Originally Posted By Mr X ***Indeed. Bu the US Chamber of Commerce will simply neither accept or tolerate that solution. And they have big lobbyist guns*** Well, if we REALLY want to go macro on this (and, well, ALL issues really), I would sincerely love to see lobbying outlawed completely.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper You are going to have a little hurdle with that silly "Freedom of Speech" clause.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, with that snide attitude you'd fit right in with our "corporations are people, too!" Supreme Court Wahoo, but even so I've read the first amendment and somehow I missed the part about "unfettered access to the levers of power for the wealthy". Perhaps I'll call up the White House and arrange an appointment with the President to discuss it. Think I'll be able to arrange such a meeting, Wahoo? I mean, if not that would mean I don't get my Freedom of Speech. Right?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm not sure how you interpreted the 15 words I said as a "snide attitude". We are on the way to a pretty liberal Court and I suspect lobbying is not going to change. I'm not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination but I have a lobbyist who is paid to speak to "levels of power" on my behalf. My professional Association has a paid lobbyist that makes about $55,000 a year. He has developed relationships in my state capitol and uses those relationships to influence elected officials to take our cause into consideration. Our big, ugly, "corporate" cause: preserving open space in Florida and sustaining the natural environment. I know that sounds terribly underhanded...but we are making use of our Freedom of Speech.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I'm not sure how you interpreted the 15 words I said as a "snide attitude"*** Didn't even need all 15. "that silly 'freedom of speech' clause" is pretty snide. ***We are on the way to a pretty liberal Court*** On what planet? ***and I suspect lobbying is not going to change*** I don't doubt that for a second. I was merely stating one of my fondest wishes.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, the President has already had two vacanices to fill and we are less than halfway through his first term. You would think that if there was a chance to see a shift in the court it would be under Obama's watch. I think we should separate lobbying from campaign contributions and payoffs.
Originally Posted By Mr X The President had two LIBERAL vacancies to fill and I think you know that wahoo. It's not as though there would be any shift as a result of replacing one liberal with another, particularly given the fact that Stevens was THE liberal voice of his age (which just goes to show how much the court has shifted TO THE RIGHT since when he first started he was one of the more conservative), and it would be next to impossible for the President to nominate even a remotely comparable judge given the highly charged atmosphere of confirmation hearings these days. So the President has done what he so often has had to do, he has compromised. If anything, his selections will move the court all the more slightly to the right. With the core of four unyielding right wingers lead by "innocence is no reason to reverse a death sentence!" Scalia and of course the Chief Justice as well, there is no hope in the near future for the court to swing to the left, and again, I think you know that. MAYBE, if President Obama goes the full 8 years AND another Democrat succeeds him...but that's fairly unlikely and I wouldn't bother speculating beyond that. The core four are *relatively* young and healthy and not going anywhere. Kennedy will swing this way and that, but for the most part he swings right. You know that, too. So how exactly are the two appointments you mention supposed to change anything dude? Please stick with realistic arguments, would ya? As far as your other comment, anything we could do in terms of lessening the impact of lobbying would be a step in the right direction. Having our extreme right wing court declare "the rights of corporations must be upheld!", is a step in the WRONG direction and as long as those clowns are in charge, nothing will change significantly and will instead probably get much, much worse.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I wasn't implying that I though the two exising appointments were going to make a shift in the court but I do think the odds favor Obama to appoint at least one more. For as much as I think Obama hasn't lived up to the "Change" he promised I also don't see the Republicans mounting any serious obstacle to "four more years". Actually, his own party might be more of an impediment than the Republicans.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I wasn't implying that I though the two exising appointments were going to make a shift in the court but I do think the odds favor Obama to appoint at least one more*** Well, if you're taking odds I'd agree with you, but yet again we're talking about the replacement of yet another staunch liberal (Ruth Bader Ginsburg). If you're taking odds on President Obama replacing one of the CONSERVATIVES, I'd take that bet only if I were allowed to serve Justice Scalia a nice plate of prime rib with a side of butter and whiskey in order to increase my chances. (of COURSE, I'm just kidding!) Beyond Justice Ginsburg (who I think has hinted at retirement), the rest are on board through one OR two Obama terms it seems to me. It will take a left winger of the future in order to change the courts towards the left, methinks. NOT President Obama. ***For as much as I think Obama hasn't lived up to the "Change" he promised I also don't see the Republicans mounting any serious obstacle to "four more years". Actually, his own party might be more of an impediment than the Republicans*** A lot can happen in a few years, but at this point I highly doubt a legitimate primary challenge will happen. No Kennedy in 80, that's for sure. As for the general, a couple of people scare me. And one more seems to be on the rise, as well. Guess away.
