Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
That's why social security reform has got so far, right?
|
"Little independent thinking" was the phrase I used, not "no independent thinking". Social security reform is a VERY scary issue, even for Republicans. From visiting their own constituents during the push for Social Security reform (a push generated by the White House), that became rather clear. Citing one exception does not negate the rule.
Quote:
|
Where do the people come into this? Should consensus be reached if the majority of people believe something?
|
If we wish to not have tyranny of the majority (which our forefathers did consider to be an undesirable possibility), then yes, this is how it should work for the democracy to remain stable.
Quote:
|
The problem here is who decides what is extreme. Your view seems to give the dems the power of determining if someghing is extreme or not, when i'm not sure if they can objectively do that.
|
I agree that what is "mainstream" is both a hard to define and plastic thing, which is why no one person or party should determine these things. However, a person who ruled consistently on the same side of each and every issue that comes before them would be a good place to start as a benchmark for extremism. Another would be views that are ideologically outside of the opinions of a majority of Americans consistently (not only one issue, but a vast majority of them).
Quote:
|
Conscience should have nothing to do with legal decisions. The only thing consulted should be law. And at least in regard to roe v. wade, conscience would lead people to overturn it in many cases, which is why it is law that needs to be followed.
|
That is what I mean by conscience....free to act according to the strict ethics of his/her profession. Oftentimes, when a judge is beholden to political pressure, that judge will cite precedent to serve his own or his party's purposes and ensure that he remains on the bench. When freed from that, the judge will act more according to the law when it dictates rather than to try to score political points. But I agree otherwise...the law should be the first thing considered, always.
Quote:
|
It should be obvious that the "right" will support republicans regardless of what happens with Roe v Wade. Just like the "left" supports dems regardless of what happened with gay marriage. Both parties just use issues as a way to get votes. Some of the individual representatives do believe in the individual issues, but the parties as a whole have decided to adopt certain issues to gain the votes of the people who believe in those issues.
|
I disagree with the argument that the left will support Democrats regardless of position. The gay marriage issue was skirted by the Democratic party in the last election, and they bled some supporters because of the failure to take a clear position. The bankruptcy bill, Hillary's assault on Grand Theft Auto, the confirmation of convicted criminals into governmental positions, the refusal to stand up on voting rights issues, and a number of other betrayals are really going to hurt centrist Democrats in the next election. This is in addition to all of the labor Democrats who have already defected to the moderate wing of the Republican party. Democrats do not walk in lock-step, and that is part of their problem.
Also, remember that the "party as a whole" does not exist with Democrats. The DNC and the DLC are diametrically opposed to each other and fighting each other like cats and dogs for the stewardship of the party. Howard Dean represents the push for a return to core party principles, and the DLC is trying their best to take him down in favor of "new Democratic" principles (pro-corporate, anti-union, pro-family values, more authoritarianism, etc.).
Well, I've hijacked this thread enough for a newbie (apologies to all). Thank you for the discussion and rebut away.