- This topic has 35 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 23 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi guys, Sorry I was slow getting back here—had some work projects pop up. Hey RustBelt, thanks for elucidating your views. I feel more comfortable now that you’ve said you’re not into traditional definitions of "conservative" and "liberal". I saw the defeated nomination of Bork as a sign that Congress wasn’t going to let the S Ct bench get TOO Political. Of course, others see it as other things. While the Court is always going to have political views and you are right in saying administrations try to load the bench with people who follow the "party line", I think the Court tries to avoid getting too involved with politics because it tarnishes its image by making it look too political. Perhaps the disputed election reminded them of that? I hope so, because I really didn’t think the S Ct should even be involved, although like you I haven’t been doing homework on the issue and I was a lot less concerned about it than many political mavens whose jobs were literally hanging in the balance of who got elected.
And, Tom – One thing I like about this bench is that the S Ct in recent years has been emphasizing states’ rights and taking away from the power of the central federal govt to regulate under the Commerce Clause, so it is much more difficult for the feds exercise that power now. Taking the political view, I think the only reason the Commerce Clause power got expanded so far was to allow the federal govt to implement civil rights policy in states that wouldn’t do it on their own. Now that inroads have been made there, I see much less justification for the Commerce Clause power overall.
Squeapler,
I agree wholeheartedly on the take for state’s rights. Need to look at your post some more for the civilrights justification and think on it. my own reasoning would stem from the new federalism with block grants etc. that finacially and legally allow state;s to do what they want with fed money vs. them being held to dictates. Now, we know those grants are set up to have states carry out fed directives to an extent, but the wordings of these directives are such that the states have much more latitude than in the days of layer-cake federalism.
How does federalism impact the RIAA ties? Not sure, since entertainment is still an open and free market with no federal manufacturing of music (thank god). With as many different political angles to pursue, I still could see a wide open approach to this matter if our judicial branch would to get involved. Perhaps the party influence might come out in amicus curae briefs by lobbyists but we have too many cross-geographical influences and financial interests to say it could go one way or the other. However, I am really learning a lot with the way it is unfolding and from having the chance to discuss it with you all right here. Thanks.
Tom
and the story continues….
Verizon has been ordered to identify the individual user who downloaded tons of songs from Kazza. Verizon is appealing of course….
Allison
Just saw this on a jazz board,thought it was a good read:
:aliensmile:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.