[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> For those who think that there is no difference between bush and gore i
> have
> only two words: Supreme Court. Now some more words: George
> Bush appointed Scalia and Thomas. We will be stuck with them for many
> years
> to come. George Junior will do the same. Al will appoint more liberal
> judges.
> Guess how things are going to go for the environment when the court
> continues
> to rule that states get to control these issues not the feds. think there
> will be a coherent rationale policy when it is in the hands of individual
> states with their own economic agendas?
I ask this from ignorance: is there a web site or magazine or other
publication that tracks Supreme Court rulings and groups the decisions by
Justices and/or by point of view? I would hope for an unbiased view,
something that might say Justice X votes with Justice Y on these types of
issues but they split on those types? I tried a web search but didn't get
credible results.
Now your above statement is specifically about the environment. I
can understand the point you make, for example how some states may produce
acid rain forming clouds but the actual acid rain falls over a different
state, or Canada. But do you have specific cases in mind that illustrates
your point?
Now if you are talking about states rights in general can you say
why it's bad for states to have rights? If you are saying that the state(s)
have passed laws that supercede federal law, in a bad way, then again point
them out.
I know there was already the topic about 'strict constitutionalists'
and, um, the other type of Federal judge. I don't like the term liberal
judge any more than conservative judge. I had just heard today that
legislators were really grumbling about the Supreme Court Justices because
some of their rulings have been, practically, making law instead of
interpreting the law. And much has been made about the possibility of them
overturning Roe vs. Wade. But even if that did happen all it would do is
give states the right to decide for themselves about the abortion issue. If
the people of a certain state want abortion to be legal then it will be
voted that way. I see overturning Roe vs. Wade as a good thing. If people
are galvanized over this issue then the population that turns out to vote
might rocket back up to 80 or 90 percent, in the states that start debating
this issue.
As a slightly different turn, if states rights laws are so poor, why
hasn't a death row inmate sued the government to be moved to a different
state, one that doesn't have the death penalty?
I know this isn't an easy topic but I think state rights are
important. Look at Clinton signing, I don't know if it was a bill, that new
federal mandate that states adopt the .08 DUI limit. Oh a state could
refuse, but they would get no federal highway money. The old carrot and
stick approach. And for the people who say that .08 is a reasonable limit,
in my local paper five days later was a letter from a national organization
saying that now they were going to push for the next step: .05 nationwide.
Kevin Tarr
Sorry for the tangents.
