Apolyton US Election Coverage Thread

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Since when did Americans want small government? Even California couldn't manage to legalize weed. It seems pretty clear that the majority of Americans want the government to actively manage people's private lives.

Oh, and as if Americans want a balanced budget. Somehow it's always cutting taxes and increasing spending that wins.

This country is so ****ed up.

Folks in Florida (granted not a cross sectionof the US) were fairly clear in their opinion on this matter. Balanced budget without tax increases.

71.88 Yay
28.1 Nay

http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/contestdetails.aspx?con=901000

[SlowwHand]

Yepper.

US: We voted against Obama, Pelosi

For Democrats, Election Day was judgment day, with voters finding a rash of candidates guilty for their association with President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

I kind of feel bad for Obama. Did you see his hour long news conference today? He's had the crap kicked out of him and knows it.

[Barnabas]

This is what they wrote in the main newspaper of Buenos Aires about tea party supporters

They hate intellectuals, whom they consider elitists, or complex people with many points of view. For them, leaving the fronteers of their State is like going to the Moon. Being from cosmopolitan New York is a sin, and accusing people of being french-like is their favorite insult.

They prefer to focus on their family, going to Church, carrying weapons and working hard to progress. They rabidly oppose abortion, gay marriage, and believe Global Warming is a huge lie. Most of them are men, old and white.

Obama is the incarnation of all they hate.

[KrazyHorse]

[Hauldren Collider]

Remarkably, that is probably more ignorant than the stereotype they describe.

[MikeH]

We mainly see the funny footage of their nutjob candidates making ridiculous statements and gaffes.

[Zevico]

Iowan voters decided to remove three Iowa Supreme Court justices for doing their job.

Simplistic, if we define their job as applying the law. If that is so then your statement is incorrect. The law must take the meaning it had on its enactment, or else it has no meaning at all--in fact, it would simply become a cipher for the political preferences of the judiciary. On this view, the removal of these judges is quite appropriate, because they quite consciously chose to defy the will of the people as embodied in the Iowan Constitution.
However, if we define the judicial task as creating the law when it is thought right do so but otherwise applying the law, subject to being overridden by the people by way of the amendment process (but not removal), then your statement is correct. Obviously if the amendment process fails to convince then removal is the only rational choice left.
I'm not sure that this whole "anything goes (including politicising the judiciary) to achieve a given goal" is an idea that has merit; at any rate it's not consistent with the theory of democratic governance traditionally thought of as underlying the doctrine of separation of powers.
The point is that we're fooling ourselves if we're arguing that judges are simply "doing their jobs" by creating and overriding laws without the consent of the people.

Frankly, I'm not enamoured with the idea of a super-majoritarian constitution at all. The British system of parliamentary sovereignty involves far less pointless legal wrangling. It also recognises the plain fact that democratic freedoms are bound up in the people, not paper constitutions. Making laws by way of simple majorities is more efficient and more sensible in that sense. If we look to the history of the UK vis-a-vis civil and political rights, we may see that they have progressed at more or less the same pace as the USA (if not better in some cases).

The argument you should be making (I submit) is that the ends and justify the means: in other words, that the exercise of a judicial veto over valid laws is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, e.g. as an instance of civil disobedience or protest; that sometimes breaking the law is more important than the rule of law. Some things, in other words, are worth fighting for.

[Dauphin]

We mainly see the funny footage of their nutjob candidates making ridiculous statements and gaffes.

Like:

[giblets]

[OneFootInTheGrave]

wow! I think she needs to run for president next. I endose her fully

[DaShi]

She has too much competition from Sarah Palin.

[giblets]

She can be her running mate.

[Barnabas]

Like:

[Guynemer]

Indeed. This woman won the Republican primary for the Senate in Delaware. You almost have to think she was a Democratic plant.

[KrazyHorse]

Didn't Ben claim to support her?