Three somewhat short political notes
Oct. 19th, 2004 12:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
heidiSince my post last week about Sinclair disapeared because of my LJ problems, I didn't get to fully rant about their decision to try and game the electorate by showing an anti-Kerry film that is filled with distortions, and whose producers have been accused of libel by one of the other soldiers featured in the film. So, instead, I'll just do a follow-up today by noting that their stock is in free-fall, and MediaMatters is underwriting a shareholder lawsuit against the company.
Our two contenders for Senate from Florida had a debate last night, and the Republican candidate, Mel Martinez, said he was anti stem cell research, but was okay with in vitro fertalization. Can someone, ideally someone who doesn't support allowing additional lines of stem cells for research, please explain to me how those positions are inherently consistent with each other? Also, I'm wondering, in a sort of curious way, whether anyone in California who was voting against Kerry solely, or substantially, because of Kerry's position on stem cell research will now refuse to support Gov. Arnold in the future. But I'm not seeking a specific answer on that the same way I am regarding Martinez's position.
Lastly, can someone please explain to my why Bush's lie in the last debate regarding concern/worry and Osama got half as much press attention as Kerry's legitimate, fair and truthful statement about Mary Cheney? Also, was there anyone on my flist, at least in terms of those in the US, who didn't know, before the last debate, that she was a lesbian?
Oh, I guess I do have one more comment/question: Has Bush said there won't be a draft at all period no way no how, or there won't be a *general* draft? Because if it's the latter, well, maybe - but if it's the former, then I guess they've decided to not utilize the contingency plans for a draft of doctors, nurses and other health care workers.The New York Times has an article today which says that in a recent article in The Wisconsin Medical Journal, published by the state medical society, Col. Roger A. Lalich, a senior physician in the Army National Guard, said: "It appears that a general draft is not likely to occur. A physician draft is the most likely conscription into the military in the near future." So just an FYI for those of you in the medical fields...
Our two contenders for Senate from Florida had a debate last night, and the Republican candidate, Mel Martinez, said he was anti stem cell research, but was okay with in vitro fertalization. Can someone, ideally someone who doesn't support allowing additional lines of stem cells for research, please explain to me how those positions are inherently consistent with each other? Also, I'm wondering, in a sort of curious way, whether anyone in California who was voting against Kerry solely, or substantially, because of Kerry's position on stem cell research will now refuse to support Gov. Arnold in the future. But I'm not seeking a specific answer on that the same way I am regarding Martinez's position.
Lastly, can someone please explain to my why Bush's lie in the last debate regarding concern/worry and Osama got half as much press attention as Kerry's legitimate, fair and truthful statement about Mary Cheney? Also, was there anyone on my flist, at least in terms of those in the US, who didn't know, before the last debate, that she was a lesbian?
Oh, I guess I do have one more comment/question: Has Bush said there won't be a draft at all period no way no how, or there won't be a *general* draft? Because if it's the latter, well, maybe - but if it's the former, then I guess they've decided to not utilize the contingency plans for a draft of doctors, nurses and other health care workers.The New York Times has an article today which says that in a recent article in The Wisconsin Medical Journal, published by the state medical society, Col. Roger A. Lalich, a senior physician in the Army National Guard, said: "It appears that a general draft is not likely to occur. A physician draft is the most likely conscription into the military in the near future." So just an FYI for those of you in the medical fields...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 08:03 am (UTC)2. You don't really understand that the courts are a branch of government that has the power to declare things passed by the legislature as unconstitutional, do you? The people have no right, whether through their legislators or in any other way, to decide that they want to do something unconstitutional (and by that, I mean pursuant to their individual state's constitution, or the federal one). That is why the courts exist, and I, for one, am very, very glad that we have a judicial system in this country that adheres to the rule of law. Aren't you?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-28 09:32 am (UTC)The courts are there to decide matters of law that have already been written. Suppose, for instance, the legislature passes a law which says only vanilla ice cream may be sold in MA. A chocolate-lover sues, and the court decides whether a flavor-limiting law is constitutional. It isn't, and they strike the vanilla law. I have no problem with something like that.
What I have a problem with is when someone sues the state because their local hairdresser won't sell them ice cream, because it's "discrimination." The hairdresser has never stocked ice cream, and doesn't want to start. However, anyone is free to come in and get a haircut. The plaintiff claims they have a right to buy ice cream in MA, that there's no law that says they can't. The court agrees. They then order the legislature to write a law saying all hairdressers must begin selling ice cream to those who want it.
The MSC didn't interpret a written law, or strike down an unconstitutional one. They directed the legislature to write the law a certain way. That doesn't fit with the system of checks and balances, and it's wrong.
You obviously disagree. Okay, fine. I think we're at an impasse. So, we're done.