![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe most recent flap about the religious beliefs of John Kerry (and how this supposedly makes it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, and remain catholics) has been irking me.
Why is it, I rhetorically ask, that Kerry's beliefs on abortion and gay marriage make it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, but Bush's views on the death penalty and agressive war don't disqualify him?
For a more complete lowdown (and funny as all hell if one is an educated Catholic, or religious historian George Bush, Heretic at NewDonkey.
To avoid making another political post, I was having turbid dreams this morning... end of the world stuff, with Jobian interactions with God (I took him to task for His wanting to wipe us out and start over... He made us, He has to live with us... it made more sense in the dream) and I awoke, in that state of reverie, realising that the Right knows is is going against the tenets of the Nation and the meaning of the Constitution; at least the ones at the top (reading Is that Legal, and Orcinus will tend to make one less sanguine about the future of the republic, but I digress).
When someone writes a law, they know that difficulties will lead to the courts reviewing it. It's one of the checks in the system. So when someone starts writing a law which tries to exclude itself from those checks, one has to wonder why.
The Right will say it's to prevent, "activist judges" from misinterpreting the law. But that's tough. The Constitution gives them the power to do that, and the truth of the matter is that it hasn't been happening, at least not to the detriment of the causes they espouse.
With the judges appointed to the federal bench, under both Clinton and Bush, it's also going to happen less and less. Which means they can only think the laws they are proposing are so severely out of step with the Constitution that even their pet judges will balk at them.
That's a scary thought.
The laws they are proposing Pecunium are even scarier. As I've said before, Nehemiah Scudder is waiting in the wings.
Why is it, I rhetorically ask, that Kerry's beliefs on abortion and gay marriage make it impossible for Catholics to vote for him, but Bush's views on the death penalty and agressive war don't disqualify him?
For a more complete lowdown (and funny as all hell if one is an educated Catholic, or religious historian George Bush, Heretic at NewDonkey.
To avoid making another political post, I was having turbid dreams this morning... end of the world stuff, with Jobian interactions with God (I took him to task for His wanting to wipe us out and start over... He made us, He has to live with us... it made more sense in the dream) and I awoke, in that state of reverie, realising that the Right knows is is going against the tenets of the Nation and the meaning of the Constitution; at least the ones at the top (reading Is that Legal, and Orcinus will tend to make one less sanguine about the future of the republic, but I digress).
When someone writes a law, they know that difficulties will lead to the courts reviewing it. It's one of the checks in the system. So when someone starts writing a law which tries to exclude itself from those checks, one has to wonder why.
The Right will say it's to prevent, "activist judges" from misinterpreting the law. But that's tough. The Constitution gives them the power to do that, and the truth of the matter is that it hasn't been happening, at least not to the detriment of the causes they espouse.
With the judges appointed to the federal bench, under both Clinton and Bush, it's also going to happen less and less. Which means they can only think the laws they are proposing are so severely out of step with the Constitution that even their pet judges will balk at them.
That's a scary thought.
The laws they are proposing Pecunium are even scarier. As I've said before, Nehemiah Scudder is waiting in the wings.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Part 1
Date: 2004-10-23 04:14 pm (UTC)I haven't seen Kerry say a draft will be immediately re-instated. What I've seen is accusations that it is being willfully ignored until after the election, and that with the present op-tempo, either a larger final manning has to be authorised, or a draft needs to be considered.
But the point stands--most people expected gas and maybe bio.
There are two points. One is the common perception, the other is the understanding of those who had better knowledge. Mine was that if those in my level of understanding (who've already had some spindling done) didn't really expect it (and only made plans for that which was possible, even though not likely) those higher up knew at least that much, and chose to discuss things which, q.e.d., they knew to be false, e.g. Cheney saying a nuke in Times Square, courtesy of Baghdad, was possible.
How would he have been rendered impotent? That question has a supposition that he wasn't already. His army was a shambles, the dreaded WMD didn't exist and bin Laden had issued fatwa calling him an apostate; only to be helped because we were worse.
As for regional stability... it was looking better in '99, and now... can you honestly say it's no worse than it was?
As for the things you say you believe about Kerry. I've looked at the parent bills, and at the reasons behind his votes... I don't see what you see. For a quick summa, take a gander at FactCheck.Org. Because Bush hasn't been so great to us, all things considered.
As for the alternatives, nope, we are going to be dealing with the mess for awhile (though it's possible the gov't elected in Jan will kick us out, which will solve one problem, but not the rest).
I too am a single issue voter... what will best serve the Republic, and right now, Bush ain't it. The sense he has tha this gut is the best way to make decisions, his insularity (for all his life) from the direct conssequences of his actions, his overwhelming secreretiveness, his unwillingness to admit to error; or re-evaualte his positions, inability to make those responsible for failure accountable (and the willingness to harm national security for political advantage, or revenge [viz. Valerie Plame]) and, and, and... make me convinced he, and; at this point, his party, need to be removed.
TK