From: jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 08:09:45 GMT
 <Bu8JKz.4GM@rice.edu>
Organization: is sometimes desirable

In article <Bu8JKz.4GM@rice.edu>, David E Boyes writes:

> In article <348Dr*8X0@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
> 
> >Have you been on another planet for the last 12 years?  The Supreme Court has
> >never been even close to being a rubber stamp for President Reagans or Bush!
> >I think that YOU are the one who needs to go back to civics class.
> 
> In the late 1930's and early 1940's, there was a great deal of
> concern that Franklin Roosevelt was exerting an inordinate amount
> of influence over the selection of Supreme Court justices, thus
> "loading" the court with justices that were sympathetic to his
> personal agenda and plans. The same concerns have been raised
> recently w.r.t. Mr. Bush's nominees. If you will recall your own
> civics class, Mr. Prichett, the Supreme Court is the body
> empowered to decide the constitutionality of any legislative act
> initiated by the legislative or executive branches. If a chief

Go check your civics class again.  The Supreme Court empowered itself to do
that job.  (Hint:  go read about John Marshall.)

> executive can ensure that the members of the Supreme Court will
> approve his actions through gratitude or political paybacks,
> suddenly a great deal of unpleasantness aimed at social and
> ethnic minorities becomes possible.

There is no evidence that the Reagan/Bush appointees act as a block on every issue.
Nor is there any evidence that they do so upon request from Reagan or Bush.
Actually, the justices were accused of being anti-abortion, but their votes on
that issue don't match up to that accusation.  There is no control of justices
after they are appointed.  Go check your civics text again.  Even if such control
existed, why does that mean that racist assualts on civil rights would result?
I think that you've been listening to liberal hysteria too long.

> Is that clear enough for you?

Is that clear enough for you?

> 
> Ben Gamble states:
> >> I guess if Americans are willing to let their Executive become a king,
> >> then that's their decision.
> 
> >President Bush has never acted like a king.
> 
> I'm rather uncomfortable with how the suppression of media access
> during Desert Storm was handled. I'm uncomfortable with the
> notion of "executive privilege" officially invoked by Richard
> Nixon, and used to some extent by all the succeeding presidents.
> I'm uncomfortable with the distance between the wealthy
> Presidential candidates and the rest of us with 9 to 5 jobs and a
> $100K mortgage to pay. These kinds of things are the hallmarks of
> a privileged class very similar to that of the French nobility
> under the Bourbons, a rather unpleasant association given the
> ending of the Bourbon dynasty -- mass execution by guillotine.
> 
> King is not an exact description, but even you can't claim that
> President Bush lives with the same kind of restrictions on his
> life that you and I do.

Neither does Tom Foley.  So, do we call him "King Tom"?

> >Actually, your quote sounds quite
> >elitist.  Are YOU the one who wants a king?
> 
> "If I have the choice, I prefer to be governed by the competent.
> If I have no choice, I am obligated to act in such a way as to
> facilitate the creation of a choice." - Robespierre

Very dangerous.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp
 or    utacfd.uta.edu!rwsys!caleb!jdp