A Massive Failure of the System
The South Carolina Supreme Court has forced the governor to take money from the “stimulus” bill, ending a battle between the governor and the democrats who think that the stimulus money is a right and used education as a shield to hide behind when making their arguments.
What the hell?
I guess I just didn’t realize that the stimulus plan was something that was to be forced upon everybody… Or else. And now the SC Supreme Court has upheld that.
State’s rights? What are those? We’re one big supersized family under the fist of Washington DC.
on June 5, 2009 on 10:40 am
Isn’t this how the system is supposed to work? The legislature passed the budget, governor vetoes, legislature overrode veto, and supreme court told the governor to do his job when he refused. Or am I missing something?
on June 5, 2009 on 10:45 am
The US Supreme Court gave us the first 4 years of the Bush Administration, did you mind so much about Judicial Activism then?
on June 5, 2009 on 11:06 am
It was the interference of Washington in SC’s affairs that is a failure of the system as far as I am concerned. Sanford tried to make concessions, but the White House interfered. This should have been an issue contained 100% within the borders of SC. Sanford knows the process was correct which is why he’s not appealing, but the fact that it came to this to begin with is wrong, and the fact the the legislature of SC treated the stimulus money in the way they did is just adds insult to injury.
That aside, the “system” I refer to here isn’t the 3-branch system so much as it’s the federalist system. It’s the idea of state sovereignity. Remember, the stimulus money came with strings and requirements attached from Washington, and that was one of the primary reasons that Sanford rejected it. Nobody should have been OK with this, and for the SC legislature to override the governor on this is asinine.
So far as I concerned, they are selling the soul of federalism here. But hell, money talks, and legislators listen. This is why I so vehemently detest politicians from both parties.
on June 5, 2009 on 11:32 am
Sidney…
First off, why bring up Bush? I swear, you people sound like broken records. Bush is gone. I would think that you would be happy with that, but you’re not. It’s still Bush, Bush, Bush.
Second, what here would make you think that I was or am a Bush supporter?
Third, from all I know about the case, I don’t see how Bush v. Gore could be considered judicial activism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore#Commentary
Furthermore, this is about the White House trying to micromanage states and the state’s legislative and judicial branches allowing it. Invoking Bush v. Gore is like comparing apples to oranges. So if you don’t have anything even moderately intelligent to say about the issue, why don’t you try keeping your mouth shut instead of just blurting out “Bush!”
on June 5, 2009 on 12:59 pm
Sidney
What a troll, have you not heard of state sovereignty. Many states are pushing for just that. http://www.panamalaw.org/US_states_filing_state_sovereignty_laws.html
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the 10th amendment. Come on Bush again. Bush won the election by law. No he did not win the popular vote but this is not the first time that has happened. However it was Gore that tried to sue his way into office and that is a first. I like Ryan am not a big fan of Bush, he worked towards stripping constitutional rights with the patriot act. The power grab by the Obama administration far exceeds any in our Republics history. You should team up with Futile Democracy. He continues the Bush bashing (beating a dead horse) He even tries to tie Bush’s religious beliefs to the pagan religions and the fall of Rome. I am trying to educate him of the fact that it was the Socialist programs and the power grab by Caesar, BTW Caesar also pushed for the redisribution of wealth . . . . Hmmmmm
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/america-the-new-rome/
on June 5, 2009 on 3:48 pm
I suppose then the answer to my original question is no. Point taken, thank you gentlemen for your predictability.
on June 5, 2009 on 5:16 pm
Sidney, Sidney,Sidney. The question was answered. Ryan provided you with a link to the wiki text on the subject. Bush won in Florida. That is the part that you don’t get. Now if the courts would have overturned the vote what precedent would you cite to justify it. Has there ever been a president elected through lawsuit. Bottom line Bush won and Gore tried to sue his way in. If he would have won, that would have been judicial activism. But isn’t that what you liberals do? Send out dishonest activist like ACORN and if that doesn’t work try to sue your way in??? It appears the second act is in Minnesota, don’t win the election sue your way in. And you wonder why there were all those signs Sore Loserman
on June 5, 2009 on 9:37 pm
Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep, it starts when your always afraid… (sing along if you know the words)
on June 6, 2009 on 7:43 am
Paranoia? Wow, Sidney, youve really got some serious issues here, don’t you? I might also note that while I (we) answered your inquiry, you didn’t bother to answer any of my questions. But I expected that. People like you are nothing if not woefully calculable. You are ammusingly guided by your hate and really don’t have anything substatial to say. You just spout off because you happen to encounter people who you don’t agree with. Comical at best, but very telling as to what sort of person you really are. I’d feel sorry for you, but it’s more fun to just laugh derisively at you