> It is my understanding that the current court has struck down or come
close
> to striking down several environmental laws. One of the op ed writers for
the
> NY Times (Paul Kruger?) has written extensively about this.
I don't read the times, no comics, but did Justices S or T specifically vote
against certain laws?
> Now if you are talking about states rights in general can you say
> why it's bad for states to have rights?
> I would look at the problem this way. The federal government exists to
handle
> issues that go beyond the boundaries of individual states. The feds deal
with
> foreign governments. it seems to me that they should deal with
environmental
> issues that by their very nature cannot be dealt with by individual
states.
> This court seems to be moving towards a position that restricts the fed
> responsibility in this manner.
I have an inside track on this issue, may not be exactly the right thing but
that's okay. The superfund project has been a giant boondoggle waste of
money. Yes the idea is sound but so much money wasted, (of course a lot goes
to attorneys). Like GORE had said, the feds pass the laws, the agencies
write up procedures to handle the laws, and the rest of the world find ways
around the laws and procedures. Not knowing the total story about Houston,
for the press to just blame their smog on Bush's governance and laws is
wrong. Now this might lead back to the Gore camp but cars and trucks put out
a lot of pollution. Ah it doesn't matter, I don't care anymore.
> As I remember it there is also concern that a Bush coutt would strike down
> campaign finance laws agreeing with the Republican Senate position that
free
> speech requires that there be few if any limits on campaign finance
> expenditures. I know this is a complex issue and it is hard to get it
> "right", that is, balance individual freedom with appropriate controls on
> what an individual or group can spend. But I would like to see us make the
> effort.
That's fine, I can agree that maybe something should be done but once laws
are on the books then the real abuses can begin.
> I see overturning Roe vs. Wade as a good thing.
> Why?
I had said this before, they really took away states rights with this
ruling, i.e. they were legislating instead of interpreting. I know someone
else said that this state may pass ab**** laws while that state may not pass
them. Have any polls done state by state tracking on how the voters would,
um, vote?
> 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 am not saying that state's writes law are by nature poor. but you bring
up
> a good point. shouldn't there be a national standard on something so
> important as state sponsored killing? Shouldn't there at least be
standards
> that have to met by all states (like having your lawyer stay awake) before
> you are allowed to take someone's life?
Um, no. Not wanting to waste time actually thinking about this, do you think
stealing a horse in NYC meant as much as stealing one in Wyoming? For me
setting national standards is just another (imagine that word with the
weight of the world on it) law on the books. Here's all I can say about
anything: the president and the HoR majority should be the same party, the
senate the other party. Why? True fraking deadlock, nothing happens, no new
laws.
