Voting "No" on Fairness

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, June 29. 2007

It may not mean much more than an expression of sentiment, but Pence's amendment to forbid the FCC from resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine�saw a lot of support in the House.�

Naming�that thing�"Fairness" was a slick piece of double-speak, wasn't it? It put people in the position of voting against fairness. On the other hand, I thought most people in Western Civilization�grew past the "No fair!" schoolyard complaint around age 10. Maybe 11.

Posted by Bird Dog in Politics at 15:38 | Comments (6) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

There exists a huge element in our society and government that believe that governments primary purpose is the redistribution of wealth.

Another tangent. We have three co-equal branches of government correct? Then how can the Supreme Court, utilizing judicial review, rule laws passed by another branch, Congress and signed intolaw by the Executive Branch?

Wikipedia is a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

#1 Habu on 2007-06-29 19:56 (Reply)

...Supreme Court rule them unconstitutional?

#2 Habu duh on 2007-06-29 19:58 (Reply)

Habu, it's a long and complicated story - maybe a whole course in itself.

As to the Fairness Doctrine - always get nervous whenever something has an unquestionably good name like that. Whatever the Peace and Justice Act of 2009 is, I'll bet it's provocative and unjust. The Poor Children's Food Act of 2011 will ultimately make food less affordable. You get the idea.

#3 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2007-06-30 00:20 (Reply)

A Reader has known Habu since forever.

Habu understands having taken graduate level Constitutional Law courses and receiving A's in both.

But thank you for telling A Reader how complex it all is, now I can just get it out of my silly old mind and we can all go back to the mall.

We do after all live in a bumper sticker world and once you've said:

Marbury v. Madison
5 U.S. 137; 1 Cranch 137; 2 L. Ed. 60; 1803 U.S

You've said it all. Yeah right.

#3.1 A Reader on 2007-06-30 01:07 (Reply)

That's quite enough A Reader. Just put the mouse aside and back slowly away.

Your tongue is your sword and it has no rust on it but we are centrists and your vituperative type is upsetting so you should type with more care in the future.

But for now, take a time out.

#3.1.1 The Centrist on 2007-06-30 01:50 (Reply)

Thanks, A Reader - I thought it was a rather large topic to introduce as a tangent, but that explains it to me. Habu was not asking for explanation, but enticing us to get educated.

#4 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2007-06-30 11:09 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, June 29. 2007

Voting "No" on Fairness