From: Matt Jensen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Oct 27 2000 - 14:05:39 PDT
Your argument works in the case of legislation, because a 2002 Congress
can check a "bad" 2000 President. And with a 2/3 majority, it can
overrule the President on any new law he tries to veto.
But if the 2000 President nominates Justices that are approved by a 2000
Congress, those Justices are there for life.
Or if the public only gets angry enough to "check" the President (via
Congress) *after* he nominates certain Justices, well then obviously the
public is too late to stop it.
Furthermore, depending on the Justices' health, the 2000 President might
get the only nomination opportunities for the next 12+ years, leaving a
new President in 2004, 2008, and 2012 with no chance to "rebalance" the
There are reasonable arguments that you can't predict how new Justices
will vote, etc. I just don't think the Congress-will-balance argument is
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Tom Whore wrote:
> Even if bush is in ofice who do you think will go fill in the Leisalture?
> Who was it that ot voted in when Clinto/gore was threatenin to bungle
> Thats right. If the voters lean too far over one way you can bet the LOCAL
> elections will pump in the other side just to "even" it out.
> THe FEd/states balance keeps your nihtmare picture form happenin IF
> people vote rather than bend over.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 27 2000 - 14:20:42 PDT