>>>>...is already dismantled. I don't see it having too many teeth left.
>>>
>>>I'm curious as to how you've reached that conclusion. It seems to be working just fine to me.
>>
>>"Seems" is the keyword.
>
>Well, then, back up what you're claiming. Prove me wrong. Arguing semantics is carrying water in a perforated bucket.

Ok... it's Fryday, let's fry something.

- Supreme Court getting involved into elections in a state, which is AFAIK, a strictly state matter; feds have no jurisdiction. How was this countered? No way.

- Signing statements. What has Congress done to assert its authority as the legislative body? Here we have a President who assumes the right to change the laws and the right to enforce them selectively. How was this checked?

- The 911 commision had a very limited mandate

- several other commisions weren't even formed (regarding Plamegate, Downing Street minutes)

- Ethical committee rules were changed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37521-2004Dec30.html (didn't load here, but you can try)

- Other rules being changed to accomodate more corporate influence:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/19/federal_judges_new_ethics_guidelines_criticized_as_more_lax/

- the President was caught lying several times and still isn't called in front of any commission. Remember what Clinton's impeachment was about?

- the President engages in outright illegal domestic spying program, bypasses the FISA court for more than a year, publicly states his intent to continue. Congress doesn't even try to hold him responsible, they try to find a way to make it legal retroactively. Just this:
We should be terrified that Congress has not been doing its job and because all of the checks and balances put in place to prevent this have been deliberately obviated. In order to get this done, the NSA and White House went around all of the checks and balances.
from http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/05/15/aid_interview/?source=whitelist

Enough?

>>Did I say that? It's a known fact that islamic tradition puts the judiciary in the hands of priests. I keep saying that they are handed a "they do it too" argument to silence the dissenters.
>
>Those among them who would want Sharia out of their hair can be easily quashed by the fundamentalists who'd just have to say "look how Christian priests make laws in USA".
>
>And I'm saying that (a) they don't need the argument, (b) they wouldn't use it to begin with, and further, (c) in the Shia faith, the imams are held as descendants of Mohammed, and have the right to make the decisions.
>
>Ergo, the argument is invalid.

(a) you can't know that, you aren't there. I was in a situation when I had to defend the West, and I know how it is when they give you hard time.
(b) I did.
(c) inside the faith, yes - it's a matter of how much this faith is allowed into politics. We're talking about the people who'd want a separation of church and state, not those who believe that's the same. And these in favor of separation aren't helped by the attitudes of the US govt.

Ergo, your assumptions are just assumptions. We don't know what's going on there - but it's more reasonable to assume that some opposition to fundamentalists exists. Or else they wouldn't need to kill anyone, if everyone was on their side.