US Presidential Elections 3

[Trenitay]

As it happens Obama has made some assertions on the role of the judiciary in his speeches and books that should scare the living hell out of any semi-intelligent freedom loving American.

 

Well now, thats not very nice. I think you're calling me unamerican and stupid.

[Aristes]

I think we should just cite exactly what Obama said and then discuss the specifics.

 

However, while he might be a bit over the top, it's simply a bit of a stretch to take Guard Dog's comment personally, Awesomeness. The only personal insults flying around are between Krezack and Wrath and then between GD and Krezack. If we start putting the more or less general comments into the mix and feigning individual hurt over them, we're going to shut down the conversation. Even the comments between these three gents aren't exactly top of the line hate crimes. I took Walsingham' comments as an attempt to head things off at the pass rather than commenting on the state of the flame war.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Aristes

[Trenitay]

I didnt take it too personally. I just think that there are many people out there that are pretty intelligent and american. And just because they dont have the same beliefs doesnt mean you call them stupid. I dont think McCain and his McCainiacs could have gotten us out of this. But that doesnt mean i disagree on everything. And it doesnt mean evryone in the country who disagrees is not semi-intelligent.

[Walsingham]

I may be over-tired, but a thought occurs:

 

If the President is the um... dammit. The thingy which the Queen is in a monarchy. Then the president is not just an expression of America. Their job is to embody, and to shape what it means to be an American.

 

If that is true then it must be quite hard for a president to be unAmerican.

 

Or i could be sleep deprived from drinking too much homebrew.

[Humodour]

Dear god you're an uninformed hack.

 

Said the teenager from Australia.

 

I think you'll find I'm not a teenager, mate. It's interesting that you imply youth have inferior political insight, though.

 

God how I love it when kids from other countries tell me what America and it's political process is like.

 

Protip: 'other countries' are also electoral democracies with right-wing and left-wing parties as well as everything in-between. You can sit there feeling somehow unique if you like, but politics (and all its foibles) transcends cultural and geographic boundaries.

 

As it happens Obama has made some assertions on the role of the judiciary in his speeches and books that should scare the living hell out of any semi-intelligent freedom loving American.

 

Oh, he has? Well, clearly you've read something I haven't, so feel free to share your sources.

 

A Harvard Law School graduate, Obama taught for 12 years at the University of Chicago and led classes on voting rights and equal protection of the law. In the Detroit interview, he praised Justices Breyer and David H. Souter, a Republican appointee, as "very sensible judges. They take a look at the facts and they try to figure out: How does the Constitution apply to these facts? They believe in fidelity to the text of the Constitution, but they also think you have to look at what is going on around you and not just ignore real life.

 

"That's the kind of justice that I'm looking for," he went on. "Somebody who respects the law, doesn't think that they should be making the law, but also has a sense of what's happening in the real world and recognizes that one of the roles of the courts is to protect people who don't have a voice."

 

He added that the "special role" of the court is to protect "the vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea."

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wa...0,7595409.story

 

I bet Barack Obama is lying and it's really a trick so Americans would elect him and he could appoint radical liberal judges. Just like his cabinet will be full of radical liberals, and his vice-president is a radical liberal.

 

And after all, we all know that liberalism and egalitarianism are un-American!

[Guard Dog]

I think you'll find I'm not a teenager, mate. It's interesting that you imply youth have inferior political insight, though.

 

Close enough. I got into politics when I was 24, ran for office when I was 27, and got out all together at 29. I'm 37 now and I can tell you for a fact I know a heck of a lot more about it now than I did at 20. And based on some of the nonsense I've seen posted by the younger board members here and elsewhere I feel very comfortable asserting that there is a strong coorelation between youth and inferior understanding of politics and the world in general. If you come back here and read your posts a few years from now I think you will agree.

 

As it happens Obama has made some assertions on the role of the judiciary in his speeches and books that should scare the living hell out of any semi-intelligent freedom loving American.

 

Oh, he has? Well, clearly you've read something I haven't, so feel free to share your sources.

 

A Harvard Law School graduate, Obama taught for 12 years at the University of Chicago and led classes on voting rights and equal protection of the law. In the Detroit interview, he praised Justices Breyer and David H. Souter, a Republican appointee, as "very sensible judges. They take a look at the facts and they try to figure out: How does the Constitution apply to these facts? They believe in fidelity to the text of the Constitution, but they also think you have to look at what is going on around you and not just ignore real life.

 

"That's the kind of justice that I'm looking for," he went on. "Somebody who respects the law, doesn't think that they should be making the law, but also has a sense of what's happening in the real world and recognizes that one of the roles of the courts is to protect people who don't have a voice."

 

He added that the "special role" of the court is to protect "the vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea."

 

Well you just served up a nice softball to me right there. Obama says the "special role of the court is to protect the vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea." B.S. The role of the court is to apply the law AS IT IS WRITTEN! Equal protection under the law means the court is to protect the party with the strongest legal standing on any issue. If that party is a minority, an outcast, vulnerable, or unpopular then so much the better. But the court had best be prepared to rule against such with equal fervor is the majority, invulnerable or whatever have the stronger legal standing. The purpose of the court is to interperet and apply the law without passion or prejudice. It is not some social instument to take from the rich and give to the poor. Obama seems to think it is. Take a look at this little nugget: http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/33740129.html.

 

Obama's statement in that article: The court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society. ... THAT statement should scare any American, even Awesomness (who needs to 1. READ the post before commenting on it, 2. Grow a thicker skin). Redistribution of wealth (a decidedly un-American concept itself) is the job of the Congress. But Obama can easily place justices who via judicial fiat can take that responsibility on themselves. What is the difference? Congress is elected by the PEOPLE! It is accountable to the PEOPLE! And if they harm the country in their attempts at social engineering we can vote them out of office. Federal judges are elected by NOBODY. Thay are appointed for life and are accountable to NOBODY. And their power is growing as juducial activisim and "progressive" judges are becoming the norm. Here is an excellent book that every American here should read: The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom . Even the liberal statist lawyer of the board, Enoch, would voice concern of the current trend if he could just step back and look at the big picture. What should scare everyone is that as the power of the federal courts grow America is becoming more of an Oligarchy than a Republic. And Obama and his ilk are all for it because the first step in turning the country into something that would make the founding fathers recoil in horror is to eliminate the ability of those who oppose it to do anything about it. Especially if those who oppose you can easily make a voting majority.

 

Obama seems to think Stephen Breyer and David Souter are ideal justices huh? Well, lets look at that. As we covered before the role of the judiciary is to enforce and apply the law AS IT IS WRITTEN. It is NOT their job to MAKE law. In case reading the seven paragraphs in Artice 1 and Article 2 of the US Constitution makes your head hurt here is is right from their own website in plain english: http://www.uscourts.gov/about.html. It seems Breyer holds that view in pretty high disdain :http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cur...l-Activism.html. Scared yet? No? Try this one then, Justice Breyer also believes is is meet and proper for the US Supreme Court to consider the precedents of foreign courts when ruling on matters of US law: http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/new_...ity_lecture.pdf and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506232/. Remember, we are stuck with this guy until he dies or retires.

 

Souter (yes he was a Republican appointment) is another liberal that should scare you. Kelo v New London he (along with the other "liberals") asserted that the government has the right to seize your home and sell it to someone else if they choose to do so. How about Washington v. Glucksberg? He seemed to think it was just fine for doctors to assist in the suicide of a metnally ill patients (not simple euthanasia in which case I would be in agreement) and he also has asserted the court is more competent to deal with emerging issues than the legislature (you know, those people we actually get to VOTE for). Souter is a quiet unassuming type but his decision process is invariably statist over individual liberty (with Planned Parenthood v Casey being the only exception I could find*). How about those liberal judges huh? In closing let me put out one more for you to consider. "The Consitution does not guarantee an absolute right to anything" . Justice John Paul Stevens, the biggest liberal of them all. How do you feel about freedom of speech, property, voting, whatever now? Obama will give us a double seving of that, he has straight out said so. Scared yet? You should be.**

 

My sources for above info:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110006984

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/o...sidents-choice/

http://www.answers.com/topic/judicial-activism

http://www.answers.com/topic/david-hackett-souterhttp://www.answers.com/topic/washington-v-glucksberg-1

http://www.answers.com/topic/kelo-v-city-of-new-london

 

 

* That one was for you Enoch. I figured you would point that one out.

** Krezack it's ok for you to not be afraid. You are safe in Austrailia from any bad laws these clowns make. We are not. Keep that in mind next time you feel like speculating on why I vote the way I do.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Guard Dog

[Hell Kitty]

^ So do you expect to know twice as much as you do now in another 17 years, or at the ripe old age of 37 do you know everything about everything and the beliefs you have now are the correct ones and won't change for the rest of your life? If you see the nonsense a 20 year old posts as proof there is a "strong correlation between youth and inferior understanding of politics and the world in general", does a 20 year old seeing your posts as nonsense prove the opposite is true?

 

All this age stuff is rather silly. One is just as likely to be bitter and twisted as they are to wise and experienced.

[Guard Dog]

One is just as likely to be bitter and twisted as they are to wise and experienced.

 

Do you presume the two to be mutually exclusive?

 

Consider that subject dropped for my part.

[Hurlshort]

I think the wisdom people gain as they age is often cancelled out by the inability to adapt to change. That's why civil rights movements have to wait for older generations to die off to make progress.

 

edit: after re-reading, I basically said the same thing that Hell Kitty did, sorry

Edited November 30, 2008 by Hurlshot

[Wrath of Dagon]

Great post, Guard Dog. I'm glad you posted first, I was going to post pretty much the same response but would've been too lazy to look up the sources. Another justice of the ilk of Bryer or Souter would be a complete disaster. At least right now Kennedy, who's half way reasonable, holds the balance of power.

[Guard Dog]

Great post, Guard Dog. I'm glad you posted first, I was going to post pretty much the same response but would've been too lazy to look up the sources. Another justice of the ilk of Bryer or Souter would be a complete disaster. At least right now Kennedy, who's half way reasonable, holds the balance of power.

 

Fortunately the three most likely vacancies between now and 2012 will be Stevens (who is 85 may drop dead at any minute) Ginsburg (who has been battling kidney disease) and Souter (who is apparently planning to retire to his home in NH and spend his time writing and teaching). If any or all three were to vacate anyone Obama picks would be no worse. If Obama wins a second term then all bets are off. Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are all over 70.

[Gorgon]

Why are progressive supreme court judges automatically bad. I mean I remember a little thing called segregation, Jim Crow etc.

 

I can only surmise that in the same breath you are against forays into undermining Roe vs Wade.

[Aristes]

One of the great things about the internet is that your message is more important than your age. However, I don't trust most late teenage folks to make good decisions. The beauty of the internet is that my prejudice is moot since I don't know most folks age. This is especially true when I would have to look up their age. I'm not sure how old Krezak is and I'll probably have forgotten that he's younger by tomorrow. There are some real problems with getting older. I just can't remember them.

[Humodour]

Well you just served up a nice softball to me right there. Obama says the "special role of the court is to protect the vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea." B.S. The role of the court is to apply the law AS IT IS WRITTEN! Equal protection under the law means the court is to protect the party with the strongest legal standing on any issue. If that party is a minority, an outcast, vulnerable, or unpopular then so much the better. But the court had best be prepared to rule against such with equal fervor is the majority, invulnerable or whatever have the stronger legal standing. The purpose of the court is to interperet and apply the law without passion or prejudice. It is not some social instument to take from the rich and give to the poor. Obama seems to think it is. Take a look at this little nugget: http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/33740129.html.

 

Actually, you seem to have Obama's opinion on the issue rather backwards. He is generally against using the law for redistributive change or judicial activism such as equality of human rights, unless social force is also behind such a change.

 

If you think that's wrong, than I really don't mind. Universal enforcement of human rights (e.g. universal suffrage) isn't an issue that I care to debate with you on.

 

Obama's statement in that article: The court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society. ... THAT statement should scare any American, even Awesomness (who needs to 1. READ the post before commenting on it, 2. Grow a thicker skin).

 

Um, did you even bother to read the radio interview transcript you are quoting? If you did, you'd realise how uninformed you are sounding: http://mediamatters.org/items/200810280021

 

Here's a hint: Obama was being rather critical of using courts for judicial activism and redistributive change.

 

Redistribution of wealth (a decidedly un-American concept itself)

 

Redistribution of wealth is actually a fairly American (and in general, Western) concept. Stop lying.

 

Healthcare, progressive income tax, elderly pensions, war veteran allowances, taxes for roads/education/hospitals/medical research, public housing for the poor, etc. These are all redistributive policies.

 

Now, I know you being a Libertarian and all think those things are somehow evil, but please recognise that your views are not held by the vast majority of the American electorate.

 

But Obama can easily place justices who via judicial fiat can take that responsibility on themselves.

 

Yeah, and so could have McCain.

 

Krezack it's ok for you to not be afraid. You are safe in Austrailia from any bad laws these clowns make. We are not.

 

I actually do think a fair bit about what would be best not just for long-term civil rights and justice, but for day-to-day American citizens who have to actually wear whoever is elected.

 

That's why I support Obama.

 

Keep that in mind next time you feel like speculating on why I vote the way I do.

 

Don't worry, I'm not speculating about why a staunch Libertarian didn't vote for Obama (I'd say it's obvious, but interestingly a lot of Libertarians did vote for Obama), merely responding to the overly-dramatised claims you guys have made.

[Humodour]

Great post, Guard Dog. I'm glad you posted first, I was going to post pretty much the same response but would've been too lazy to look up the sources. Another justice of the ilk of Bryer or Souter would be a complete disaster. At least right now Kennedy, who's half way reasonable, holds the balance of power.

 

Fortunately the three most likely vacancies between now and 2012 will be Stevens (who is 85 may drop dead at any minute) Ginsburg (who has been battling kidney disease) and Souter (who is apparently planning to retire to his home in NH and spend his time writing and teaching). If any or all three were to vacate anyone Obama picks would be no worse.

 

No worse than 3 centrist judges? Really?

 

I would have imagined you'd find 3 liberal judges to be 'worse', but who am I to speculate about the inner workings of your mind.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Middle East Peace Deal.

[Meshugger]

Middle East Peace Deal.

 

:D

[taks]

not that i otherwise care about a republican winning a seat in the senate, but chambliss did just prevent a democratic supermajority, which i do care about. 60-40 with 70% reporting. i thought it was closer than that in the first election. guess i wasn't watching closely enough.

 

taks

[Humodour]

He didn't really. Cloture doesn't require a Democrat supermajority; it requires a Senate supermajority.

 

John McCain has already said he'll vote with the Democrats on a bunch of things like corruption reform, immigration reform, and from memory healthcare reform. Obviously he'll also have significant input into shaping these policies (relative to the fact he's just one senator), but it just goes to show that 60 Senate seats isn't as hard as some people think.

 

The far more interesting race is Franken vs whatshisface. That's pretty much a dead tie right now (due to so many frivolously challenged ballots).

[Aristes]

Franken is one of the few candidates I actually detest. If Coleman loses, it will probably be due to the bailout package he supported in opposition to his constituents. Franken declared he would have voted against it. Hey, that's no big deal. Politics is politics. My disgust for Franken stems by and large from reading his book and interviews I've seen/read.

[taks]

John McCain has already said he'll vote with the Democrats on a bunch of things like corruption reform, immigration reform, and from memory healthcare reform.

that's what he said while he was running. now that it's this close, pressure will be on to conform to his party. either way, "corruption reform" is immaterial, immigration reform won't go over with voters, and, as the dems learned in '94, healthcare reform may be a priority, but not if it requires tax increases.

 

they're all drinking the socialist kool-aide in one form or another, IMO. i just don't want it to go overboard near term. i'm more concerned with the unconstitutional "fairness doctrine," union check card nonsense (or whatever they call it), and obama's absolutely unconstitutional desire to make it the US mission to wipe out poverty abroad. neither he, nor congress, have the right to give taxpayer money away as blatantly as he wants to do it. given obama's largely clinton-based appointees, i wouldn't be surprised if he ends up another poll-driven president anyway, which means he won't be able to chase after his otherwise socialist dreams.

 

franken, btw, is about as full of hate as is possible. i can't imagine how much of a dolt coleman must have been to allow someone like franken to tie an incumbent.

 

taks

Edited December 3, 2008 by taks

[Meshugger]

Who is this "Al Franken" that you guys are rambling about? Do not give wiki-links, rather describe in your own words what his policies and opinions are about.

[Calax]

Who is this "Al Franken" that you guys are rambling about? Do not give wiki-links, rather describe in your own words what his policies and opinions are about.

About the only thing that's notable to the rest of the world is that he's a former comedian who turned politician and led a particularly brutal fight to the finish for the senate seat in Minnesota.

 

he was seperated from the incumbant by less than half a percent and he supports universal healthcare, and is anti Iraq (didn't support the surge, and is trying to withdraw from iraq quickly)

[Humodour]

John McCain has already said he'll vote with the Democrats on a bunch of things like corruption reform, immigration reform, and from memory healthcare reform.

that's what he said while he was running. now that it's this close, pressure will be on to conform to his party. either way, "corruption reform" is immaterial, immigration reform won't go over with voters, and, as the dems learned in '94, healthcare reform may be a priority, but not if it requires tax increases.

 

Nah, McCain met Obama after the election and talked to him about what he would work with the Democrats on.

 

Meshugger: Franken's a Democrat many Republicans dislike because he's conspicuously left-wing rather than centrist. I'm fairly neutral on him. I don't like Norm Coleman though. He wants to make it so all US states ban gay marriage at a federal level.

[Meshugger]

Errr...There must be something more. Supporting universal healthcare and being against the Iraqi war isn't exactly something outlandish for the democratic platform.

 

You said that he was a former comedian, did he pull one d*ckjoke too many for the social conservatives?