Gephardt will overrule Supreme Court

Dick Gephardt says that he'll use executive orders to overcome any "wrong" by the Supreme Court when he becomes president.
Do we have any Dick fans here? If so, are you in favor of the candidate promising to use the executive order to overcome whatever the Supreme Court says that he doesn't like?

How many rounds do the Democrats have to shoot themselves in the arse??

That is an amazing statement!
All hail King Dick!!

I wonder why all those that think 'Bush sucks' have yet to respond to this. Now, Colonel, surely, being the die-hard dem you are, can comment on Dick's plan.

When someone called Gephardt on this his response was: "It was a basic statement you would make about anything" (WHAT?)

Sometimes when it comes to the 'issues' the dems just don't know how to carry on a discussion, just my opinion.

- tax cuts are bad, they just don't know why.
- the Patriot Act has caused a civil rights emergency, they just don't know how.
- They do know that bUsH SuX, and that's that!


Now, when Gephardt says something like that no one really notices. If the President said something like that, or probably any conservative said the like, liberals would be outraged and surely make the front page of the NY Times

[Edited on 31-7-2003 by Bob88]

As a democrat by birth (my family has been involved in politics since people wore top hats to city hall) the current state of the democratic party is very upsetting to me. Bob88 is 100% right. Whine whine whine whine about what exists now. That's all they seem to have to say for themselves.

The substance of the statement itself is interesting to me though...
With all the checks and balances we have it shouldn't surprise anyone that a President is able to use an executive order to override the court. The issue isn't can, it's "would". Now Gephardt is claiming that he "would" use such an order to override a decision that he deems to be wrong. An honorable notion to some respect, but one must ask "who is he to override them". The only problem I have with the court is the way that the sitting president appoints the justices and that if for example Republicans control the White House for 12 years they will have more appointees and that might tip the weight of the court itself. So i sort of see the point for the checks and balances.

I think Gephardt is just talking... I can not in any way see him or another President just randomly doing this to any decision they don't like.

Djarums
Yes, I can not in reality see DG doing such a thing, yet why would any politician say such a thing in this climate of mistrust??

Do you think he made a slip of the tongue?

Originally posted by Tyriffic
Djarums
Yes, I can not in reality see DG doing such a thing, yet why would any politician say such a thing in this climate of mistrust??

Do you think he made a slip of the tongue?

MOre like political posturing Tyriffic.

regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Bob88
I wonder why all those that think 'Bush sucks' have yet to respond to this. Now, Colonel, surely, being the die-hard dem you are, can comment on Dick's plan.

When someone called Gephardt on this his response was: "It was a basic statement you would make about anything" (WHAT?)

Sometimes when it comes to the 'issues' the dems just don't know how to carry on a discussion, just my opinion.

- tax cuts are bad, they just don't know why.
- the Patriot Act has caused a civil rights emergency, they just don't know how.
- They do know that bUsH SuX, and that's that!


Now, when Gephardt says something like that no one really notices. If the President said something like that, or probably any conservative said the like, liberals would be outraged and surely make the front page of the NY Times

[Edited on 31-7-2003 by Bob88]

I never liked Dick. I think the comment is an act of desperation. Since he sided and stood with Bush on the Iraqi war on the White House lawn, leaving Daschle alone on the steps of the Capitol, he has lost all credibility with the Dems. So, now, he has to say anything to prove that he will fight the cxonservative movement---even make stupid comments. See what happens when you sell out?

On your Avatar, very cool. I like Trafficante a lot.

Colonel, sadly I agree. You would expect more from a guy who has been in the loop for so long.......

Tyrrific: See the guy was stupid. He ALWAYS had aspirations for running for the White House and he thought the best way to be in tune with teh American people was selling out his own party and siding with Bush (as Lieberman thinks now). Unfortuanately, he didn't realize that he would lose his political base and thus have no platform to stand on. He's such a loser.

Originally posted by Colonel
Tyrrific: See the guy was stupid. He ALWAYS had aspirations for running for the White House and he thought the best way to be in tune with teh American people was selling out his own party and siding with Bush (as Lieberman thinks now). Unfortuanately, he didn't realize that he would lose his political base and thus have no platform to stand on. He's such a loser.

Yes. I give Lieberman more credit for speaking honestly- I also think he is taking the Centrist approach BC applied so successfully in his tenure.
Gephardt just always finds a way to step on his member.

The Supreme Court has previously been played as a trump card.

I think there are higher trump cards, and Jokers never played, in the bizarre world of reforming US law.

Setting to one side the fact that DG's head isn't right - and that what he appears to have said with regard to the Supreme Court is meaningless constitutionally -this reflects a curse of the system: the contenders on one side have to devote more attention to outdoing their fellow-contenders than to presenting a united policy front.
So, in this case -we have 7,8,9 flavours of Democrat and no one knows what the actual Dem policy will be. There really has to be a better way of presenting the electorate with a clear choice: it should not be too much to ask that, for example, either side has a clear fiscal policy that is open to discussion ad evaluation.

Honestly all I see from all the Democrats running this time around is a combination of the most boring members of the Legislature mixed with a flip flopping gaggle of idiots who can't decide if they're happy or not. We like the Iraq war, we hate the Iraq war. Get a platform guys. A platform besides "Boo hoo we hate everything."

Now, let's be fair, most of the dems voted for the war because that was popular consensus and they aren't going to take a chance and actually stand for what they believe. Remember, the "Smartest woman in the world" cast her senatorial ballot in Bush's direction as well.
I highly doubt Dick could surpass Bill's E.O. record, and I doubt he'd do more to erode national sovereignty, either.

Djarums, disregarding the fact that our fathers' democratic party has now been highjacked by the ultra-leftwing, look at it from this point of reference. They have no plank upon which to even begin to build a platform, all they can do is maniacally attack Bush, which is going to backfire on them in a serious way. They look like the 'pubs during Bill's run for a second term, all they could do is field a third-stringer for a candidate and shrilly harp against Clinton.

Ok, the universe is in a serious imbalance at this time as both Colonel and I like the same politician - Jimmy T. How's that possible?

....on the afternoon tour.

Nothing valid in the statement from a rubber hitting the road stand point & there was no supporting link to see the context.
Gephardt is a political whore of the highest order, nothing more, nothing less.
As for flavors being presented, there is a need to have them, a single policy perspective is void of the ability to adapt - which is a Conservative/GOP damnation. For the Yanks, it's the political equivalent of Coach Lombardi saying we'll run off tackle let off tackle right all day every play.......you run into a fire breathing LineBacker crew and it's a looooong day.

Well, DG does bring Streisand's political expertise to the table.

Pardon me, B-T, but all of my reading is not tfrom the internet. As a matter of fact, I pride myself on not relying on the web for everything. Oh, but if you think I've made it up for sport, just skip the thread - as a matter of fact, pal, skip anything I say. It seems that he was talking to Jackson's Rainbow Coaltion or something, but it isn't important enough to me to prove my integrity to you to go and figure out from what magazine or newspaper I read the story and then figure out how to rip out the page, shove it into the CD tray and send it to you via u2u.

Bob88, isn't Babs still crying over our invasion of Iran?

Its not in the power of the executive's branch to override a supreme court ruling. The supreme court only decides the "constitutionality" of laws enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. I think they can also sit it on judgements of impeachment articles and high treason. I would be interested in knowing what "executive" priviledge Dick would be invoking..... anyone???

That is the "Joker" held by anyone that reckons they can do it.

I don't buy into it, but I wouldn't have believed the 2000 election corruption either, if I hadn't followed it closely with my own eyes.

MA, I wouldn't have believed it either. In one of my earlier lives I started really experimenting hard with reality. The subsequent relationships I established led me to a group of people who exposed me to a lot information not readily available to the general public. this was 1992-93 and discussions of politics in the future have been rediculously accurate. This is why I maintain that Georgie wont make a second term, but the alternative may not be any better...just more distracting.
I feel that what passes for leadership and politics has reached a state of surrealism in this country. I feel like Im living in a Phillip K. Dick novel and the Roman empire never ended. I can't seem to get past the idea that the state that started all this controversy was governed by the man's very own brother.... Out of 50 states thats an awfully large coincidance...I mean come on...does anyone really buy that??!!! Apparently they do.
I would go on to chasten the sheep for their gullibility but the truth of the matter is that only 98 million people voted in 2000. That leaves almost 200 million american so fed up they just don't give a sh*t anymore. The cynicism thats resulted from ostrazation, consumerism to the hilt and money driven politics has turned them off (maybe that was the point). Perhaps the backlash is due, perhaps that will be manipulated too. I don't think the americans will revolt until they can't get money from their ATM's or turn on the faucet and get running water. That could still be a long time off. I can see the germans, japanese and french starting something first. Maybe the next "terrorist" incident will be in one of those places...a little warning.
The control in america unfortunatly feels well established right now. The opposing forces that have begun to emerge in the past 8 months are scattered and stuck to the old ways of balancing the situation. This opponent plays differently. Their arrogance has caused them to go public in a way I think was unexpected by the opposition so early. However, it could be that my information is outdated and incomplete. Thats probably it......
I will end this rambling.