Tripartite Commission on the Restoration of Democracy

[Insula Dei]

Hark! The troops of reaction gather in the face of constitutions and independent judiciaries. We all know who is afraid of the workings of the 'Rechtsstaat' around here. (Thank you Wikipedia for informing me that that's an acceptable term in English!)

[Insula Dei]

Rechtsstaat feels more natural to me, you know? It's really a big let-down to me that there's no adequate English equivalent. And I'd have had to start over constructing that sentence. Now at least some of you will walk away having learnt a nice new term for when you want to awe your peers in college or whatever.

[Insula Dei]

So when exactly did Tweed 'infiltrate' the state apparatus? When he travelled back in time to force the Senate at gunpoint to appoint the current Supreme Court? Or when he forced the Constitution Assembly to include the provisions that are now under discussion? There's no coup here, just a legitimately installed branch of the Federal Government exercising the powers it has been granted by the Constitution. By the way, your assumption that the SC is certain to rule in favour of Tweed says a lot about how much doubt there seems to be even in the minds of you and your allies about the legitimacy of Tweed's case.

Whatever the Supreme Court finds, it's going to be wholly in the right and the entire process will have been completely legitimate.

[Insula Dei]

No, you're wrong.

Where do I go wrong?

So when exactly did Tweed 'infiltrate' the state apparatus? When he travelled back in time to force the Senate at gunpoint to appoint the current Supreme Court? Or when he forced the Constitution Assembly to include the provisions that are now under discussion? There's no coup here, just a legitimately installed branch of the Federal Government exercising the powers it has been granted by the Constitution. By the way, your assumption that the SC is certain to rule in favour of Tweed says a lot about how much doubt there seems to be even in the minds of you and your allies about the legitimacy of Tweed's case.

Whatever the Supreme Court finds, it's going to be wholly in the right and the entire process will have been completely legitimate.

Quite simply all the SC justices voted for Tweed in the most recent election; one would assume they would vote for the person they supported. If you disagree, see Bush v. Gore. Validity of the case aside, the Justices would lean towards Tweed, simply because they supported him in the election.

I find the suggestion of partisanship in the highest corridors of our judiciary branch in quite poor taste. If these three men are soh rabid, radical, undemocratic and utterly incompetent why did they all three manage to get trough a Senate filled with the very people who are now protesting against the very possibility of a possible landmark case getting a hearing before the court?

(Also, you may claim all you want about Bush vs. Gore, but I'm sure your more conservative inclined allies in this matter will not hesitate to point out to you how really the Supreme Court was all in the right on that one.)

[Insula Dei]

Glad to see there is at least someone who isn't doubting the court's integrity, aven if he's clearly wrong on what the court should decide. (They probably will disappoint us by not living up to the dramatic image some have painted of them, though If only our court was a highly partisan bulwark of Tweedism!)

[Insula Dei]

Am I hearing talk of sedition and high treason? From the very quartes who have rules Atlasia since time immemorial? Am I hearing them about removing the Supreme Court they have themselves installed because it might not do as they would have it? They need to have the certainty that all shall be done as they have convened among themselves. An alliance of Labor, Liberals and Whigs is not an alliance with any content beyond a clinging to power, beyond a struggle for the continuation of their own bland sort of consensus politics at all costs.

They may call me 'dangerous', but Alfred F. Jones and Simfan are quite ready to -and let me use a tired Bush-era cliché- abolish democracy to save it. The mere thought of the Court not doing as it 'reasonably' should, and of not reading the Constitution as a 'good (establishment) Atlasian' would- and keep in mind that this thought is based in mere suggestion, not in any tangible sort of fact- is enough to make them howl with anger and fear. That the court should not be the meek continuation of politics as usual by other means, not the arbiter of their little squabbles and disputes, but actually an institution as radical and as fierce as it ought to be in theory is to them beyond understanding. Only fear and disgust seem like appropiate reactions.

And of course it are our so-called social-democrats who sit by, and, since it is their parliamentary power  that's concerned here as well, nod and agree that it's all for the best and who wouldn't think of raising their voice to make clear that they would not be okay with a coup, with the burning of our institutions. Will they perhaps start to shuffle uncomfortably when the Supreme Court is castrated for all to see (, which at this point may be inevitable, even if it does the most likely thing and -for sheer fear of the pitch caps and burning irons being put on the table by our 'responsible parties' for all to see- rules in the DoFE's favour)? Will they say to themselves 'Gee, this is quite unfortunate' when the constitution is re-written so that 'nothing this annoying could ever happen again'? Will they just stand and watch as an innocent court case is made into a Reichstag Fire by the Liberals and Whigs and as all of us that have dared to have an other opinion on an interpretation of the constitution are made ino their vander Lubbes?

I'm looking at the Labor Party, and I have only one question: do you or do you not agree that a coup might be necessary to cling to the system that guarantees your power? Will you shed your masks and make clear whether you actually believe in a concept like 'judiciary review'? in the constitution?