From: ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:27:12 GMT
	<1992Nov12.072632.22825@Princeton.EDU>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 12-Nov-92 Re: President Clinton
David Marc Nieporent@pho (2399)

> In article <1992Nov11.013458.1246@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp
> (Michael Friedman) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov8.023941.23946@Princeton.EDU>
> niepornt@fish.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> >>In article <8NOV199201395076@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch
> (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
> >>>In article <1992Nov4.155545.15345@news.vanderbilt.edu>,
> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes...
> >>>>In article <1992Nov3.211100.3050@nic.csu.net>
> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:

> >>>>    And let's give the impending resurgence of judicial activism
> >>>>a nice big round of applause.  

> >>>Yeah, nothing like those unelected, unanswerable to anyone legal
> nerds making
> >>>laws.

> >>Unanswerable to anyone?  Have you read the Constitution?  They're
> >>answerable to Congress.

> >Bullshit.  You mean impeachment?  That's for misconduct, not for
> >making bad law.

> Well, the Constitution says "good behavior."  But that's sort of
> irrelevant, since there is no appeal for impeachment, except *maybe* on
> procedural grounds.

> Impeachment is not equivalent to a criminal trial.  The Senate doesn't really
> have to give reasons for impeaching someone.  They can just do it.

They can only impeach someone if that person is held to have committed a
felonioyus act by the House of Representatives.  So both houses have to
> agree for an impeachment.

> >>For that matter, "unelected?"  They're no more unelected than the
> >>President is.  And than the Senate used to be.

> >More bullshit.  When we voted for president we knew who we were voting
> >for.  Mind telling me who we were voting to put on the Court?

> You don't actually vote for President.  You vote for electors.  But put
> that aside for a second, since for the *most* part, electors DO follow
> popular wishes.

> But what about Senators?  The complain about Judges is that we didn't
> elect them, so they shouldn't make law.  But we didn't use to be able to
> elect Senators, either.  And no one complained that this means that
> *they* shouldn't have been able to make law.

If no one complained, the constitution wouldn't have been amended to
> make senator an elected office.

> It isn't as if judges get chosen out of thin air.  They're nominated by
> a mostly popularly elected President and approved by a popularly elected
> Senate.  If we chose them out of the phone book, they'd be truly
> unelected.  But we don't.  Our elected representatives elect them.

True, but once approved, most judges can't be fired unless they break
the law.  if public opinion turns against them, they are immune.  Unlike
elected representatives.  And when judges like this start using their
> judicial powers to make laws, they become unstoppable.

> -- 
> David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
> niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
>    princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
> Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.


					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh