What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
72 Comments
- zephc, on 06/15/2009, -20/+38"Judicial activism" is a crybaby term for judges not ruling exactly the way you want.
- inactive, on 06/15/2009, -12/+29I'll probably get buried for saying this - but fact is, our government doesn't have the right to rule on matters of a corporation. I think that both Bush and Obama have been wrong for trying to bail out failing corporations. Realistically, if this were any other mom-and-pop run company, they'd have to close their doors and file bankruptcy, especially if they were trying to exist in a free market economy. Why is it that we gave a failing business plan with poor investments billions upon billions of tax payer dollars, and then gave the President of the United States the ability to fire the CEO of that company?
Truth: Digg talks a lot about personal responsibility and individual rights - but most of you lack the testicular fortitude and conviction to step up and admit that Obama and the rest of our government don't have the right to fire CEO's and give billions of tax payer bailout money to a piece of ***** car manufacturer that has had plenty of opportunities to make profitable vehicles but refused to do so. Most of you that are unwilling to admit it are that way because you voted for the man. But let's be clear - what's at work here is socialism, which is ironic because much of Digg seems very focused on individual rights separate from the government.
Bury away, because I'm quite certain those of you who are doing so refuse to admit you were wrong. - WhiteRaven, on 06/14/2009, -12/+23No, wrong... but not in the way you sarcastically meant. The past decade... indeed the last 70 years or so, has shown us how much trouble excessive governmental oversight can cause. The claim that our troubles were caused by unregulated financial institutions is absurd. Our problems stem from the way endless mountains of regulation drive companies into corners where the only choices left open to them are bad.
The sub-prime bubble resulted directly from "fair lending" laws. When lenders are required to offer loans to people they don't think are good risks, they must devise ways of protecting themselves.
And besides, you just read the article wrong. If the court "stays away from this" then we are stuck with these insane bailouts. The government is involved, what court involvement could do is make them un-involved (not that that will happen). - GaltShrugged, on 06/15/2009, -10/+20Why do we need Judicial Activism? The government isn't allowed to do this period. End of story. And a judge should rule accordingly.
- Misinformant, on 06/15/2009, -5/+15"It amazes me how wrong people can be without the slightest bit of awareness of it."
So kinda like what you're doing right now? - Cocophone, on 06/15/2009, -5/+12George Will - hypocrite.
George Will went on TV as a independent pundit to give his opinion of the Reagan/Carter debate without disclosing that he was involved in prepping Reagan for the debate. What a fraud. - elendryst, on 06/15/2009, -5/+11Judicial Activism is a judge allowing their emotions, thoughts, and biases to affect their rulings, and not on the matter of facts at hand.
- GaltShrugged, on 06/15/2009, -0/+5It's not, so the judge should rule accordingly.
- Richandler, on 06/15/2009, -6/+11Peter Schiff says it right when the Chrysler deal is a disaster. It's a clear violation of the rule of law and the right to contract. It tells foreign investors that their money isn't safe here. By screwing over Chrysler's creditors in favor of the workers they send a message to all the risk takers out there that your money isn't safe and bankruptcy will not save you because the government will seize your property under your contracts and leave you dry. Talk about another step in the wrong direction to heal our economy.
These decisions were very short sighted and a clearly political favors, so that the votes are secured from the works for which ever side endorses these deals. The war on the rich is a war and entreprenuers and investors who take high risks with millions of dollars to see a business idea work. The fact that we are essentially telling these people, who have created the world we have today, to take a hike is a recipe for economic ruin. - govtdoesnotwork, on 06/15/2009, -9/+13A lot of this looks like a crooked payoff to unions or an equally crooked payoff to Wall Street fatcats. I'm not a fan of either, and as a fiscally responsible libertarian, I'm not holding my breath for a big payoff from other taxpayers, either. I wish I believed judges would help, but these same bailout politicians appoint the judges, so I don't.
- bmcnally, on 06/14/2009, -2/+6There's a difference between judicial activism and judicial review. Will kind of hints at that, but he doesn't seem to go out and explicitly say it.
- rizzo2008, on 06/15/2009, -1/+4How can it not be more clear...it says the right of the PEOPLE...(not the right of the MILITIA!!) to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Their definition of militia was much different than ours and was much broader and far reaching.
If you remember your basic US history you would remember that King George tried to disarm the colonists (sparking the Revolutionary War at a particular weapons cache in Lexington). The 2nd amendment was written to ensure this would never happen again.
It was designed to be a last ditch safeguard against unrestrained Federal power so the people could keep the same weapons in their home that they would use in a LOCAL militia (the national guard is NOT a militia contrary to popular belief and is very closely linked with the Army). Without this safeguard the government can disarm the people and make them dependents of the state. Notice also it comes right after the right to freedom is speech, assembly, religion, etc (maybe you cant have one without the other?). - Tenareth, on 06/15/2009, -0/+3No, it isn't legal to steal from secured debtors to give it away to random union workers. It isn't legal to do anything related to what they did with this. The Supreme court knows this, but they decided to step aside.
- charlietuna, on 06/15/2009, -3/+6Despite the GOP wailing that this is the end of the free market we all know that eventually these failing firms will be allowed to falter. The political reality is that we need to do this little dance for a year or three. There are a lot of hidden government subsidies for farmers, defense contractors, Fannie + Ginne Mae. I don't hear the GOP whining so much about all of those programs.
I hate it, but I'm not about to scream that th sky is falling. The reality is that firms that are uncompetitive should be allowed to go under. i would prefer US forms figure out how to develop the same reputation for quality that Toyota has, but it seems they would rather complain. - FLUX, on 06/15/2009, -0/+3rizzo2008 said it clearly and eloquently for me
your govt should fear you, you should not fear your govt
with no guns you will fear your govt it is that simple - Darkside2984, on 06/15/2009, -5/+8Judicial Activism is a breach of the powers that the Judicial branch has. They are to review legislation and executive actions in accordance with the Constitution. They are not to write laws, we have a large legislature to do that. They are not to enforce laws, we have an executive branch who does this. Of the 10% of cases in which they grant certiorari, they have enough on their plate. I for one do not elect Supreme Court judges and they should not and hopefully will not begin writing legislation on my behalf.
- inactive, on 06/15/2009, -0/+3"independent pundit"? No such animal.
- LordVance, on 06/15/2009, -2/+4Actually it's the result of several key factors and countless lesser factors.
- inactive, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2Oh that sounds clever. I'll digg it!
And what am I "wrong" about? I didn't even make a claim.. - rizzo2008, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2Sotomayor is a crook...you think she actually supports the little guy to? Oh I am white male I wouldn't understand
Forgot about her anti-second amendment views too (which proves she cannot uphold the constitution and her oath)
http://gunowners.org/a052909.htm - BrewmasterC, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2Terrible.. Both should went straight to Chapter 7, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction should have been held for the shares (Google did it, so the infrastructure is there http://money.cnn.com/2004/04/29/technology/googlea ... ), then a check should be cut to the creditors, and if anything is left a check to the shareholders.
- halfwayentropy, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2This is the same guy who wrote about the dangers of society's embracing of denim (about a month ago). Why do we care what this nut thinks?
- bobbknight, on 06/15/2009, -4/+6For the reason behind the present mortgage fiasco read "The Housing Boom and Bust" by Thomas Sowell
The Federal Government meddling in the mortgage market directly caused this current fiscal problem.
enantiodromia when has a poor man ever paid you to work for him?
My wife invited friends over for dinner the other night.
They are very liberal educator types.
They have a cute little girl named Suzy.
I asked Suzy what she wanted to do when she grew up.
She told me she wanted to be President of the United States.
Her parrents beamed with this statement.
I asked Suzy why se wanted to be President.
She told me that she wanted to give all the homeless homes and food.
Her parrants at this point had an almost reverant glow that I attribute to Suzy's statement.
I looked at Suzy and told her she did not have to wait until her grew up to help the homeless.
I told her that she could clean my garage, mow the lawn, and rake up all the dead leaves out back and I would give her $50.
I then told her that we would go to the strip mall where the homeless man stayed and that she could then give the money she earned to the homeless men.
Then she looked at me and asked why the homeless did not do that work thenselves.
I looked at her an said welcome to the Republican Party.
I haven't see her parents for some time now. - SOS84, on 06/15/2009, -5/+7Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas. A quartet of idiocy.
- LordRedSnake, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2They're not allowed to subvert bankruptcy law.
- subscriber, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2@WhiteRaven
I'm going to assume from the fact that your post is well written, properly punctuated and reasonable that you are well educated and intelligent. So I ask you - not trying to be snarky here -- please re-check some of the conclusions you've arrive at concerning the cause of the meltdown.
You said, "The claim that our troubles were caused by unregulated financial institutions is absurd." While I agree that the claim is by all means debatable, it is not absurd, and many respected economists agree that it may have played a role in the meltdown -- although I don't think any one of them would say it was the sole cause.
Also, you wrote, "The sub-prime bubble resulted directly from "fair lending" laws." Once again I would say that those laws contributed, but they were not the sole cause. The causes are many and will be debated for years.
You might enjoy Russ Roberts' "Econ Talk" podcast (he's more conservative than I am, but very knowledgeable, intelligent, and fair minded).
Your last statement: "The government is involved, what court involvement could do is make them un-involved ..." is true and a fair critique of the previous post. I won't argue with that. - Swift2, on 06/15/2009, -4/+6It's great. We got beaches, mountains, bikini babes, skiing and the movie industry. Oh, and a lot of gays, apparently. A great state.
- ManUnitdFan, on 06/15/2009, -3/+4Except most of what judges do is create laws. Here's what happens:
1. Legislature writes an incredibly vague law
2. Law is put into place and Person A is arrested based on law
3. Person A sues because he/she feels law was enforced inappropriately
4. Judge must rule as to whether or not law should be enforced, thus filling in the blanks in the vague law
This happens a billion times a year. I know it's great to say that "judges shouldn't be making laws," but half the time judges don't have a choice. They have to, essentially, rewrite the law to make it more explicit as to what is enforceable by it. - rizzo2008, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2Judicial activism is using your own experiences, prejudices, bias, emotions, etc to dictate your decision instead of the LAW and more importantly the CONSTITUTION which dictates what laws can and cannot exist.
- inactive, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2Why am I getting dugg down? Are you trying to say judicial activism doesn't exist (as zephc implies) or that it is a good thing (which it definitely is not)? Or was it my mention of "abuse of executive power" a red flag that I must be a bush crony and need to be buried? I'm honestly wondering.
- Swift2, on 06/15/2009, -3/+4And God Knows, all conservative justices rule like the robot vampires they are.
It's clear that Old Lady Will gets all prissy about the Evil Obama when it has to do with what he doesn't want. On the other hand, he never peeps about the massive crimes of the Bush administration. - quarando, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2This argument is just plain idiotic. I am sure the financial institutions would never have made poor choices without the government pushing them to do so. The real problem is quite obvious to anyone that doesn't view economics as religion. The problem is that the financial institutions own the government. The government didn't push them to do anything, they twisted the government until they could do whatever they wanted and then they borrowed and printed a ton of public money to gamble with and they lost it all.
And actually the economic history of the last 70 years tells a very different story than you suggest. From the 1950s through the mid 1970s was the biggest economic boom in the country's history. It happened to coincide with some of the most significant government regulations and the highest tax rates in the country's history as well. Of course, now that neoliberal economic policies are the big fad, there is no shortage of economic "historians" to go back and rewrite and reinterpret everything to fit the prevailing ideology. - inactive, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2Is that the PeeWee Herman defense? "I know you are but what am I?"
- ManUnitdFan, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1No, they can't just do that. That's great if you think the job of a judge is that simple, but that's not how it works in the real world, and I'm sure any judge in the US would tell you that.
- enantiodromia, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1@Arkons24,
it amuses me that while you attempt to argue the "less regulation" theory, you say:
"What happened with CDO is that many many people put a lot of faith into them because they believed the housing market (which the CDO is tied to btw, in case you weren't aware) to be in an infinite uptrend."
you point out the very problem with the "less regulation" theory, that "people put a lot of faith that X would be an infinite uptrend".
please cite any "infinite uptrend" in the history of modern economics. i'll wait.
didn't find any?
neither can anyone else. that being the case, if an entire core industries are betting on this to be true, which it will never be, and these industries are directly tied to the lives of the majority of Americans, either through their home loans, their insurance coverage and rates, or their jobs, don't you think someone should step in and, what's the word I'm looking for? regulate?
our financial institutions, insurance companies, and loaners had every opportunity to "regulate themselves", but chose not to. they were not forced into making terrible decisions in the name of greed and profits by the government, as you and so many others would like to believe. that is a complete cop-out spread by those who are angry the music stopped, and they were left without a chair.
i would recommend a book to you (ISBN-10: 0140278796), but i assume you have already made up your mind (or had your mind made up for you) on the matter, and it would just be a wast of my keystrokes. - elendryst, on 06/15/2009, -3/+4Actually, its the result of the Community Reinvestment Act of Jimmy Carter's administration.
- inactive, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1This is the problem with America. People exactly like you.
If I'm not agreeing with your ideals, I must belong to the farthest, most right-wing renegade group in our political system. I must watch Fox News and read conservative manifesto's.
Or, I could just be thinking for myself, reading the Constitution - and drawing my own conclusions. Nobody has yet been able to justify to me how either President (Bush or Obama) could make a case for bailing out failing car companies. Nobody has also been able to show me how, legally, a President could remove the CEO of a corporation.
I don't think change is bad. In fact, I'm advocating for change. What is the change I want? Smaller government, minimal market involvement, a huge chunk of our spending cut - you name it.
Stop directing your anger for everyone who disagrees with you to me. If you didn't like what I said - pick up a book, do some critical thinking based on assimilation of facts, and then draw a conclusion. Come back and we'll have a debate. Until then, all this "truth" that you're referring to is coming from similar outlets (just different sides of the fence) of the same people you seem to have such animosity to. - Arkons24, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1"...and the "sub-prime bubble" is a direct result of Wendy Graham's (Reagan's "Favorite Economist") creation of the collateralized debt obligation market, and her insistence that it not need regulation because "industry will regulate itself", which of course it did not."
You don't even know what a CDO is much less what its role in the sub-prime bubble was. What happened with CDO is that many many people put a lot of faith into them because they believed the housing market (which the CDO is tied to btw, in case you weren't aware) to be in an infinite uptrend. Why did they believe that the housing market was in an infinite uptrend? It wasn't that poor people were "allowed" to get loans it is that the government was making it significantly easier for banks to lend to everyone. Specifically the government was subsidizing the financial industry by reducing the risks to banks that lent to sub-prime borrowers.
Hmmm ... let's think about this for a minute. I get to loan to less affluent individuals at any rate I choose and the government is going to bail me out if for any reason they default on those mortgages ... How do you think the banks responded to this?
Imagine that someone told you that you could go to a casino and that they would let you gamble with their money and that you'd never have to pay back any of the money you lost? That's how the banks responded -- exactly as anyone with a eye for history or economics would have predicted them to. They drained the government for as much money as possible while exploiting it to its greatest possible potential with absolutely 0 care about the fallout because the government agreed to pick up the tab. How does regulation of the CDO market fix that? - Kosh, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2@ SOS and Swift: I'm sorry, I didn't see where elendryst introduced partisan politics into any of this. If you don't like his point then disagree with it, but don't assume he's a conservative and straw-man him to death.
- inactive, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2@ swift2: You also have no money.
- enantiodromia, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1*yawn*
the same tired fake story trotted out for yet another avoidance of actual conversation, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised, considering it seems those who share your ideas tend to have no more than a 6th grade reading comprehension. perhaps it is best for you that someone else wrote that little ditty years ago in an effort to dumb down what they thought the core Republican ideals to be. - bobbknight, on 06/15/2009, -5/+6Like removing the right to own a firearm.
- Arkons24, on 06/17/2009, -0/+1Hurf, durf ... it amuses me that it amuses you o.0
You're missing my point. Regulation is needed for a free market to survive it creates a framework for economic forces. Government is in essence a regulation of our natural instincts to fight, kill and steal from one another. The problem is that the market needs to be handled with velvet gloves and the government has little restraint. The government didn't force financial institutions and others to behave badly, but through their intervention they created the economic forces that encouraged them to do so.
Similarly, is how the trade deficit with China encouraged the Central bank of China to buy US debt which, in conjunction with 9/11, encouraged Alan Greenspan to keep interest rates extremely low. In addition to this, legislation was passed that gave encouragement to banks to lend to individuals with sub-prime credit which, combined with the Fannie Mae accounting debacle and the low interest rates made sub-prime lending extremely, ridiculously profitable for the banks. If the government stepped in the CDO market and created regulation then the banks would have just created a new OTC market that the government didn't understand and the government would have possibly caused other new problems it couldn't forsee in the process.
Direct regulatory agencies have proven themselves to be very ineffective, especially in the financial industry. They buffed up regulation in the 80's during the savings and loan crisis didn't they? Wow worked really well at stopping the next 2 messes and the coming 3rd one eh? The moral of the story here is that the market just works much much faster than the government, with all its red tape, can possibly hope to keep up with. The regulation during S&L was ineffective within a matter of years and yet as we put more reliance on these regulations, the less vigilant we were about using traditional market forces like shorting a bank's stock or causing a shareholder mutiny in order to balance the system.
If you want effective change in the markets without getting rid of the Fed then here's my suggestion. Focus on increased transparency and a movement towards integrated, digital market exchanges for any product traded by bank. In other words, if banks buy it then the public should be able to buy it as well. Through transparency get rid of dark pooling and other similar abuses that work to hide the actions of big players in the markets. Everyone should be able to see clearly what the big boys are doing with basic market software and this will take away much of the market maker's ridiculous advantage in every single exchange out there.
Any direct interventionist type policies will probably end up either ineffective or in tears, possibly both. Can you suggest any policy that you think would work? - mikesoba, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2The fair lending laws did not require banks or other lending institutions to make bad business decisions. Those decisions were completely within the control of the banks and lenders. This is an argument without substance--the right should try sticking to the facts instead of fabricating this nonsense.
- rizzo2008, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1@RainyDayNinja
The 10th amendment was originally designed to preserve states' rights and was interpreted as such in court cases in early America. It however has been perverted by many to give the Federal government carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want which is NOT what it means. - regeya, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1I'm with you! We totally need less regulation, so we can experience for ourselves the joys of unregulated industry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
It's just terrible that governments introduced inefficiency force Union Carbide to use more expensive methods to prevent killing people again in Bhopal. Just. Terrible. After all, if those people knew there was a problem, they could have simply moved away. - inactive, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1Since I don't represent anybody but myself - I'm confused as to whom you're referring to when you say "y'all". Again, you seem to think that because I come to my own conclusions - that I must be listening to Fox News (as you so eloquently implied). To be clear, I pegged your assumptions of my opinions correctly.
Now, because Obama didn't pick up the phone and say, "Look. You're fired. Pack your stuff, and leave the office" doesn't mean he didn't indirectly fire him. Telling the owners of a company that they cannot receive bailout money unless that CEO steps down then becomes an issue for the board members and current investors - who would DEMAND his resignation to keep their golden cash cow. Any corporation in the world would do it. Why? Because, when you're talking about billions of billions of dollars, no company is going to uphold the integrity of the CEO before turning a profit.
Obama knew this - which is why he did it. So yes, in essence, he did fire him. If it makes you feel better to say, "He didn't technically fire him - but he took steps to get rid of him," then fine. He didn't write a strongly worded letter or tell him that's what he thinks he should do. He flashed a wad of cash in their face and put down stipulations before they could receive that much needed handout.
Government meddling and controlling affairs of privately owned companies? We call that the beginning stages of socialism.
There's absolutely no reason for you to be rude or brash. You took something I said and made a bunch of wild assumptions, then got upset when I called you on it. Try and be a bit more open minded. You'll get a lot farther with people intellectually. You don't seem like a stupid person - so don't act like one. - akchrs, on 06/15/2009, -8/+8Try living in a state under the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
- rizzo2008, on 06/15/2009, -1/+1It is actually quite simple...all they must do is say if the law is authorized or prohibited in the constitution.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is