allegra/eosp1/robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (03/14/84)
Sorry TC Wheeler, you are entirely incorrect. The supremen court did rule in the Grove college case, but they ruled only because Reagan government appealed to the supreme court and argued for a weakening of the law. The key thing here is the government's decision to prosecute. No government attacks every single law that happens to be a little bit badly written; the govenment argues a case all the way to the supreme court when it feels strongly about its case. I want a government that would go to congress to ask for laws strengthening the equal rights of women to college budget dollars; not a government that would go to the supreme court to to weaken them. - Toby Robison allegra!eosp1!robison decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison princeton!eosp1!robison
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (03/14/84)
Line eater line... Perhaps this discussion should continue in net.politics. However. What I read from T. R. s response is that it is all right for Congress to write lousy laws, but it is not right for the Administrative Branch to challange those laws. I hope that is not what you are trying to say. The only effective way to arrive at strong legislation is to challange the garbage that comes out of Congress, no matter what the motive of the challenger might be. You see, if the challange succeeds, then Congress has the opportunity to strengthen and rewrite the challanged portions or the whole thing. BTW, it was the college that started the challange right after the law became effective. The Administraton did not get into the act until it reached the S.C. Perhaps what some people see as a disaster to funding and equal rights for women, could well be a blessing. Now the opportunity presents itself for writting strong legislation that can stand up to a challange. The positive approach would be to organize, buttonhole, and make a committment to see that such a thing is done. Don't leave it to the next person. As I said before, blaming Reagan for something that was a result of Congress's bungling, is just like blaming the rain on the weather- man. Perhaps the Administration saw a chance to strengthen a bad law (although I doubt it), but it is the Attorney General's job to present challanges to the court. It is done all the time. it is my opinion that, even without the Administrations help, the law would have been struck down (or at least the offending portions as challanged by Grove). Just remember, party loyalty, politics, and government are three different things. If you do not like Reagan, say so and why. But you had better be right when you mix the three areas together. Just to say, I don't like Reagan because he fights against the laws Congress writes, is begging the question. You and I both know that what you mean is that you don't like him because he represents the party in power and not the one you would rather have. Just say it. Say you don't like his policies, but don't attribute to him those things for which he had nothing to do. Enough of this. I know I cannot change your mind and you can not change mine. I am not trying to be rude or offensive, I am just trying to put a lid on all of the people who blame everything on Reagan without first trying to determine what the flap is all about. I do not agree with everything he does, but I at least try to find out why something was done. I could go into great detail about the DOD budget, funding for various programs, and Lebenon, but I won't bore folks anymore. T. C. Wheeler