![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Possible outcomes of the recent elections
Nov. 9th, 2006 03:35 pmThis post began as a response to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bedlamhouse's post about the recent elections at http://bedlamhouse.livejournal.com/52274.html?view=217650#t217650. My response rapidly expanded to the point where I figured it was kind of big for a reply, and maybe ought to go in my journal.
If the Dems who were stomped on when they were in the minority now want to show the GOP how it feels, that would be a very human impulse (which I even share, in my harsher moments). Not productive, of course--we should be *better* than that. But human.
Holding the people who got us into this mess responsible seems like a good idea to me. Accountability has been sadly lacking up to now. Certainly Bush's end run around the FISA courts about warrants was a criminal act--I'm willing to consider letting him off the hook the way Nixon was pardoned, i.e., not because he deserves to be, but for the good of the country. But I've never seen any credible explaination of how it could be a matter of interpretation whether you have to get a warrant to tap a phone. Furthermore, in a more general sense, it is past time that Bush's tendency to sign laws while announcing that he won't obey them unless he feels like it is curbed. The president is a powerful person--but not above the law.
As I recall, judicial appointments never "ground to a halt." Something like 2% of them were held up as being too right-wing reactionary. If you meant to average 60 mph and you average 58.8 mph that's nothing to complain about.
Holding up a potential third Supreme court nomination until Bush is out of office would be only decent common sense. He's appointed *two* already, which is way more than his share. And between them the last two Republican presidents have appointed four. Let somebody else have a turn; the Republicans shouldn't *own* the court.
( Okay, that was a bunch of negative stuff. Let me try to put in some positives. )
bedlamhouse's post about the recent elections at http://bedlamhouse.livejournal.com/52274.html?view=217650#t217650. My response rapidly expanded to the point where I figured it was kind of big for a reply, and maybe ought to go in my journal.If the Dems who were stomped on when they were in the minority now want to show the GOP how it feels, that would be a very human impulse (which I even share, in my harsher moments). Not productive, of course--we should be *better* than that. But human.
Holding the people who got us into this mess responsible seems like a good idea to me. Accountability has been sadly lacking up to now. Certainly Bush's end run around the FISA courts about warrants was a criminal act--I'm willing to consider letting him off the hook the way Nixon was pardoned, i.e., not because he deserves to be, but for the good of the country. But I've never seen any credible explaination of how it could be a matter of interpretation whether you have to get a warrant to tap a phone. Furthermore, in a more general sense, it is past time that Bush's tendency to sign laws while announcing that he won't obey them unless he feels like it is curbed. The president is a powerful person--but not above the law.
As I recall, judicial appointments never "ground to a halt." Something like 2% of them were held up as being too right-wing reactionary. If you meant to average 60 mph and you average 58.8 mph that's nothing to complain about.
Holding up a potential third Supreme court nomination until Bush is out of office would be only decent common sense. He's appointed *two* already, which is way more than his share. And between them the last two Republican presidents have appointed four. Let somebody else have a turn; the Republicans shouldn't *own* the court.
( Okay, that was a bunch of negative stuff. Let me try to put in some positives. )
