To: Road Walker who wrote (224770 ) 3/18/2005 7:20:02 PM From: TimF Respond to of 1572094 Since you are a libertarian, I'm going to assume you think that local decisions are better than Federal decisions. Generally I lean towards making decisions at a more local level than at the federal level in a number of areas but that's more for constitutional and pragmatic reasons then it is for reasons of libertarian ideology. Libertarianism is more about having less government then it is about what level government is exercised at. As offensive as this may be to you, we probably agree. I've had a lot of friends that happened to be judges, and sentancing guidlines limited what they could do, on both sides. It's a bad thing for justice, by those that are actually there to hear the cases. I think some unusual judicial decisions with extremely high or extremely low penalties got the response of judicial sentencing guidelines. I think I lean towards your position on this where its not worth giving up flexibility to reign in a few bad judges. If you are going to have guidelines they should either be wide (allowing a judge a decent range of penalties), or flexible (Allowing for exemptions, or even just serving as recommendations rather than hard rules). Who do you expect to enforce the laws? In general terms the executive does, and is supposed to, enforce the law. The police are part of the executive branch in these same general terms. I'm not calling for the executive, and legislative branches to greatly increase their power at the expense of the judicial branch, as I am calling for the judicial branch to show more restraint, and to make their number one criteria the words of the law (including constitutional law). But you have to wake up to reality, everything is Federal. That's where the power is concentrated, more so in this admin than ever. I'm all for local rights... are you? The federal government certainly has taken a lot of power to itself. In some cases it effectively uses loopholes and grey areas of the constitution. In other it seems to go beyond that and, slowly expanding its power totally beyond anything found in the constitution. re: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct Like I said, per the US constitution, it's the state perogative to name their electors. Its the state legislatures priority to name the electors. Not the state courts. It really shouldn't be the USSC's either but the USSC had to decide to either make the decision itself or allow the FL SC to grab it. I don't really like the way the USSC decided the case either, although I agree with the result. I'd have preferred the courts not be a factor in the first place. You claim you want it local, but you support the Federal over the local judges. My desire for more local government over everything being decided by the feds is mostly a constitutional matter. I suppose I would want some more authority to shift to the states even if it was not clearly called for by the constitution (As long as it didn't actually go against the constitution), but the it would be a less important goal in that case. If the USSC had not taken up the case I don't think the end result would have been any different. Estimates of the vote with recounts of the challenged counties still give the result to Bush, and the Republicans controlled the FL state legislature and the incoming US House of Reps. (which in theory might have made the final determination if it came to that). Tim