Blog powered by Typepad

« 'Arty-farty' time! | Main | Tricky business, this politics lark, Mr. Trump! »

Friday, 24 March 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Actually, The Kraut was paralyzed by a dive into a shallow swimming pool when he was a young man....but, his take is correct on our Constitution. If it is to endure, it needs a proper balance among the branches of government as well as Justices that believe in the Oath they take to preserve it. The Executive branch has taken too much power away from an accommodating Congress for too many decades. Currently it will take this Chief Executive to undo the excesses of the previous one(s). Then the States will need to assert themselves to install a more proper Federalism until Congress can relocate its collective backbone and do its part to return America to proper Federalism. It will be long and brutal but needed. Or, civil wars have been known to spring from failures of this magnitude.


I am beginning to think that the key "to return America to proper Federalism" is term limits for both Congress and the Supreme Court. We already have a two-term limit (8 years) for the Presidency, of course. How about two terms for Senators (12 years); three terms for Congressmen (6 years); and, for the Supremes, perhaps enforced retirement when a Justice shows signs of mental deficiency. For example, take Justice Ginsberg (please!).

It is just a gut feeling at this point, but it seems to me that the term limit for the Presidency has somehow effected the unbalancing shift of power to it away from its theoretically co-equal Branches.

Henry, the 3 terms for Congress might be a good start. As it is, only about 25-30 House races are truly competitive out of 436 seats. Not good. As for the Supremes, mental deficiency sometimes shows up early: Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade. Ginsberg needs to go simply because of too much political pontificating off the bench. Those with power don't release it gladly. Some will have to be taken back by those with greater "virtue". Could get noisy.

Oops! Should be 435. Don't need any more of those yo-yos than needed.

Henry, apologies for my error on the cause of Krauthammer's injury, I misread "diving" for 'driving' on his Wiki entry. I know, I know, "I should have gone to Specsavers'!

You gentlemen know far more than me about the intricacies of your Constitution although 'The Kraut' seems to think it's working just fine.

Krauthammer's talents for misdirection and false equivalency are on full display. Pay no attention to the bumbling would-be oligarch with suspicious business and Russian ties writes he, look at how great our Constitution is: It impedes both Trump and the equally detestable Obama! And by the way, the federal government (Washington) and free press are illegitimate, even though they originate in the same Constitution.

His indictment of the press as a slavish Obama tool and relentless Trump enemy is particularly silly. He's an employee of Fox News, the propaganda arm of the Republican party. Did he quit reading newspapers during the Obama administration? There was plenty of negative coverage of his failure to close Guantanamo, his foreign policy missteps, domestic intelligence gathering, and much else. The same press slavishly gave Trump billions of dollars worth of free advertising during the primary and presidential campaigns every time he manipulated them with an outrageous remark.

There's lots more hypocrisy including Neil Gorsuch being a "slam dunk" after Merrick Garland was denied a hearing and "the resistance" being called out while ignoring the right wing "freedom caucus", but there's no point in covering it all here.

Hi Bob - off your meds again? Oh dear.

Cuff, The meds reduce the ability of a man to, ahem, perform his manly duties. Non compliance is all too common.

Bob, nothing man-made in this world is perfect. All 'The Kraut' is saying is that your Constitution is standing up to the interminable pressures, from Right and Left, pretty well. Be thankful for small mercies - or would you rather have 'The Donald' free to roam at will?

Cuffleyburgers and Michael F Adams, your speculations about my drugs and pork sword are fascinating, but why not try countering the points about Herr Krauthammer even if he isn't as interesting?

David, yeah that's all he says except for a lot of not-so-subtle partisan bullshit. I'd like to have The Donald free to roam Siberia. We survived Buchanan, Harding, Nixon and GW Bush. We'll survive Trump, if with a great deal of embarrassment and damage.

Shalom TBH and g'day Whitewall.

Not knowing a great deal of the mechanics of "the Constitution" I assume that when the idea of appointing Supreme Court Justices for life originated the average age for shuffling off to meet one's maker was much lower and therefore the chances of having some dribbling idiot still able to decide matters of great import were much less.

Given that life expectancy is now much longer it would make perfect sense to set an age limit on office. Here in the jewel of HM's Commonwealth our High Court Justices have to give up the perks of office at 70.


"Don't need any more of those yo-yos than needed."
That reminds me of one of Einstein's great quips, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

AussieD, age 70? That's when most people start to get a clue about things!

Henry, Big Al knew how to get to the basic elements didn't he?

Shalom AD,

I agree with you about age limit, but I also agree with Robert that 70 is kinda arbitrary, especially for a Supreme. I myself am 75 and have most of my faculties in tip-top shape.

Um, I forgot what I was going to say next.

Oh, yeah. I remember now.

Here's what I propose. Once a Supreme starts acting like Ginsberg, making politically charged statements during a Presidential Election campaign, the winner of the Election, once inaugurated, can require her to take a standardized IQ exam. If she can't score a 3-digit number (100 or more), she has to apologize for her outrageous behavior and commit hara-kiri.

All good Brits are probably fast asleep by now, but this should get your blood pressure up in the morning. One of Trump's comrades still insists your intelligence services were Obama patsies:

Eh, Bob?

You by any chance remember CNN back in the "Before Prez Trump" era, was making some claims that now, what is it, sixty-four days into what looks to be about a one-thousand-four hundred and oh, fifty-six days of a Trump term?

Perhaps this'll help refresh your memory;

"CNN reported that a two-page synopsis of the dossier was used to brief both President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump. CNN did not detail the allegations in the full dossier and reported that that the claims were unverified. The dossier, CNN reported, was compiled by a “former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible.” "

So do I get the gist of what you're saying here Bob about right - CNN is (was) of the opinion Five Eyes is an ... how'd you put it? ... oh yeah, "Obama patsy"?

Seems to be kinda a theme building up around the ol' Interwebs of late - the theme kinda courteously might be termed - backpedaling.

At 75 I reckon I am still pretty sharp of mind however you have to have a cut off age somewhere and 70 is as good as any. Those appointed to the High Court tend to be in their 50's or early 60's so a "f--k off" age of 70 ensures a reasonably continuous supply of younger Justices.

So far it has served us reasonably well.

I would set the age of retirement from any sort of government office to that of the state pension start up age. That should concentrate their little tiny aged minds. This would also apply to politicians. There is little sign that great age makes things work any better.

BOE, "There is little sign that great age makes things work any better." Well hell, there went my hope!

If you're a fool at seven then you're just an older fool at seventy!


The memos you mention were not collected on behalf of Obama:

"Mr Steele, the co-founder of London-based Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, prepared a 35-page document that alleges the Kremlin colluded with Mr Trump’s presidential campaign and that the Russian security services have material that could be used to blackmail him ... His research was initially funded by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats."

Trump might declare himself king and be around the rest of our lives, but, based on his performance so far, it's not likely he'll be president more than one term.

Well Bob,

"Trump might ..." covers alotta ifs, buts, and maybes, wouldn't even you Bob, agree?

I suppose we shall see ...

The comments to this entry are closed.