Something to consider before voting for John McCain

One thing I have yet to hear discussed in this election is what will happen to the Supreme Court with the next president, and it's not a topic to be taken lightly when choosing who you're going to vote for this November. Remember that the president appoints the justices and that might be a problem for those of us who like the checks and balances that our constitution details.

I know that the judges are appointed for life but two of them are about as old as dirt, and a few others are getting there. There were rumors in 2004 of a few who wanted to retire but once Bush won the election they decided to stay on (thank God). They probably would die fighting rather than give Bush the chance to elect a justice that would enable him to further his shredding of our constitution and rights as human beings (let alone citizens of the United States).

And this year, legal analysts say that three of the justices are expected to retire within the next four years, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, the three more liberal members of the Supreme Court. That means should John McCain be elected and replace a sitting liberal justice with a conservative justice, the balance of power on the court could shift decisively to the right on issues like abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty. I don't like the sound of that.

I know a lot of those who are going to read this are conservatives and anti-liberals. I'm just thinking about the increasing and ever-widening control the office of the president has taken over the other branches of government, threatening our rights and freedoms.

You could argue that the same could be true if Barack Obama gets elected, but his view of the judicial branch is fundamentally different from John McCain's. (Obama said this: "The most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to protect the disadvantaged and the weak against the powerful.", and I trust that he would use this ideology when choosing a judge, while McCain promised to elect conservatives). Besides I would be much more afraid of a conservative republican controlled Supreme Court than a liberal one. Maybe it's just because of my political views, but I feel that conservatives threaten my rights significantly more than liberals. The past eight years haven't really helped with that fear.

Thank God for the Senate! (Although they didn't really work in that department when Bush was appointing his ultra-conservative justices in 2000 and 2004...; And let's not forget about the unheard of use of filibusters by a republican minority in senate in years)

If you don't agree, I suggest you read this articleand this statistical study, written by William Landes and Richard Posner.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Shocka]

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 29-10-2008 by Gemwolf]

reply to post by Shocka


About the only thing you get when you have a liberal SCOTUS is an addition to the legislative branch.Instead of judging a case,and giving opinion they create precedent for new interpertation of the law.Which is the same as writing a new law.

reply to post by daddyroo45


I wouldn't want a liberal court either, that's why I support Obama more in that area, because I think he would make a better appointment than John McCain, not based on political stance. We already have a mostly conservative court that Bush appointed with just enough liberal sway for a 5:4 ratio.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Shocka]

We need a few years of intense gridlock and that can only be achieved by voting McCain. That way the Democratic-controllled Congress and Senate would have to deal with a Republican president. We cannot afford Obama's social programs or tax increases at this time.

Supreme Court appointments are about as relevant as Roe vs Wade. They are not the most pressing issues of the day.

Well, let me give you a different point of view... McCain is not George Bush, I know many people cannot understand that. He is more of a moderate Democrat than a Conservative Republican for sure.

In my view the main difference between "Liberal" judges and "Conservative" judges is the fundamental goals.

Legislate from the bench or Interpret the Law.

I agree with you that to much power has been given to the executive branch and it needs to be checked but having Judges "create the laws" instead of "ruling on the laws passed by Congress" will only create a non-elected for life branch of Government with far to much power.

Can anyone say "Our glorious leaders in black dresses"


LOL, no thank you.


Also, Do you really want these non elected lifetime leaders in black dresses to unilaterally decide how wealth is distributed in this country... It appears Obama does... now that is just not right. No voting, no accountability since you can't vote them out. No way...

www.youtube.com...



[edit on 28-10-2008 by infolurker]

reply to post by infolurker


You are so right.The SCOTUS could easily become a dictatorial entity.With no real recourse for the people.

reply to post by infolurker


He represents the Party that caused the death of thousands of American military personnel and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens by misrepresenting and lying about supposed evidence of WMDs.

Sorry. I don't care how much of a maverick he WAS...he has shown horrible judgement...can you say Sarah Palin? His own campaign people are now calling the Hockey Mom a "diva," and a "whackjob."

Not the kind of judgement I want the President to show.

Supreme Court Post... not "Hate Bush tie to John McCain" post.


Bush! Halliburton! Blah!


What's your views on the Liberal / Conservative Supreme Court?




[edit on 29-10-2008 by infolurker]

So you want liberal justices that historically support judicial activism and the legal subversion of our constituion?

It sounds ugly, but that's really because it is. Abortion, the death penalty, and so on are fair enough, and I respect you for that, but you really have to consider the nearly limitless government intervention allowed by "liberal" Supreme Courts. There's far more important issues, and besides, states have a lot of leeway with those issues at the moment anyway, so you can fight those battles on that level while still maintaining a Supreme Court that actually follows the Constitution.

I thought, primarily, something to consider before voting for McCain was because of this woman:



Humor aside...Danny Ellfman would tell you that this is his greatest fear.



[edit on 29-10-2008 by pluckynoonez]

forgot the linky-poo:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

[edit on 29-10-2008 by pluckynoonez]

Originally posted by Night Watchman
He represents the Party that caused the death of thousands of American military personnel and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens by misrepresenting and lying about supposed evidence of WMDs.

Okay, I wasn't going to respond to political baiting, but come on. You've fallen into the false dichotomy propagated by the media and those in power. Not to jump onto the conspiracy train (I'm not), but it's NOT a party issue.

And contrary to popular belief, the majority of Democrats in the Senate voted to authorize force in Iraq and Afghanistan. So don't you dare point the finger at Republicans alone for something nearly all of our "leaders" and "representatives" spported.

Originally posted by Night Watchman
.he has shown horrible judgement...can you say Sarah Palin? His own campaign people are now calling the Hockey Mom...

Yup, media. I hate Palin cause...she's a hockey mom!

Give me a break. Hate people for the right reasons.

reply to post by pluckynoonez


Jeeze plucky that's over the top even for you.That is an ONION vid clip,and not a very funny one at that.

reply to post by daddyroo45


What about Danny Elfman's greatest fear? He's no light-handed schlop off the strip. The "SOMETHING TO CONSIDER..." (sic) before anything is giving the keys to this...person.

What I am saying is, look at the people McCain has around him. That Lindsay Graham guy...he's a total raving psycho. Like the SNL-skit where Biden is saying (paraphrasing) he loves McCain but he is the biggest [flunky crucker] ever. More angry Republicans to run this country? That is what I consider before doing anything.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by pluckynoonez]

So, yeahh, the first vid, a real reason to consider and muddle and such, the best line: Cinday McCain was "hearding livestock with her mind". Come now, if you (or anyone else) think that that is not funny, then I got a time-machine to sell you.

I'm not being mean, please, I'm just being plucky.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by pluckynoonez]

Is anyone going to comment on this? Palin with the nuclear codes? really? I will purchase Hugh Heffner's pornographic outing "Nailin' Paylin" yes, but I will consider never voting for some old/angry republican who...well, you know, all the things that make citizens angry toward there elected officials (brought to you by DIEBOLD INC.).

Get angry someone!

[edit on 29-10-2008 by pluckynoonez]

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
I will consider never voting for some old/angry republican who...well, you know, all the things that make citizens angry toward there elected officials (brought to you by DIEBOLD INC.).

Get angry someone!

I hope that this is not one of your more mature statements.

reply to post by Johnmike


Mature statements? Yes I do say so kind sir. In fact, let me reiterate by pressing on the most pertinent issue. An evil floating Dick Cheney dragon, one hundred feet tall, with 4 heads (Dick Cheney ones of coarse), and different power for each head (laser beams, arctic-freeze breath, puking hot-lava, and...and...sonic boom?sound good), over every major metropolitan city. Are you ready for that?

The point is, in causing one's concern for such voting matters, look into the spectrum of distance and ask yourself if there is a chemical repellent for the infestation of evil republicans. Yes, they do exist, and I can say that, maturely.

Death ray. Not sonic boom. Death ray. Why does everyone forget the death ray?

reply to post by Johnmike


Thank you. That was the missing one. The first three came easily, but the fourth is always the clincher....

So, yeah, the vision of fear is pretty intense. It is good I am not schizophrenic.

...

So instead of laser-beam eyes, do a death ray. One shouyld scream and liquify everything. Arctic-freeze breath and eyes is needed. And, now! stuck at the fourth one.

Oh yeah! I forgot! You have one head that just goes "meh!" over and over again. I remember now!

Caps corrected on the thread title. I did just see that. Thank you, OP. plucky does not like to yell...unless someone steals my 500 points!

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Shocka

 

About the only thing you get when you have a liberal SCOTUS is an addition to the legislative branch.Instead of judging a case,and giving opinion they create precedent for new interpertation of the law.Which is the same as writing a new law.

Which is exactly what we witnessed when the SCOTUS ruled on the idea of "Imminent Domain". They ruled in favor of Government Land Seizure for Commercial Development. So many Citizens have become the victims of corrupt land grabs ever since that ruling. That is the basic Extreme Leftist ideology, Let the Government Do ALL. The Constitution is supposed to Protect us from such overzealousness.

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen


You mean eminent domain.