I was not trying to beat a dead horse and I think you make good points. In fact, given the circumstances, I believe the Supreme Court saved the country considerable hassle, and I believe it was simply the pragmatic thing to do. It was a flip of the coin. Bush won. It was a major historical event that totally violated constitutional purity. Many of his actions by necessity have not been constitutionally pure, but they have been lawful. He will have a long term effect of making the executive branch preeminent. He does not appear nearly as interested in constitutional purity as in accomplishing long tern Republican objectives. Some of them are good. It is hard to see how it is going to pan out in the long term. For instance, the economy may start to recover (but what will be the effect of massively increasing the total national debt). Deposing Hussein was good; however, what will be the long term effect of having 250,000 troops near Iraq). He is Reaganesque in taking riverboat gambles. So far they have worked out. He did not do it by being Constitutionally pure, and I would not expect him to. It is not possible nowadays (they more or less try to hold to the spirit of the Constitution). Constituional purity does not guarantee positive short or long term results. Pragmatics makes short term positive results possible. The country should not allow crucifixtion to maintain a historical metaphysical construct. If one looks at his governorship of Texas, there is mauch to worry about-- on long term basis, Texas medically and environmentally was left as a cesspool.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra