Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
I'm getting the feeling that we're talking past each other.
|
I don't think so.
Quote:
|
You seem to be focusing on the fact that both sides of the political aisle have beefs about what they think should or should not be constitutional. I agree that in that respect, this is not a one-sided problem.
|
No, I'm focussing on the fact that both have beefs about what the law should be. Agreed this is not a one-sided problem.
Quote:
|
My problem is more with the tactics that the GOP is considering -- that if they're unsuccessful in legislating this prohibition, and if they can't pass an amendment enacting this prohibition, that somehow removing the question from the federal courts is somehow legitimate. Instead of getting the outcome they want with the game as it currently stands, or changing the rules (as they're permitted to do) so that they'll get the outcome the want on the substance, they're essentually deciding to take the ball home, so that the game never gets played.
|
And my point is that tactics exist on both sides. E.g., the DEMs don't want certain judges, so they block a full vote.
My point with abortion was that the DEMs were unsuccessful in legislating it in certain states. So they took it to the courts and, low and behold, the court decided this right was fundemental. It's the same thing as what you are accusing the GOP of doing - gaming the system to get the desired outcome.*
*I am not suggesting that there are not certain rights that the court should find, especially those where majority is tormenting the minority.
etft -- t.s.
