Comments on: Chuck For King http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/ Summum nec metuas diem, nec optes - Marcus Valerius Martialis Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:27:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Arlo http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43667 Arlo Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:40:08 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43667 Yes, it gave the Republicans power that a majority vote would not give them that every state has 2 senators and at least one House seat. That will change now that the Midwest and Mountain West are going Democrat out of revulsion at what Bush and the Republican Congress have done to the Republican party. Yes, it gave the Republicans power that a majority vote would not give them that every state has 2 senators and at least one House seat. That will change now that the Midwest and Mountain West are going Democrat out of revulsion at what Bush and the Republican Congress have done to the Republican party.

]]> By: Quilly Mammoth http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43500 Quilly Mammoth Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:09:01 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43500 <blockquote>You don’t like the word “gerrymander.”</blockquote> Probably because you don't know what it means. It means to draw a district so as to give a specific party power. Who redrew the states to do that, Arlo?

You don’t like the word “gerrymander.”

Probably because you don’t know what it means. It means to draw a district so as to give a specific party power. Who redrew the states to do that, Arlo?

]]> By: Arlo http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43405 Arlo Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:40:27 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43405 Gaius, You're really out on a limb. Republicans would agree that the Senate is constitutionally gerrymandered. You don't like the word "gerrymander." What we saw in this election was that the American system has self-correcting mechanisms so I'm not so troubled about the Senate being gerrymandered. Gaius,
You’re really out on a limb. Republicans would agree that the Senate is constitutionally gerrymandered. You don’t like the word “gerrymander.” What we saw in this election was that the American system has self-correcting mechanisms so I’m not so troubled about the Senate being gerrymandered.

]]> By: Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Meanwhile In The Senate http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43379 Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Meanwhile In The Senate Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:49:33 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43379 [...] Broder points out, rightly, that there are a lot of people in the Senate with personal agendas. One only has to look at Chuckles Schumer and the New York Observer article from yesterday to see that. That is going to present a serious problem for Reid. As majority leader, Reid will have to marshal his own unruly collection of egos while siphoning off enough Republican votes to make it work. Broder makes it quite clear that he is very leery of Reid's ability to pull it off. In addition to those egos and ambitions, Reid will have to contend with a few real mavericks and independent spirits in his caucus. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, elected last week as an independent Democrat after losing his party's primary to Ned Lamont, has reiterated his intention to follow his own path rather than accept party discipline. He has staked out a position on Iraq — opposing any timetable for withdrawal — that is at odds with the prevailing inclination of the new majority. [...] [...] Broder points out, rightly, that there are a lot of people in the Senate with personal agendas. One only has to look at Chuckles Schumer and the New York Observer article from yesterday to see that. That is going to present a serious problem for Reid. As majority leader, Reid will have to marshal his own unruly collection of egos while siphoning off enough Republican votes to make it work. Broder makes it quite clear that he is very leery of Reid's ability to pull it off. In addition to those egos and ambitions, Reid will have to contend with a few real mavericks and independent spirits in his caucus. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, elected last week as an independent Democrat after losing his party's primary to Ned Lamont, has reiterated his intention to follow his own path rather than accept party discipline. He has staked out a position on Iraq — opposing any timetable for withdrawal — that is at odds with the prevailing inclination of the new majority. [...]

]]> By: Gaius http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43276 Gaius Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:59:10 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43276 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"> <head> <title>Untitled document</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> </head> <body> <p>No, it is not, Arlo. You do not understand the elegance of what they drew up. And it is elegant. For it has democracy, with all its inflammatory mob rule mentality AND a serious braking mechanism to allow time for people to understand what they are demanding may not work out for the best. The system was somewhat compromised when Senators were allowed to be voted for popularly, but it is still better than outright mob rule.</p> <p>Consider: If mob rule had prevailed in the previous (before this last one) election, <em>you might very well have not had the ability to vote in the last election</em>. What if the majority in both chambers simply stripped you who had not voted for them of your rights? If all of the worst hyperventilation on the left had been really true, you <strong>would</strong> have been silenced.  </p> <p>Do you begin to see, or are you hopeless?</p> </body> </html> < ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

No, it is not, Arlo. You do not understand the elegance of what they drew up. And it is elegant. For it has democracy, with all its inflammatory mob rule mentality AND a serious braking mechanism to allow time for people to understand what they are demanding may not work out for the best. The system was somewhat compromised when Senators were allowed to be voted for popularly, but it is still better than outright mob rule.

Consider: If mob rule had prevailed in the previous (before this last one) election, you might very well have not had the ability to vote in the last election. What if the majority in both chambers simply stripped you who had not voted for them of your rights? If all of the worst hyperventilation on the left had been really true, you would have been silenced.  

Do you begin to see, or are you hopeless?

]]> By: Stop The ACLU http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43275 Stop The ACLU Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:56:54 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43275 <strong>Chuck Schumer Says He’ll Veto the Next Alito...</strong> Well, all the nightmares predicted and warned about before the elections are coming true. Cut and run in Iraq, creating rights for terrorists, Congress doors opened to groups like CAIR, intensified push to kill the NSA program, and now any hope for ... Chuck Schumer Says He’ll Veto the Next Alito…

Well, all the nightmares predicted and warned about before the elections are coming true. Cut and run in Iraq, creating rights for terrorists, Congress doors opened to groups like CAIR, intensified push to kill the NSA program, and now any hope for …

]]> By: Arlo http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43272 Arlo Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:48:52 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43272 As I said, whether its good or bad, its true: The Senate is constitutionally gerrymandered. Half of all human conceptions self-abort. Do you ever read any big news about scientists and drug companies working on how to save all of those babies? Do you ever read about Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard of George Bush calling on the scientific community to get to work on new drugs and technologies to save all those babies? No, never. Abortion has always been a bogus issue. As I said, whether its good or bad, its true: The Senate is constitutionally gerrymandered.

Half of all human conceptions self-abort. Do you ever read any big news about scientists and drug companies working on how to save all of those babies? Do you ever read about Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard of George Bush calling on the scientific community to get to work on new drugs and technologies to save all those babies? No, never. Abortion has always been a bogus issue.

]]> By: Quilly Mammoth http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43241 Quilly Mammoth Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:45:47 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43241 But Arlo, you said earlier that we should look at polls. That being the way we see things, in your world. Regarding abotion. <blockquote>About as much chance of that as a return to prohibition or segregation or miscegenation laws. </blockquote> But the number of people who oppose abortion is almost 50% of the current population. Some polls even show it edging slightly towards more...particularly if "late term" is added. So it is entirely possible that amajority of Americnas should oppose abortion. Should it then be law? Particularly seeing as how you made that argument. You said: <blockquote>Remember those poll numbers on Terry Schiavo, 87% saying the feeding tubes should be removed?</blockquote> So, Arlo, are you for, or are you aganst the instant will of the people? But Arlo, you said earlier that we should look at polls. That being the way we see things, in your world. Regarding abotion.

About as much chance of that as a return to prohibition or segregation or miscegenation laws.

But the number of people who oppose abortion is almost 50% of the current population. Some polls even show it edging slightly towards more…particularly if “late term” is added. So it is entirely possible that amajority of Americnas should oppose abortion. Should it then be law? Particularly seeing as how you made that argument.

You said:

Remember those poll numbers on Terry Schiavo, 87% saying the feeding tubes should be removed?

So, Arlo, are you for, or are you aganst the instant will of the people?

]]> By: A Blog For All http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43234 A Blog For All Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:30:27 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43234 <strong>Test of Wills...</strong> This sets up quite the delicious test of wills. The gang of 14 will be a distant memory in just a few short months. GOPers are going to be the minority in the new session, and they didn't particularly act like the majority when they were in control. .... Test of Wills…

This sets up quite the delicious test of wills. The gang of 14 will be a distant memory in just a few short months. GOPers are going to be the minority in the new session, and they didn’t particularly act like the majority when they were in control. ….

]]> By: Gaius http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43197 Gaius Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:37:22 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43197 Arlo, you just proved you have such a shallow understanding of the constitution and why it was set up the way it is that your understanding is all surface. Like it or not, Arlo, this is not a democracy. Never was. It is a republic. There is an enormously good reason that the founders set it up that way. Too bad you haven't studied it. Arlo, you just proved you have such a shallow understanding of the constitution and why it was set up the way it is that your understanding is all surface.

Like it or not, Arlo, this is not a democracy. Never was. It is a republic. There is an enormously good reason that the founders set it up that way. Too bad you haven’t studied it.

]]> By: Arlo http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43190 Arlo Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:28:51 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43190 About as much chance of that as a return to prohibition or segregation or miscegenation laws. The Senate is constitutionally gerrymandered. Thats a fact, whether you think its good or bad, its a fact, not an opinion. Over 30 million Californians have the same number of senators as - what - half a million Wyomingans. About as much chance of that as a return to prohibition or segregation or miscegenation laws.

The Senate is constitutionally gerrymandered. Thats a fact, whether you think its good or bad, its a fact, not an opinion. Over 30 million Californians have the same number of senators as – what – half a million Wyomingans.

]]> By: Quilly Mammoth http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43144 Quilly Mammoth Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:15:44 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43144 OK. Sorry for the forthcoming insult but "constitutionally gerrymandered" is about the dumbest piece of crap I have ever seen floated. Corky boggles in amazement at such a lackwit statement. We live in a _Republic_, Arlo. A Representative Republic. Which means, in short, a nation ruled by laws and a constitution and not by popular vote. One of those Constitutional bedrocks is that each State will have equal weight in the Senate. Which also has a six year election cycle. All this in order to insure that change comes slowly and one hopes thoughtfully and _not_ at the sudden whim of the electorate. And, Arlo, you dullard, this also prevents a sudden swing to the right from greatly affecting people like you. I promise you'd be the first one to be shouting if we had a Supreme Court of the US saying that is was perfectly fine to hang homosexuals for Sodomy. People like you would be irate that we had a SCOTUS that reflected the current mood of the electorate...and you disagreed with the electorate. Yet that's _exactly_ the type of court _you_ want, Arlo. A court reflective of the current mood. And you haven't the damn foresight to see what would happen to all you believe in if the mood changes. Judicial Conservatism does not mean politics, it means a reluctance to change law based upon the popular opinion of the day. So tell me, Arlo, if the next time the "People have spoken" and they _demand_ an end to abortion are you just going say "Cool...it's what the People have said"? OK. Sorry for the forthcoming insult but “constitutionally gerrymandered” is about the dumbest piece of crap I have ever seen floated. Corky boggles in amazement at such a lackwit statement.

We live in a _Republic_, Arlo. A Representative Republic. Which means, in short, a nation ruled by laws and a constitution and not by popular vote. One of those Constitutional bedrocks is that each State will have equal weight in the Senate. Which also has a six year election cycle. All this in order to insure that change comes slowly and one hopes thoughtfully and _not_ at the sudden whim of the electorate.

And, Arlo, you dullard, this also prevents a sudden swing to the right from greatly affecting people like you. I promise you’d be the first one to be shouting if we had a Supreme Court of the US saying that is was perfectly fine to hang homosexuals for Sodomy. People like you would be irate that we had a SCOTUS that reflected the current mood of the electorate…and you disagreed with the electorate.

Yet that’s _exactly_ the type of court _you_ want, Arlo. A court reflective of the current mood. And you haven’t the damn foresight to see what would happen to all you believe in if the mood changes. Judicial Conservatism does not mean politics, it means a reluctance to change law based upon the popular opinion of the day.

So tell me, Arlo, if the next time the “People have spoken” and they _demand_ an end to abortion are you just going say “Cool…it’s what the People have said”?

]]> By: Arlo http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/comment-page-1/#comment-43090 Arlo Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:35:34 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2006/11/15/chuck-for-king/#comment-43090 The people have spoken. If the Senate wasn't constitutionally gerrymandered what would the number of "conservatives" on the Court be? Maybe 2. Remember those poll numbers on Terry Schiavo, 87% saying the feeding tubes should be removed? Imagine if we had the Supreme Court shoving it down our throats that we have to have people in a vegetative state maintained. The people have spoken. If the Senate wasn’t constitutionally gerrymandered what would the number of “conservatives” on the Court be? Maybe 2. Remember those poll numbers on Terry Schiavo, 87% saying the feeding tubes should be removed? Imagine if we had the Supreme Court shoving it down our throats that we have to have people in a vegetative state maintained.

]]>