Quote from: James J SkachYour last line is, as I've pointed out, where we agree.

I'm not sure why you see the Congress as weak at this point.  Wasn't the 2006 election supposed to be the paradigm shift?

I'm not a Democrat, so the whole "Democrats took Congress! Utopia tomorrow!" thing underwhelms me. They don't seem to've done much important, and I doubt they will. I suppose I can hope that with a divided government, it will be harder to do bad things, but that's kind of a shitty and lame thing to hope for.

QuoteAnd it's interesting that you see a "minimalist" Judiciary as weak.  Are you equating "minimalist" with "strict interpretation of the Constitution?"

No. "Minimalist" is something else. John Roberts has openly stated (in a recent interview in the Atlantic Monthly IIRC) that he has two methodological principles he wishes to develop as chief justice.

The first is that he strives for the narrowest rulings possible. He likes placing conditions and supplements and plenty of exclusive criteria on rulings because this makes them less likely to be overturned.

The second is that he strives for unanimity amongst the court whenever possible, even if this means compromise decisions that do not satisfy either side.

These two principles, while certainly valuable and interesting in many respects, have weakened the judiciary in respect to the executive branch. In other times this wouldn't be too bad (I'm given to understand that the Rehnquist court had some similarities, though not explicitly stated) but the current executive branch holds to the idea of a very strong executive. As the judiciary retreats into minutiae and refuses to take strong stands because of a desire for compromise, the power of one branch grows at the expense of others.

Now, the USSC isn't a complete push-over, even now - they've smacked the administration more than once - but neither are they working particularly hard on behalf of freedom against the desire of the executive branch to centralise as much power as possible within itself.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI suppose I can hope that with a divided government, it will be harder to do bad things, but that's kind of a shitty and lame thing to hope for.

Why?  It's what the founders wanted.  I mean, that's the whole point of dividing the government - to limit it's power. Now, you have a Legislative branch with a slim Democrat majority, and an Executive in the hands of Republicans - what more could you want for balance?  I mean, hasn't the narrative been, since the election, how weak the President is?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo. "Minimalist" is something else. John Roberts has openly stated (in a recent interview in the Atlantic Monthly IIRC) that he has two methodological principles he wishes to develop as chief justice.

The first is that he strives for the narrowest rulings possible. He likes placing conditions and supplements and plenty of exclusive criteria on rulings because this makes them less likely to be overturned.

The second is that he strives for unanimity amongst the court whenever possible, even if this means compromise decisions that do not satisfy either side.

I was of the impression that the latter was the goal, the former, one of the tools that might be employed to reach that goal.  And if that's the case, then it could be a good thing for the SCOTUS as they can expect the rulings to hold.  This will serve to remove the recent political wrangling over the court and return it to what it's supposed to do.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrinebut the current executive branch holds to the idea of a very strong executive. As the judiciary retreats into minutiae and refuses to take strong stands because of a desire for compromise, the power of one branch grows at the expense of others.

One of the intersting things about the US system of government is watching the branches fight over their powers.  I would expect, and desire, the Executive Branch to believe in a strong Executive Branch.  If they didn't, I'd wonder, and want to know, why.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNow, the USSC isn't a complete push-over, even now - they've smacked the administration more than once - but neither are they working particularly hard on behalf of freedom against the desire of the executive branch to centralise as much power as possible within itself.

Really? I though the entire line that allows the SCOTUS any say in how the Executive handles prisoners taken in the battle field is a tremendous swipe at the power of the Executive by the Judiciary - not necessarily a bad one. How about the ruling that tells the Executive that the Legislative needs to define the way the military handles the Combat Status Review thingies (watch those technical terms!).

I think it's working beautifully.  I don't agree with much of what any of the branches are currently doing, except that they seem to hate each other enough to call bullshit whenever the opportunity arises. That, in turn, tends to keep them in line.

Quote from: James J SkachWhy?  It's what the founders wanted.  I mean, that's the whole point of dividing the government - to limit it's power. Now, you have a Legislative branch with a slim Democrat majority, and an Executive in the hands of Republicans - what more could you want for balance?  I mean, hasn't the narrative been, since the election, how weak the President is?

I'm not sure that dividing the government has meaningfully limited its power. I'm pretty sure that "the founders" - or at least George Washington - certainly would not approve of a government where the only check on government power was factionalism.

I'm not really interested in balance between the parties. Just as I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican. I'm interested in restraining government power and expanding human freedom and dignity.

QuoteI was of the impression that the latter was the goal, the former, one of the tools that might be employed to reach that goal.  And if that's the case, then it could be a good thing for the SCOTUS as they can expect the rulings to hold.  This will serve to remove the recent political wrangling over the court and return it to what it's supposed to do.

Not getting the cases overturned is the goal yes, but narrow decisions and unanimity are ways to get there. I'm not entirely sure that aiming to write decisions that will never be overturned is all that good. It's not evil or anything, but I'm rather fond of Tom Paine's line that "Government is for the living, not the dead." I'd rather they make bolder decisions (within reason, of course) and risk having them overturned than aim to avoid controversy.

QuoteOne of the intersting things about the US system of government is watching the branches fight over their powers.  I would expect, and desire, the Executive Branch to believe in a strong Executive Branch.  If they didn't, I'd wonder, and want to know, why.

Sure, but as a person who is not a member of the Executive Branch of the United States Government, I'm unsympathetic to their attempts to gain power anyhow.

There's a story about a philosopher named Diogenes of Sinope. Diogenes was notoriously poor, owning a lantern, an iron bar, a bathtub and a cup. One night, a thief tried to steal the bathtub, but Diogenes woke up and grabbed him before he could. In the other hand, he had the iron bar and was about to beat the thief when the thief spoke: "Please Diogenes, don't punish me, it's my nature to steal." Diogenes replied "And it is my nature to beat you."

QuoteReally? I though the entire line that allows the SCOTUS any say in how the Executive handles prisoners taken in the battle field is a tremendous swipe at the power of the Executive by the Judiciary - not necessarily a bad one. How about the ruling that tells the Executive that the Legislative needs to define the way the military handles the Combat Status Review thingies (watch those technical terms!).

No idea. I'm unfamiliar with it (because I'm not an American legal expert and haven't heard about the Combat Status Review business before). I can do some reading if you can recommend some sources.

QuoteI think it's working beautifully.  I don't agree with much of what any of the branches are currently doing, except that they seem to hate each other enough to call bullshit whenever the opportunity arises. That, in turn, tends to keep them in line.

I'm just not sure that they're really doing that. I'd like to think that they were, but I don't trust them enough to do so.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm not sure that dividing the government has meaningfully limited its power.

Ya know, on this point at this moment in time, I'd have to agree.  I think they missed a couple of items in the Bill of Rights that need to be there for the final process to be better. But it was definitely their intent to try everything they could to limit the power of the federal government, and three branches was one of the major methods.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm pretty sure that "the founders" - or at least George Washington - certainly would not approve of a government where the only check on government power was factionalism.

I'm sorry if it came across that the founders tried to design factionalism into the actual structure.  I was referring only to their attempt, through dviding the branches, to limit power. I was extrapolating based on that strong desire that many of "the founders" desired a divided government as it limited it's power. But I'd have to dig to back that up. Might be an interesting little project.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm not really interested in balance between the parties. Just as I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican. I'm interested in restraining government power and expanding human freedom and dignity.

Agreed.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNot getting the cases overturned is the goal yes, but narrow decisions and unanimity are ways to get there. I'm not entirely sure that aiming to write decisions that will never be overturned is all that good. It's not evil or anything, but I'm rather fond of Tom Paine's line that "Government is for the living, not the dead." I'd rather they make bolder decisions (within reason, of course) and risk having them overturned than aim to avoid controversy.

We may depart on this point.  I don't care if they are "bold" or not, only that they adhere to the Constitution.  If something is ruled unconstitutional, and the people don't like it, there's a process to change the constitution. I wish people would follow that process.  Instead, the goal is to get the SCOTUS to essentially create law by rulings that view the Constitution in..well...an expansive way, shall we say?  The aim might be "bold," it might even be right, but the reasoning is completely wrong. Follow the process, change the Constitution - don't render it moot by reading things into it that aren't there. Otherwise you get this god awful system where the SCOTUS is just another political fight and that's fucked.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSure, but as a person who is not a member of the Executive Branch of the United States Government, I'm unsympathetic to their attempts to gain power anyhow.

Am I coming across as sympathetic?  I'm only pointing out how it's the nature of things in the US government. Congress did exactly what it should do - call bullshit. The problem I have is that people are using words like "abuse" to characterize a loophole that wasn't even used, for god's sake. What they are really mad at is the firings, but they know, deep down inside, those firings are perfectly legal and normal - even if they are completely political! So they need to find something, anything to make the situation look eeeevil.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThere's a story about a philosopher named Diogenes of Sinope. Diogenes was notoriously poor, owning a lantern, an iron bar, a bathtub and a cup. One night, a thief tried to steal the bathtub, but Diogenes woke up and grabbed him before he could. In the other hand, he had the iron bar and was about to beat the thief when the thief spoke: "Please Diogenes, don't punish me, it's my nature to steal." Diogenes replied "And it is my nature to beat you."

I think that's exactly what I'm saying.  Executive Branch reaches for Power, Legislative call them on it.  Result: Executive backs down. In a weird way, it's the Legislative's fault - they passed the damn law.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo idea. I'm unfamiliar with it (because I'm not an American legal expert and haven't heard about the Combat Status Review business before). I can do some reading if you can recommend some sources.

I'll see what I can dig up.  Can't promise timely response, but if you are still interested and I haven't responded, bug me in PM. Honestly, I'd be happy to provide what I can.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI'm just not sure that they're really doing that. I'd like to think that they were, but I don't trust them enough to do so.

I'm a pessimistic optimist, or an optimistic pessimist. Depends on the day.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O019200&show_article=1

Senate votes 94-2 to remove the provision from the Patriot Act allowing judges to be appointed without Senate confirmation.

Verily, we are on the cusp of a ChristoNeoConFascist State. Are you with me, Brothers?!

Quote from: Werekoalahttp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O019200&show_article=1

Senate votes 94-2 to remove the provision from the Patriot Act allowing judges to be appointed without Senate confirmation.

Verily, we are on the cusp of a ChristoNeoConFascist State. Are you with me, Brothers?!

You meant US Attorneys...

And I think my favorite quotes from that AP story, and the problems with the entire issue are this:

Quote from: AP StoryThe Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies as a backlash to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of eight federal prosecutors.

OK - the "Bush Administrations ability to unilaterally fill..." Are you fucking kidding me?  It's any adminstrations ability.  Unless you're trying to tell me the law was written just for the current administration?

And look at the non-sequitor - they are taking away the ability for the Executive to fill the positions without consultation because of a backlash over the firing of eight US attorneys.

Could you get a more partisan-charged paragraph into a "news" story?

Quote from: AP StoryWith a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. Democrats say the Bush administration abused that authority when it fired the eight prosecutors and proposed replacing some with White House loyalists.

The Justice Dept. might have authored it, but you fucking idiots passed it. Didn't you read what you were passing?  I'm shocked, shocked! to find the Executive attempting to stretch it's power. Jesus, what a bunch of hypocrisy.

And again, we have the non-sequitor.  The Bush adminstration "abused" the hiring powere when it fired someone. Are you fucking kidding me? And who would the White House consider for replacements, Democrats? If they had, would everyone say, "Oh, nevermind, he can replace them without Senate consent." Because, ya know, it's OK to appoint Democrats.

They are political appointments, people. Every adminstration fills them with their own people. The Senate confirmation is to ensure they are qualified and there's no conflict of interest. Even if they are die-hard Republicans facing a Democrat Senate (or vice versa), as long as they are otherwise qualified they are confirmed - ideology is not a reason.

It's just amazing to me that people can look at a story like this and think there's any objectivity left at the Associate Press.

Quote from: James J SkachYou meant US Attorneys...

Oh, I guess I was predicting the next genius idea from the BusHitlerBurtExxonCo. Powergrab Consortium (PC, LLC, PDQ, KFA).

(okay, so it was a mistake, so sue me)

QuoteThe Justice Dept. might have authored it, but you fucking idiots passed it. Didn't you read what you were passing?

There were some big changes in the last election. It was a largely different group of idiots that passed it.

Quote from: James J SkachThey are political appointments, people. Every adminstration fills them with their own people. The Senate confirmation is to ensure they are qualified and there's no conflict of interest. Even if they are die-hard Republicans facing a Democrat Senate (or vice versa), as long as they are otherwise qualified they are confirmed - ideology is not a reason.

Just FYI, a report by the Congressional Research Service (link to PDF of report) has revealed that of the 468 U.S. Attorneys confirmed by Congress over the past 25 years, only 10 have ever left office involuntarily.

For those keeping score at home, that means that the Bush administration pushed out almost as many U.S. Attorneys in December as had been let go over the past 25 years.

So no, it's not really an "all administrations" kinda thing.     This was a political hatchet-job, pure and simple.  

I mean, fer chrissakes, Fitzgerald, they guy who at the time was in the middle of investigating the CIA leak, was rated as "undistinguished," and placed on the list below Attorneys rated as "loyal."

Come on.   If it walks like a duck.....

So what if it was political? It wasn't illegal. If people have a problem with the way politicians conduct business...

Well, really, need I say more?

Quote from: GMSkarkaJust FYI, a report by the Congressional Research Service (link to PDF of report) has revealed that of the 468 U.S. Attorneys confirmed by Congress over the past 25 years, only 10 have ever left office involuntarily.

I'll have to look at what criteria they are using to define the term "left office voluntarily."

Ot I could just point you to all of the information regarding Clinton firing all 93 at the start of his term.

Yup...if it walks like a duck...

Quote from: WerekoalaSo what if it was political? It wasn't illegal. If people have a problem with the way politicians conduct business...

Well, really, need I say more?

The establishment doesn't like easily-available and effective accountability measures.  Then they'd have to worry about the consequences of their actions.

Quote from: GMSkaraJust FYI, a report by the Congressional Research Service (link to PDF of report) has revealed that of the 468 U.S. Attorneys confirmed by Congress over the past 25 years, only 10 have ever left office involuntarily.

Umm, your characterization is a bit misleading. The title is actually "US Attorneys Who Have Served Less than Full Four-year Terms, 1981-2006"

Quote from: CQ ReportThe recent dismissal of seven US attorneys has raised interest in patterns in departures of US attorneys not related to completion of a four-year term or a change in presidential administration.

So this report has nothing to do with US Attorneys leaving involuntarily.  It completely leaves out, for example, the bloodletting of Clinton's 93 firings when Janet Reno was brought in. While most of those could probably be chalked up to change of administration, there were at least two of which I am aware that seemed odd. I forget – was there uproar then? I mean, I wasn't quite as tuned into politics as I am now, but I don't seem to recall one.

The hyper-partisan nature of the debate is in overdrive.  It's impossible now to figure out what exactly is going on.  For instance, I heard a report on NPR on one of the eight. Her superiors wanted her to up her rate of prosecution for illegal immigration.  She wanted to focus on bigger fish. She ignored her superiors. Would you fire her?

Oh yeah, she was the one who investigated (and indicted, I believe) Duke Cunningham.

So now what do you do?  You fire her and have everyone say pithy little remarks like "if it walks like a duck..." when you're really firing her because she won't do what you tell her?  Or do you let her stay and walk all over you even though she's supposed to be doing what you want her to – all because she brought the indictment against Duke Cunningham? I mean, if you were really firing her for what seems to be assumed (revenge for the indictment and conviction of Duke Cunningham), wouldn't you make sure your nefarious motives are covered better? Oh wait. I forget that somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot.

This is the problem with the entire situation.  It doesn't fucking matter why she or any of the others were fired.  It's the President's prerogative to do so – even if it's completely political.

So when you point this out, people say "well look at the loophole in the Eeeevil PATRIOT Act!!!" So you point out that it was the Legislative Branch that passed the act, and that they could change that (and it looks like they are going to do so – want to bet on whether or not the President signs it?) and that the President had already agreed to Senate confirmation for the replacements.

Oh yeah, it must mean that these 8 were investigating the super secret cabal that really planned 9/11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom so that BushHitler could control the world's oil supply through the evil robot overlord menace of VP Dick Cheney's company, Haliburton. Did I hit all the high points?

Let's see now, the republicans are claiming that it's OK for ttheir prez to fire major players in the justice system of the united states "because he felt like it" and that the democrats are making politics over it.

Now, when a democrat president got a blowjob in the oval office it ended up being inestigated and finally lead to an impeachment.

Which affects america more? A blowjob or stacking the justice system with ideologs who will slant the system towards the neocon right? Which is more worthy of attention and, if need be, correction?

I'm surprised this thread lasted this far - from what people tell me and what I've seen in quote boxes the OP didn't have the facts straight.

 Again, could anything talked about in this thread be used in an RPG campaign context ?
  OR for maybe for  a one night role-playing one-off adventure scenario?

- E.W.C.