Do I think his comments on judicial activism are excessive? Of course, though there is a real debate to be had over balancing democratic will versus undemocratic judicial oversight. But McCain is a Republican presidential candidate trying to shore up his base before the general election.

If you're a Republican, you go after your nutzo fringe to win the primaries. That's the "base". But after you've locked up the nomination, you need to convince the folks in the middle that you're not the nutcase you pretended to be in order to win the primary (Dubya did this with his "compassionate conservative" schtick ... <*barf gag*>). Of course, then it's fair to ask "which of these apparitions is the real candidate (if any)?"

Cheers,

I'd never heard of you until today's article, whose headline - and numerous "I-lines" - tempted me to ignore it....

We've never heard of you before either (although we do note your stealing someone else's name without showing that you deserve the indulgence of using his appellation). But then again, you are a "no-name", to the extent of needing someone else's moniker to appear significant. Unlike Glenn.

... But, as pompous as I may be, I'm also a classically-educated liberal in the former, happier sense of that word, so I spent some eye-time with it. I won't make that mistake again - and will do my best to dissuade others from doing so as well.

I've had enough of people self-describing as "classically-educated liberal[s]". People like Seth Williamson, a hard RRW nutzo, and "Bart" DePalma, an out-and-our RW authoritarian, to mention two magnitude 37 stars in the conservative firmament of my personal acquaintance.... Seems to be de riguer nowadays for conservatives (or RWers at least) to redefine themselves as "liberals in the original meaning of the word" now that "conservatism" has lost whatever sheen it had, and "liberal" is recovering from the assault on this "L"-word that the RW has engaged in for the last half century.

If you have a point, make it. You complain about others engaging in ad hominem, but then you use self-ad hominem as a defence. That won't fly around here. State your beef completely and accurately, and let us decide where on the political spectrum you stand.

BTW, I took the liberty of pulling up your other letters (as other may do as well), and I'd say that your animus to "Billary" and Barack and stated intention of not voting for either certainly gives one indication of your "liberal" credentials....

Cheers,

... is what lies behind the schizophrenic nature of McCain's speech (the only threat to the separation of powers is... the separation of powers), and it's what's killing us.

Effectively what he's saying is, "Yeah, it's great that we have all these pretty laws and stuff, but since we know that in America nothing really bad can ever happen (as we're the world's most virtuous people), these are just for decoration."

It's ironic that a country founded on a well-earned fear of tyrants has now become a country where people believe that tyranny is impossible. Similarly, a country founded on the rule of law has developed into one where the rule of law is dispensed with if it inconveniences the powerful.

I think Americans greatly underestimate how much the rest of the world understands our hypocrisy on these issues, and seethes because of it. Notice how virtually every department, function, or aspect of the American government is constantly lecturing other countries about freedom, or human rights, or the rule of law, etc., while our elected officials and their sycophants simultaneously work to undermine those principles here at home.

More than anything, it's the presumption that we're all (U.S. citizen and foreigner alike) simpletons, unable to recognize cognitive dissonance, that's so galling.

That would be a house of cards. The Constitution actually provides mechanisms for when "all side" do not play along. "Checks and balances" are some of these. Enforcement of laws is another, and also impeachment and recall.

A fair point. Unfortunately we're seeing the limitations of those mechanisms as they're employed (or more accurately, not employed) with equal vigor to the Administration's actions.

I know you know this, IOW. But I think it's an important point. The Constitution is not a house of cards.

No, its not. Its the foundation our society and government are based upon. Unfortunately that foundation is presently being cracked and pulverized by an out-of-control Executive Branch and a too-compliant Legislative and Judiciary.

The mechanisms are there, but there's no push among the Democratic leadership to use them. They've in effect discarded the Constitution as completely as the Administration has.

We can still push from "outside the system" to try for changes, while still voting for the lesser of two evils. Voting for a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil from gaining power does not necessarily preclude you from attempting to change how the system works.-- Silash

I call bullshit. Can and will are two different things. There will be no big push from "outside the system" if Obama is elected. You have to be kidding with that. You have got to know, as the intelligent person that you are, that that will never happen. You do realize that correct? LWM, big tuna... hell(!) damn near everyone (including you it seems) who posts in these worthless fucking chatter sessions will find themselves contented. All of Daily Kos. All of Firedoglake... jeebus silash... sell it to someone else.

you're probably right. in my own defense, they only gave me two crappy metaphors to choose from, and this one seemed the least bad of the two...

I think rights are like muscles---they need to be exercised regularly. If we threw out our presidents---I mean, on their asses, sometimes with jail time---once every 20 or 30 years, we might actually get enough practice at it to be good at it. And you wouldn't get the eye-roll from the MSM every time you mention mere impeachment.

The last good chance we had was with Nixon. Somebody go spit on Ford's grave for me, please. -- Baldie McEagle

Which is why I included Ford on my list. Most people would say "Hey, wait a minute! Ford didn't do anything to warrant impeachment." Hell yes he did. He should have been impeached for the pardon.

Also, just to revisit part of naschbac's post that I wanted to comment earlier on but didn't...

The consensus attitude becomes one of a waiting game. If we ignore the problem long enough it will go away on its own, because we can eventually elect someone else.

You can get all the supposed benefits of forced removal, an opportunity to democratically select a replacement, and all you have to do is hold your nose for a while. -- naschbac

Though I think naschbac is right on target wrt the way some people think, this is, to me, the most disgusting aspect of it all. The fact that by "holding our noses" and not forcibly removing a murderous thug like George Bush, we show our true contempt for representative forms of government and our fellow man located "out there" in the rest of the world. I mean it isn't as though BushCo is only shitting on the constitution and the American people after all. There is the little matter of an illegal and immoral war, based on lies, where there have been possibly 1,000,000+ people killed for oil. This is what happens when we "hold our nose" and wait for the likes of Obama. It is just sickening.