In Bills' Small Print, Critics See a Threat to Immigration
A little-noticed provision in two key Senate immigration bills would reshape the handling of immigration appeals cases and has touched off an outcry from several legal scholars, federal judges and the policy-making group for the federal courts.
Sounds like enough people noticed it to matter.
The measure would designate the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit here, an administrative court that focuses primarily on patent cases and currently handles no immigration appeals, as the only court in the nation to handle immigration appeals. Such appeals are currently shared by the 12 other federal appellate courts.
The Bush Administration really does want to make the government completely impotent, doesn't it? I can't think of any other explanation for their consistent determination to do stupid things in ways that won't work.
(And not just our government. I could go Google for it, but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader. What is that word that means a government by corporations? It's a sort of Anarcho-capitalism, I guess.)
Posted by AnneZook at 09:48 AM
I hate to quibble, but from the very Wikipedia article you cite:
"One social structure that is not permissible under anarcho-capitalism is one that attempts to claim greater sovereignty than the individuals that form it. The state is a prime example, but another is the modern corporation — defined as a legal entity that exists under a different legal code than individuals as a means to shelter the individuals who own and run the corporation from possible legal consequences of acts by the corporation."
The potency of a government is closely tied to its funding. The Bush administration is clearly in favor of a potent federal government.
Feudalism: Government in which sovereignty is distributed broadly and all power relationships are negotiated and contingent rather than subject to an external legal system.
Bourgeois democracy under monopoly capital? I know, Marx is so passe.... doesn't mean he's wrong, you know.
I saw that, Walter, but I decided the label was reasonably accurate anyhow. The Bush Administration is fond of a "potent" government as long as they"re in power, but boiled down to the essence, their government is still about defense and protection of commerce and nothing else.
Ahistoricality filled in the gap in my brain. "Monopoly capitalism" is the phrase I was searching for yesterday.
And yet, Jonathan, now that you've suggested feudalism, it's sounding very plausible.
This is something which has been bugging me for a while. There's been a steady run of Supreme Court cases in the last few years which have pretty much obliterated the concept of individual rights on the job and created new rights for corporate entities (including things like gated communities).
Which, if we could get people to pay attention, Jonathan, would explain to people why they need to be a lot more careful about how they cast their votes.
(But every time I say that any more, I look Left and wince. Let's hope the world o'blog's faith in the ability of Progressives to become a real power turns out to be well-placed.)