Political semantics

[JB]

I have noticed that the guys running for the Dem nomination are very fond of a couple of terms that don't make sense to me. As far back as I can remember (and that is FAR back) they have been favorite labels of the Dems.<br /><br />"Special Interest Groups": Just who are these bad guys that the Republicans are always accused of catering to?? Are "Seniors", minorities, labor unions, farmers, gays, etc. not special interest groups?? <br /><br />"Working People": These are the ones that the Dems claim to be looking out for. What have they got against the unemployed, children and the retired?? Do they think Republicans don't work for their living? <br /><br />There are more, but these two confuse me the most.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Political semantics

It's just political demonization JB. The Dems work off FUD - fear, Uncertainty and doubt. They love conjuring up bogey men and scaring people while all the time ignoring the real demons.<br /><br />Listen to their speeches. There is hardly anything positive put forth. They are focused on anger and fear which is why, no matter who gets the nomination, they are going to lose. Anger, hatred and fear only takes you so far. Most people get sick of it after a while. Just ask Dean.

 

[LadyFish]

Re: Political semantics

JB, my interpretation of a special interest is a person, group, or organization attempting to influence legislators or other public officials in favor of one particular interest or issue. Examples might include a corporation lobbying to win a specific government contract; a trade association representing the interests of an entire industry seeking favorable tax policies or government regulations; or groups representing various sectors of society, such as labor unions, senior citizens or persons with disabilities.<br /><br />Many scholars dislike the term "special interest", since it carries a loaded, negative connotation. In the academic literature, it has been replaced by the term "interest group". There is a lively debate amongst political scientists as to what exactly constitutes an interest group. Some hold that only groups with members (for instance, Common Cause or the NRA) are interest groups. Others feel that interest groups are any non-government groups that try to affect policy. Some people define it even more broadly, to include individual corporations, or even government agencies. Sometimes "interest groups" are used to refer to groups within society (e.g. seniors, the poor, etc.) who are not necessarily part of an organized group.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Political semantics

So an "interest group" is a group that solicits government to put its interests over another groups interests, or over the interests of the nation?

 

[Homerr]

Re: Political semantics

Like I requested before...<br /><br />Could we have a politics forum?<br /><br />It would be nice to have all of it in one place.<br /><br /> <br /><br />H.

 

[deofc]

Re: Political semantics

How about "the administrations 'exteme policies'".

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: Political semantics

Aah! I was under the impression that this is the forum of politics and more....much more.<br /><br />Could i have been mistaken?

 

[plywoody]

Re: Political semantics

Everyone has their political hyperbole. Kerry was criticized early on for giving too complex of answers to questions, and politics is a soundbite business. Look how Dean is cratering because of his concession speech...<br /><br />Special interests are a critical part of our democracy. My sister-in-law, for example, was an environmental lobbyist in DC for an Idaho and Nevada mining company, and helped write environmental laws for the mining industry. How could our representatives possibly be expected to write mining regulations, when most likely there isn't a one of them that have been within 50 miles of a mine.<br /><br />It is a necessary system fraught with danger, however. There is an easy transition between helpful and necessary lobbying, and the quid pro quo to get favorable legislation passed in return for generous campaign contributions, which can be dangerous. And it happens, and both sides are guilty of it.<br /><br />And if a politician tried to accurately explain it, they'd shut off the TV cameras and go cover someone else that is going to give them a soundbite.<br /><br />And both sides have their political hyperbole. How about "activist judges" which translates into "judges that don't agree with our agenda."<br /><br />The founding fathers specifically made the judiciary independent for the reason of keeping politicians in check. I'll bet there is not a single decision out there made by these "activist judges" where he does not have a compelling constitutional argument why he decided the way he did. Of course, not all agree each and every time, and is why there is multiple judges sitting on the various appeals courts and supreme courts.<br /><br />But it is constitutionally critical to maintain this judiciary independence from any specific political agenda, be it from the right or left.<br /><br />Unfortunately, it is hard to get all this into a palatable soundbite for the TV cameras

 

[mattttt25]

Re: Political semantics

nice post pw

 

[JB]

Re: Political semantics

Yep, PW. What Mattttt said.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Political semantics

The founding fathers specifically made the judiciary independent for the reason of keeping politicians in check. I'll bet there is not a single decision out there made by these "activist judges" where he does not have a compelling constitutional argument why he decided the way he did.

Clearly you haven't heard of the 7th circus and I do mean circus the most over turned court in history. I guess they are just reading from a different version of the Constitution right?<br /><br />Activist judges are judges who legislate from the bench like the 7th and the SJC of MA.<br /><br />I knew I couldn't keep agreeing with you much longer

 

[Boomyal]

Re: Political semantics

"Clearly you haven't heard of the 7th circus and I do mean circus the most over turned court in history. I guess they are just reading from a different version of the Constitution right?"<br /><br />That's the 9th Circus, Ralph. Out on the Left Coast, in the city by the bay, aka Sodom and Gamorrah. They've given us such gems as the illegality of the Pledge of Allegiance and their attempt to stop the California Recall Election.<br /><br />Now Plywoody would jump in here and say "yeh, but what about the seperation of Church and State" Save it PW, et al. It don't wash. It is no where to be found in the Constitution, other than the copy that the 9th Circus manufactured.

 

[plywoody]

Re: Political semantics

Like I said, activist judges are defined as judges that don't agree with your specific political agenda.

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Political semantics

Boomyal - thanks for the correction I was multitasking <br /><br />Has nothing to do with agenda it has to do with the demonstrated fact, based on the number of cases overturned, that they are following a different constitution. Can you refute that?<br /><br />They tried to stop the recall and the whole court had to jump and and stop them selves before they were over turned yet again and risked being impeached.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Political semantics

But it is constitutionally critical to maintain this judiciary independence from any specific political agenda, be it from the right or left.

And do you ply (or anyone else that wants to answer), think this has been done to a reasonable degree?

 

[Ralph 123]

Re: Political semantics

Come on Skinny... I know you've got a lot to say about this one. Tell us what you think. Let 'er rip. Inquiring minds want to know. (seriously share your thoughts)

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Political semantics

Well Ralph, personally I don't agree that an activist judge is one because I simply disagree with them. <br />The statement is condescending. <br />I guess I'm to dang shallow to know what an "activist judge" is.<br /><br />As soon as a judge starts treating the Constitution as a living document, original intent has been ignored...an abstract interpetation is automatic.<br /><br />To answer my own question. IMO, the judicial, except for a very few, are up to their eyebrows in political agenda.<br /><br />Antonin Scalia is an originalist judicial. His view on the Constitution and law would make our founders proud.<br />All judicials have a duty to be originalists. Yet there's only one on the high court today.<br /><br />If the government took the 10th ammendment seriously. Most "hotbed" issues wouldn't be the federal governments business at all. Instead they would be States rights issues.<br />Originalist interpetation would leave the 10 Commandment issue in that Alabama courthouse, an Alabama issue.<br />Abortion, a state issue. Gay marriage, state issue. School vouchers, capitol punishment all state issues.<br /><br />And back to the original question of "special interests". <br />The Seventeenth ammendment made State Senators an elected body. Before its passage State senators were appointed by State Legislature. The original intent would leave your State Senator directly accountable to your local legislature and ultimately the citizen. This accountability made the Senator much more apt to do a better job of doing his constituents business. The accountability was much more viewable by the constituents. "Special Interests" and the business they have with the Senate would be very transparent to the States constituents. Also, since the Senators were appointed, campaign contributions wouldn't be needed. As it stands now State Senators are more tools of the Feds and "special interests" then they are to thier constituents business. <br /><br />My arguement is the same, the feds have been allowed to much power Ralph.

 

[Link]

Re: Political semantics

Skinny<br />Agree with the whole post but the scary one is<br /><br />

As soon as a judge starts treating the Constitution as a living document, original intent has been ignored...an abstract interpetation is automatic.<br />

These judge's weren't appointed by accident!<br />This has been going for years, ok decades putting all the parts in place<br /><br />Nuff said, I'll shud up now

 

[plywoody]

Re: Political semantics

Where did all these "activist judges" come from? They were appointed by the exectutive branch, and since 1980 we have had 16 years of republican presidents, and 8 years of dems.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Political semantics

The approval process has been dominated by the Democrats for decades. <br />But you knew this already ply.