutional argument behind the “constitutional option” does not assume that, as it applies only to the meaning of “advise and consent.”

Manish, I eagerly await the day that any Democrat is stupid enough to nominate Ramsey Clark to any office. If he does, I would hope the Senate has the good sense to “bork” him, but I wouldn’t put much stock in a Republican filibuster, which hasn’t stopped anyone since Abe Fortas.

By: Manish

Manish — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 17:12:20 +0000

X…I await the day that the Dems have control of the WH and Senate and you talk about the Republicans not filibustering Ramsay Clark’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:20:52 +0000

But the filibuster is a double edged sword as getting rid of the filibuster would lead to more jackpot legislation, most of which would never be overturned in our lifetime either. Also, the end of the filibuster would be worse in 2008 when the Republicans lose ground (and i think they will).

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 16:08:45 +0000

Thanks for the link. If this case makes you mad, tell that to your fellow members of the “Coalition of the Chillin’” who think the recent Republican capitulation to filibustering Dems was no big deal. Bollocks, it’s a huge deal. If the Republicans had stuck to their guns and Spectre hadn’t stabbed them in the back, judicial filibusters would be history and there would be a very real chance President Bush would get to appoint two or three more Clarence Thomas types to the bench, and at least some chance yesterday’s precedent could be reversed within our lifetime. It will never happen now. Any appointee who is nearly principled enough to join yesterday’s dissenters is guaranteed to be filibustered by the Dems as an “extremist.”

By: SayUncle : Gee, wonder why?

SayUncle : Gee, wonder why? — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000

[...] the high court. Well, let’s see. In the recent past, the SCOTUS has: Killed the commerce clause, federalism and states’ rights (states’ rights is a racist code [...]