I actually feel vindicated in a way. In this thread, I talked about George W. Bush wanting to do away with the judiciary, and specifically judicial review (if that is what you call declaring laws “unconstitutional”–it’s been a while since I took a government or pol. science class). Now, after the gay marriage ruling, more Republicans are coming forward to say this too. Here Bobby Jindal makes a similar proposal.
Yeah, I know it seems hard to believe, because it is so out “of the mainstream”. But a lot of things seemed out of the mainstream, when Republicans first proposed them. Now, even Democrats don’t question them anymore–like ending welfare. And original intent judges. And sadly, radical Republicans (and other radical conservatives) always eventually get what they want. That’s how it usu. works, I think. Prove me wrong.
And of course the reason for wanting to end the courts as we know is all too clear. If not for an independent judiciary, with the power to nullify laws, the religious conservatives would have carte blanche to pass whatever laws they pleased. (At this time, I want to make clear, I have no problems with religion. I think it can be a motivating force for good, some times. When I say “religious conservatives”, I am talking about a specific group.) Because even a conservative judge, like Scalia, would be an enemy to that.
I’ll post more quotes of more conservatives, if any of you ask. But I think Jindal’s view is (sadly) becoming more and more widespread. Where am I wrong, about this?
This is like Democrats complaining how the filibuster was out of control while they were in power, now its a protection of the rights of the minority.
Believe me, if a few big court cases in the near future swing the way conservatives want, then Article III will become the most important part of the Constitution because its stopping the socialist agenda, etc etc.
Those same Republicans have no problem with getting campaign finance laws declared unconstitutional, or with multiple attempts to invalidate Obamacare. Jindal is just throwing red meat to the base.
The source of the DailyKOS article does not indicate that Jindal was the one who said he wants to do away with the judiciary. According to the article:
Maybe that was an official statement by Jindal but before I get ready to pillory him I’d like to know if it was actually him or just an off-hand comment by a knucklehead staffer.
If for some reason the SC overturned Roe-vs-Wade you don’t think a Clinton staffer would make a similar comment? There were probably such statements after the “hanging-chad” ruling.
(For the record I whole-heartedly disagree with Jindal on the SC ruling and am quite happy with its outcome.)
Both are true. The Republicans overused the filibuster, including many trivial cases, exercising it far more than it had ever been used, up to then, in the history of the Republic.
Many liberal Democrats are fine with the filibuster, so long as it is used judiciously and wisely. Imagine a President who vetoed everything that came before him. That doesn’t mean the veto is a bad idea, just that it would be being used stupidly.
Does Hillary go around denying everything attributed to her by staffers in conservative new sources? I seriously don’t know. Jindal may very well be a anti-constitutional moron (and I certainly would never vote for him) but I’d like to see some direct proof.
Neither Republicans nor Democrats accept ending welfare; instead, both regularly expand welfare. That why welfare keeps getting bigger.
You say that “radical Republicans (and other radical conservatives) always eventually get what they want”. So then, I guess radical Republicans and radical conservatives want abortion to be legal in all fifty states? Want the federal budget to be over 3.5 trillion dollars?
Do you actually believe that welfare has been eliminated? Do you need a cite that it hasn’t? I mean, seriously? We’re supposed to believe him now, because welfare has been eliminated? Anyone making that statement would lose credibility in my eyes, not gain it.
Long term welfare has been eliminated. If you include social security, medicaid, medicare, unemployment, and welfare, the total is increasing. Just welfare & unemployment, not so much:
Would you like to know how the amount spent on some of those programs has been trending recently? Food stamps are at $70 billion last year, compared to $15 billion in 2000. Housing assistance costs have soared. Home Energy Assistance last year was almost $3.5 billion, up from just over $2 billion seven years earlier. But hey, Paul Krugman says that long term welfare has been eliminated, so it must be true even if government budget figures show massive welfare spending.
The OP did not say the Republican Party wanted to eliminate the judiciary (clearly actually the Supreme Court) - just Republicans. Which seems to be true. And is a radical and unconstitutional enough of a position that you wouldn’t expect any mainstream candidate to propose it. (Perhaps Jindal doesn’t think that Madison knew what the founders intended? )
If an aide did it, Jindal should be disqualified for hiring people with so little knowledge of history and who would put out such controversial press releases without clearing them with him.
No worries - since it appears that even Jindal’s kids don’t support him.
So…some Republicans are loons? This seems sort of a dog bites man or water is wet sort of thing.
Depends. Do you mean basically what Voyager is interpreting your OP to be, i.e. that some Republicans are loons and have said stupid and silly shit? Sure. Trump does this seemingly on a daily basis at this point. If you mean this is a Republican party stand, then no…I don’t believe it.
Yeah, but those assistance programs soared during the recession. What would you expect to happen during the largest recession since the Great Depression?
If you look at Krugman’s graph, you’ll see that he agrees that they soared during the recessions, and then came back down as the economy improved.
Anyway, I stand by my statement that welfare has a specific meaning, and it’s not really food aid, and it’s definitely not medical aid. In fact, it’s not really unemployment – welfare was defined as getting paid just for being poor. Cash in hand. Those benefits have come way, way down – there’s just no more non-time limited money for able-bodied people.
If the OP wants to come back and admit he was in error, then great for him. But as of now, he hasn’t and he makes a mockery of the idea that we should “believe him now”.
I think it’s a stretch to say that Medicaid is not welfare. It’s governmental aid given to poor people.
