Politics (OT)

[Demelza]

No: HPFGUIDX 5513

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer 
<pennylin at s...> wrote:
> Hi --
> 
> On the issue of whether the election of Dubya poses any sort of 
threat
> to efforts by local school districts to ban books such as HP --
> 
> I agree that Bush is not evil incarnate.  He does not appear to be 
an
> unreasonably intolerant individual.  But, his *individual* views 
won't
> really count for much.  I am, and will remain, very very concerned 
about
> the composition of the Supreme Court.  I think it's safe to say that 
any
> appointments made by Dubya will be individuals with a conservative
> jurist background (whether he employs an abortion rights "litmus 
test"
> or not).  It would not take very many arch-conservative appointees 
in
> the ilk of Scalia and Thomas to tilt the Court to the far right of
> overall American opinion.  Supreme Court appointees have a knack of
> sometimes surprising their appointers (I believe Brennan or Marshall 
or
> both were appointed by Eisenhower for example).  IMO, we can only 
hope
> that this will prove true of any Dubya appointees.
> 
> If a local school district chooses to ban books, a challenger would
> likely be forced to challenge it by invoking infringement of various
> constitutional rights, which puts their case into the federal court
> system.  As I understand it, the federal courts are still *packed* 
with
> Reagan and Bush Sr. appointments.  Dubya appointments will only 
increase
> that margin.  *That* is my concern.  Yeah, Bush individually might 
have
> read HP to his daughters when they were younger if the books had 
been
> available.  But, if he packs the Court (and lower federal courts) 
with
> far-right conservative jurists, then it's anyone's guess as to how 
they
> will interpret the Constitutional issues associated with 
book-banning in
> public schools (among a myriad of other issues).
> 
> My other concern is with the lack of checks & balances that *may* 
result
> from this election.  It appears right now that the Republicans have 
a
> narrow margin of control in both the House & the Senate.  I know 
there
> are some seats that are still a bit in dispute but . . . . if it 
should
> prove to be the case, then passage of Republican legislative 
proposals
> will be tons easier.  In that case, then I tend to think you *could* 
see
> more of "Jump!  How high?" in Washington.
> 
> The fact remains that if you have one party in control of the 
executive
> and legislative branch (and in charge of appointments to the federal
> judiciary), it's a concern in our system of government.  IMO.  Wall
> Street seems to agree with me too -- the stock market *tanked*
> yesterday.
> 
> I don't really know what will happen in Florida, but I like my 
husband's
> musings from last night.  He said "I think Bush will win and he'll 
wish
> he hadn't."
> 
> My 2 galleons --
> 
> Penny

I'm quite happy with the narrow majority/minority in the next 
Congress. With such a narrow margin, it will force BOTH sides to 
compromise in order to resolve issues. Unrestrained partisanism 
for either side will be detrimental to both parties. "Third" parties 
are growing in popularity. If the Democrats and Republicans wish to 
practice self-preservation, they wouldn't attempt to engage in 
partisanism when the margin is this narrow. 

Also, there are some Republicans, such as Senator Snow of Maine and 
Congresswoman Morella of Maryland, who do not vote consistantly along 
party-lines. This too must be taken into consideration, because 
these "mavericks" become more important when the margin is this 
narrow. In other words, the Republican leadership will have to 
keep them within the fold. 

Compromise is the only avenue for the 2001 Congress to succeed. As 
this election has proved, the nation is divided. It's time to find a 
happy medium and become stronger or continue on the current partisan 
path and become weaker.

By the way, the AP News Wire reports that New Mexico's vote is being 
re-counted.

~Demelza