Ahem. There is nobody trying to inflame anything here. I find this the best place to learn things. Real things. Learned quickly. That's all.
:- ) Bill James, author of Popular Crime and a lifelong student of legal matters, said today:
THE SUPREME COURT
Do you think it might be time to start considering a constitutional amendment limiting Supreme Court justices to a single 10-year term?
Asked by: bobfiore
Ten years is a little too long, but yes, that would help a great deal. First, the founders made poor decision in granting life tenure, and second, Congress about 1810 decided to mis-read the constitution to say that Supreme Court justices could only be removed for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which the constitution clearly never intended.
From either side of the aisle, I personally regret the importance that Supreme Court nominees have today. I'd like to see a more fluid Court, one more adaptable to the will of society.
Q1. Do you favor term limits for Justices? Not, "what do you think the Constitution says." Rather, what would YOU prefer.
Q2. Do you think Supreme Court Justices should use the Framers' intentions as first principles? Or do you tend toward the "living, breathing document" paradigm that implies, Thomas Jefferson wasn't a prophet come down from Sinai. If he was wrong about something, let's change it.
FEEL THE BERN
I/O: Bernie Sanders emerged this week, in my mind, as having a real chance to be the next President. The evidence is coming in more and more against Bill O'Reilly on this one, who called Sanders' candidacy pure "political theater."
Karl Rove, not given to hyperbole, remarked placidly that Sanders is "a left-wing lunatic." That's a little bit like John Kerry calling George W. Bush a sociopath. It stops you short. Once you get past the knee-jerk mudslinging, there are interesting ideas here.
Real Clear Politics has Bernie Sanders easily defeating every single Republican candidate in a head-to-head matchup. It's time for America to start asking just how well it understands the man, because it's about to elect him President if it's not careful. ;- ) The joke's over, it that's ever what it was. Time to read the fine print on this social contract we're about to sign, wouldn't you say?
Sweden's brand of Democratic Socialism is one thing; the communism of Fidel and Che, much less of Karl Marx, that's another thing. Usually, not always, fascists like Fidel Castro use socialism (government control of production and distribution) as a way to incrementally bring in collectivism (government ownership of all property).
Dr. D would honestly like to know -- no games, no insinuations, just curious -- whether he can be assured that Bernie Sanders OBJECTS TO collectivism and communism. Very simple question: could we count on President Sanders to fight against the installation of communism?
Q3. If you support Sanders, or if you think he is a feasible American President despite being a socialist, what would be your objection in principle to Marx-style communism? Honest question, asked dispassionately.
Are you talking about installing a Swedish economical system, with tight protections against evolution into a fascist-style system? Or would that be open to debate later?
If you just joined us, Apple won't help the FBI get into the San Bernardino terrorist's cell phone, even though it PROBABLY has critical information about the identities of other terrorists.
Pro-FBI argument: a court order can obviously get into a serial murderer's personal journal. The iPhone is becoming the device of choice for horrible criminals of every type. Apple is laughing into its sleeve about this.
Pro-Apple argument: what if it destroys a company to make extreme efforts to assist the FBI's investigation (supposedly spending billions to crack its own code?!, and/or losing its super-secure "brand" ID). And, don't you and I want some place safe (our cell phones) from the government?
Q4. If you were President, would you start sending Apple execs to jail for not complying with court orders?