Rasmussen: Post-election Senate 'balance' of power (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Rasmussen reports is now predicting a possible Democratic takeover of the Senate in addition to the House. Their latest report shows a probable even split of Senate seats, and also a possibility that the Democrats could take the chamber.

While I have been supportive of a Democratic takeover in the House, to have the Democrats controlling both houses, in my opinion, is a very bad thing. I want gridlock in congress, because with gridlock, our leaders cannot screw over America any more than they have already screwed it over.

So while I do support a Dem takeover of the House, I also support the Republicans keeping the Senate. IMHO, that is what is best for America. Gridlock ultimately means smaller government, and less power of the government over the people.

Article is here.

 

[Alex]

Rasmussen reports is now predicting a possible Democratic takeover of the Senate in addition to the House. Their latest report shows a probable even split of Senate seats, and also a possibility that the Democrats could take the chamber.

While I have been supportive of a Democratic takeover in the House, to have the Democrats controlling both houses, in my opinion, is a very bad thing. I want gridlock in congress, because with gridlock, our leaders cannot screw over America any more than they have already screwed it over.

So while I do support a Dem takeover of the House, I also support the Republicans keeping the Senate. IMHO, that is what is best for America. Gridlock ultimately means smaller government, and less power of the government over the people.

Article is here.

I agree when you state that a gridlock in government is the best kind of government, but I want Democrats to take over the Senate. Justice Stevens is getting older and he will probably retire soon. It would be better for Democrats to confirm his replacement. I believe our civil liberties are in jeopardy with Republicans putting justices on the bench.

 

[danarhea]

I agree when you state that a gridlock in government is the best kind of government, but I want Democrats to take over the Senate. Justice Stevens is getting older and he will probably retire soon. It would be better for Democrats to confirm his replacement. I believe our civil liberties are in jeopardy with Republicans putting justices on the bench.

That depends on several factors, which include who is president, and whether Democrats be able to block a Conservative justice's nomination without having a majority in the Senate. The answer to the second question is yes. However, just because the Supreme Court has a Conservative bent to it, doesnt mean that they are Bush's, or any other president's lap dog. The proof in the pudding is Scalia, who has lately gone against Bush on a number of issues.

There is a second reason for having a Conservative Supreme Court instead of a Liberal one. Conservative justices tend not to try and create law by stretching interpretations of existing laws, but instead, tend to strictly interpret our Constitution, which is what our founding fathers intended.

Our Constitution is not a living, breathing document, which changes over time, as the Liberals claim. In fact, that Liberal claim is no different than Bush attempting to recreate the Geneva Conventions in his own torturous image. In that vein, considering the history of Liberal jurisprudence, I would have to strongly assert that Liberals are being hypocritical here.

However harshly Bush is going to be judged by history (and I believe his presidency will be judged more harshly than any other), his pick of judges will be considered one of the few good areas in an otherwise crappy 8 years of rule.

On that note, I still stand as strongly opposed to a Democratic takeover of the Senate.

 

[Kandahar]

I wouldn't worry too much about the Democrats taking over the Senate. Despite what Rasmussen may think, it's still a long shot. The futures markets offer only about a 20% chance of the Democrats taking the Senate. Even a Democratic takeover of the House is only trading at 50-50 odds. It's by no means assured.

Gridlock is good, but I don't think there's too much harm in the Democrats taking both houses of Congress instead of just one. There's still a Republican in the White House with veto power over anything that comes out of Congress. Besides, I'd prefer to hedge my bets in the unlikely scenario that the Democrats manage to take the Senate but fail to take the House.

 

[danarhea]

I wouldn't worry too much about the Democrats taking over the Senate. Despite what Rasmussen may think, it's still a long shot. The futures markets offer only about a 20% chance of the Democrats taking the Senate. Even a Democratic takeover of the House is only trading at 50-50 odds. It's by no means assured.

Gridlock is good, but I don't think there's too much harm in the Democrats taking both houses of Congress instead of just one. There's still a Republican in the White House with veto power over anything that comes out of Congress. Besides, I'd prefer to hedge my bets in the unlikely scenario that the Democrats manage to take the Senate but fail to take the House.

From what I have seen, a Dem takeover of the House is a given, but I agree that the prospects of a Dem takeover of the Senate dont look that good. However, that one worries me a bit.

Still, with a different president, Republican or Democrat, in 2008, I believe that some of the Democratic House pickups this year will be by one term wonders. As Bush fades into the dust, he will no longer be an issue when people go to vote. So my guess is, by 2010 or 2012, Republicans stand a decent chance to take back the House. Could even happen in 2008. Not sure about who takes the Senate at that time. Will probably depend on who is president then.

 

[TurtleDude]

dems taking the house is not a given and recent trends suggest that it may well not happen. the nutcases that are in the prime dem leadership positions will scare more than a few moderates. Face it-people like Tom "the vampire" Lantos, John Conyers, Nany Lugosi etc are way way loonbird for the average voter

 

[Alex]

That depends on several factors, which include who is president, and whether Democrats be able to block a Conservative justice's nomination without having a majority in the Senate. The answer to the second question is yes. However, just because the Supreme Court has a Conservative bent to it, doesnt mean that they are Bush's, or any other president's lap dog. The proof in the pudding is Scalia, who has lately gone against Bush on a number of issues.

I agree that it is much more complicated to determine a justice's political leaning by the president who nominates them, but I am not willing to take that risk with Bush. A Democratic minority could filibuster a nomination, but they have agreed not to do that unless the nominee is extreme. The power of the president to appoint justices has lessened over the years, the real power is in the Senate's confirmation. The president must be sure that their nominee is in line with Senator's idealogies or they may as well not bother nominating because it will be shot down.

There is a second reason for having a Conservative Supreme Court instead of a Liberal one. Conservative justices tend not to try and create law by stretching interpretations of existing laws, but instead, tend to strictly interpret our Constitution, which is what our founding fathers intended.

Our Constitution is not a living, breathing document, which changes over time, as the Liberals claim. In fact, that Liberal claim is no different than Bush attempting to recreate the Geneva Conventions in his own torturous image. In that vein, considering the history of Liberal jurisprudence, I would have to strongly assert that Liberals are being hypocritical here.

Constructionalism is flawed in that the Constitution cannot list all details of the rights it demands. There must be room for interpretation. As far as the Founding Fathers, I do not pretend to know what they really intended unless there is solid evidence. To believe that anyone living today could possibly know what someone really believed in who live ~200 years ago is nothing but arrogance.

However harshly Bush is going to be judged by history (and I believe his presidency will be judged more harshly than any other), his pick of judges will be considered one of the few good areas in an otherwise crappy 8 years of rule.

On that note, I still stand as strongly opposed to a Democratic takeover of the Senate.

I believe Roberts could turn out to be more liberal on social issues than most Neoconservatives will want. I expect Alito to be the new Scalia. I think that both were nominated only because of their positions on excessive presidential power.

I truly hope that Bush does not get another chance to nominate any of his prime choices for the Supreme Court. With the close voting coalitions on important cases lately, it could be the end of our civil liberties if he does.

 

[danarhea]

I agree that it is much more complicated to determine a justice's political leaning by the president who nominates them, but I am not willing to take that risk with Bush. A Democratic minority could filibuster a nomination, but they have agreed not to do that unless the nominee is extreme. The power of the president to appoint justices has lessened over the years, the real power is in the Senate's confirmation. The president must be sure that their nominee is in line with Senator's idealogies or they may as well not bother nominating because it will be shot down.





Constructionalism is flawed in that the Constitution cannot list all details of the rights it demands. There must be room for interpretation. As far as the Founding Fathers, I do not pretend to know what they really intended unless there is solid evidence. To believe that anyone living today could possibly know what someone really believed in who live ~200 years ago is nothing but arrogance.



I believe Roberts could turn out to be more liberal on social issues than most Neoconservatives will want. I expect Alito to be the new Scalia. I think that both were nominated only because of their positions on excessive presidential power.

I truly hope that Bush does not get another chance to nominate any of his prime choices for the Supreme Court. With the close voting coalitions on important cases lately, it could be the end of our civil liberties if he does.

Whoa, in regard to the Constitution, you have it wrong. The Bill of Rights states what the government cannot do, not what it can do. In crafting it that way, our founding fathers were able to make it short and sweet, and that was part of their genius. There is really nothing left open to interpretation. Compare the US Constitution's amendments with that of Texas, where amendments stipulate what government CAN do. The Texas Constitution now consists of dozens of volumes of books. The US Constitution avoids all that by stating, in the bill of rights, what government CANNOT do. Then there is the tenth amendment which states that any rights not expressly stated in the Constitution belong to the states and to the people. I think the motto of our founding fathers was KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid).

 

[Kandahar]

dems taking the house is not a given and recent trends suggest that it may well not happen.

I agree. Markets tend to be rational, and they're only hovering in the 50-50 range of this happening.

the nutcases that are in the prime dem leadership positions will scare more than a few moderates. Face it-people like Tom "the vampire" Lantos, John Conyers, Nany Lugosi etc are way way loonbird for the average voter

The average voter hasn't heard of any of those people. Even I've never heard of Tom Lantos. Do you really think that voters are going to base their vote on whether Nameless Democrat or Nameless Republican heads the Nameless House Committee? I think not.

 

[Alex]

Whoa, in regard to the Constitution, you have it wrong. The Bill of Rights states what the government cannot do, not what it can do. In crafting it that way, our founding fathers were able to make it short and sweet, and that was part of their genius. There is really nothing left open to interpretation. Compare the US Constitution's amendments with that of Texas, where amendments stipulate what government CAN do. The Texas Constitution now consists of dozens of volumes of books. The US Constitution avoids all that by stating, in the bill of rights, what government CANNOT do. Then there is the tenth amendment which states that any rights not expressly stated in the Constitution belong to the states and to the people. I think the motto of our founding fathers was KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid).

I think that it is short and sweet so it can be interpreted. Laws that are too narrow tend to be content based and therefore too restrictive and unfair. They impose ideas on people and limit free expression. Listing things that cannot be done can still be open to interpretation.

Here is an example of the flaw of Constructionalism:

The government passes a law stating that confession of a crime is usable in a court of law. Someone confesses to a crime verbally but uses the First Amendment to say it is protected because of free speech. Wouldn't a Constructionist have to agree?

The 14th Amendment changed the 10th. The states are required to follow the Bill of Rights. (By the way, I believe that the 9th Amendment gives rights to the people, not the 10th.)

I think the motto of our founding fathers was KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid).

LMAO. Love that! I think I will use it someday if you do not mind.