McCain declares himself of unsound mind

[Burgold]

I was reading a Post article this moring on how the Supreme Court was teetering on the edge of becoming an imbalanced court, just how one appointment could shift it very far to the right. In the article, it talked about the type of judges that Obama and McCain preferred. McCain picked Alito and Roberts. What's striking about McCain's endorsement of these two is that each authored "an opinion dismantling part of the senator's most notable legislative achievement (McCain/Feingold)" So, in essence, McCain says the best minds, the people most fit to interpret the Constitution are those who disagreed with his most important thoughts. In other words, McCain believes that the most able minds are those who disagree with him.


I'm sort of just having fun with the above, but if the best men for the job of Justice are those who think you're most important and essential ideals are unconstitutional... Well then...

On the other hand, It's actually an interesting article. The Court is already much more conservative than it was eight years ago and is on the verge of becoming a rather dangerously biased court and as we have seen over recent years, this court is much more of a politically minded court and only constitutionalist when it suits its interests. Worse, you know how most of the judges will vote just by the type of case and that means they aren't deciding on the merits, but on some pre-subscribed subjective philosophy.

[Teller]

Interesting. A potential president with respect for those who disagree with him? Sounds like a guy who wouldn't surround himself with "yes" men like the current president. I can only see that as a good thing.

Pretty funny though in the context you point out. "The smartest people are the ones who think I'm wrong!" :laugh:

As far as the actual structure of the court, I wouldn't worry too much if I were a left-leaning voter. Afterall, we just came within ONE VOTE of losing -- or at least severely crippling -- the Second Amendment.

I like the structure of the current court, quite frankly. (And I say that as the guy who scored closest to the center of the political compass yesterday. :) ) If I'm happy, then all of you should be too. :laugh:

[Burgold]

I'm glad you were the first responder, because you'll at least continue the tone. Reasoned, but tongue and cheek. I thought it was a funny observation. (I also like your respinning of my spin btw :laugh:

If the smartest people disagree with me, that at least shows that I'm fair and willing to listen.

One day, both of us will generate enough spin to get off the ground. I know I need just a little more lift.)



I think the current composition is already listing a little, but it's still okay. The recent big decisions have had enough variety to make me feel good about them. (Guantanamo versus Gun Control, for example) Both cases, I felt were judged correctly too. Even though philosophically I think gun control is a good thing. Constitutionally, I think the judges went the way they should have.

I do believe that we ought to try to ammend the 2nd ammendment to make its meaning clear though. If we really and the founders really wanted it to be about the individual's right of self protection... that's what it should say. They were very clear and absolute on other rights, but the equivocation they left in gun control ought to be decided. My guess is even then, it was a controversial and difficult issue and this was Monroe's best attempt at a compromised wording, not the best ammendment, but the best ammendment that could pass.

[Teller]

I'm glad you were the first responder, because you'll at least continue the tone. Reasoned, but tongue and cheek. I thought it was a funny observation. (I also like your respinning of my spin btw :laugh:

If the smartest people disagree with me, that at least shows that I'm fair and willing to listen.

One day, both of us will generate enough spin to get off the ground. I know I need just a little more lift.)

You know what? With our proximity to the center, albeit on opposite sides, I'm thinking we could run on a unified ticket in the ES presidential election. We'd pull voters from both sides. We're both relative moderates. And we could move the country forward, in a truly unified direction. (Course our egos wouldn't allow us to decide who gets top billing.) :laugh:

And I largely agree with you about both the structure of the court and their recent decisions. I'm not quite sure how the right to habeas corpus in U.S. courts sits with the Geneva Conventions' layout for treatment of EPW's. (Not criticizing the decision, just saying that I don't fully understand the dynamic there.)

Also, since we're not talking about one specific amendment in this thread, I guess this isn't a hijack this time. Just as you want clearer language in the Second Amendment, I'd like clearer language in the Establishment Clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." To me, there's nothing about town hall steps or anything of the sort in there. And IMHO, while interpretation may have skewed the original intent of the Second Amendment, I think the same could be said of the Establishment Clause.

All in all though, like I said, I do believe that voters on both sides can be happy with the structure of this court. I do think that one more justice (in either direction) could cause significan listing though.

[Burgold]

I agree with you. The Religion conflict also ought to be resolved too. I think that one was written pretty clearly, but both sides have been working really hard to take as many liberties with it as they can and wring out as much nonsense as they can to support their personal agendas. Also, I don't think that either side believes what they are supporting is actually what was meant.

I think that the agnostics and atheists don't really think the Establishment Clause means that religion should cease to exist everywhere, but that's the position they take. The religious advocates tend to try to twist to mean as long as you don't say it's a national religion then anything goes.

That might be a more interesting thread, than the one I started. Dealing with the ambiguities in the ammendments and which ones ought to be straightened out.

On the Establishment clause. I think they had in mind a country where all religions and philosophies could be practiced, but that none would be superior. If you want to pray in school, that's fine. I think it was about inclusion versus exclusion. Unfortunately, exclusion is far easier to legislate.

[Teller]

That might be a more interesting thread, than the one I started. Dealing with the ambiguities in the ammendments and which ones ought to be straightened out.

Maybe not more interesting, but certainly interesting also. I'd love to see DjTj, Larry and Predicto's posts in a thread like that. I'm sure I'd get a helluvan education.


On the Establishment clause. I think they had in mind a country where all religions and philosophies could be practiced, but that none would be superior. If you want to pray in school, that's fine. I think it was about inclusion versus exclusion. Unfortunately, exclusion is far easier to legislate.

150% agree. :applause:

[Burgold]

Isn't it interesting how you picked three self-described liberals as the most constitutionally astute? Very McCain-like of you. Those who disagree with me are the best and brightest.


And therefore, in the original spirit of this thread, I guess it should be asked:

Are people who voted twice for Bush and now want to go for McCain committed Republicans or are they just people who should be committed?

[Teller]

Isn't it interesting how you picked three self-described liberals as the most constitutionally astute? Very McCain-like of you. Those who disagree with me are the best and brightest.


And therefore, in the original spirit of this thread, I guess it should be asked:

Are people who voted twice for Bush and now want to go for McCain committed Republicans or are they just people who should be committed?

My statement was McCain-esque.

But I'm not voting for McCain.

Notwithstanding all of that, you would not be the first person to recommend that I be committed. :)

[Burgold]

My statement was McCain-esque.

But I'm not voting for McCain.

Notwithstanding all of that, you would not be the first person to recommend that I be committed. :)

I knew it. I knew it. I always knew he was your man...

http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper851/stills/41402fe04b2dd-70-1.jpg

[Larry]

I think that the agnostics and atheists don't really think the Establishment Clause means that religion should cease to exist everywhere, but that's the position they take.

Granted, whackjobs exist. But I'd claim that not one ES poster has ever said any such thing. The atheist who's trying to ban religion is a myth, created by the people who want the government to promote their religion.


The religious advocates tend to try to twist to mean as long as you don't say it's a national religion then anything goes.

There, I'd say, you're correct. :)

[Smoot Point Really]

This thread should be entitled: "People who love listening to themselves..."

[Burgold]

This thread should be entitled: "People who love listening to themselves..."

That's completely untrue.




I love having others listen to me. I actually suffer from very little self-infatuation. :laugh:

I might have to agree with Larry's correction to my point. Although, I did mean that agnostics and atheists want to wipe out everything that smacks of organized religion (within a public/government setting) and I think there are groups that believe absolutely nothing religious should exist in places that are governmental or receive any government support.

[Vicious]

I think that the agnostics and atheists don't really think the Establishment Clause means that religion should cease to exist everywhere, but that's the position they take.

Communist societies don't have an Establishment Clause. Other then those atheists, I don't know what you're talking about?

[Larry]

I might have to agree with Larry's correction to my point. Although, I did mine that agnostics and atheists want to wipe out everything (within a public/government setting) and I think there are groups that believe absolutely nothing religious should exist in places that are governmental or receive any government support.

Well, if you leave out that "or receive any government support", then I'd likely agree with you.

I don't think the Constitution prohibits government contractors from displaying religious symbols. (Although I think a case could be made that there's a problem with the government hiring organizations whose stated purpose is the promotion of their religion. But I could see it argued either way. IMO, if it's a competitive bidding situation, and they're the low bidder, then their religion is irrelevant.)

[IHOPSkins]

For the people that complain about the court being to biased

They should look at the RECENT HISTORY of appointments

Republicans appoint liberals, moderates and conservatives

Democrats.....only LIBERALS

So where is the Bias?

Obama will be the IDEALOGUE who will SURELY appoint an ABORTIONIST

Count on it

[Sarge]

Funny, it looks as if at least part of the positions that McCain has endorsed but the court finds unconstitutional are positions that he threw in with Dems to pass as law

[Burgold]

Funny, it looks as if at least part of the positions that McCain has endorsed but the court finds unconstitutional are positions that he threw in with Dems to pass as law

Well, who ever accused the dems of being of sound mind?

Sheesh!

:laugh:

(Then again, doesn't wanting to be President kinda already prove that you are of unsound mind?)

[Larry]

(You thought this thread was going to be something other than people throwing feces at labels, didn't you?) :)

[Burgold]

(You thought this thread was going to be something other than people throwing feces at labels, didn't you?) :)

Probably not, but I did hope that it would be more flip and humorous. I remember a time when we used to laugh about politics while making our points, but I keep forgetting now that face and an entrenched party position is much more important than the country.

Given this, it's surprising that no one has really presented positive evidence or even attempted to refute that John McCain is of unsound mind.

I find that to be telling. :D

[IHOPSkins]

(You thought this thread was going to be something other than people throwing feces at labels, didn't you?) :)And for my obligatory tongue and cheek response.....

Getting liberals to admit the truth to a point is like going to the dentist :D

Funny how the OP gets to label

[Burgold]

And for my obligatory tongue and cheek response.....

Getting liberals to admit the truth to a point is like going to the dentist :D



Is that because going to the dentist is something everyone should always do? Is it because the Conservatives are like cavities and the liberals are always digging for the truth no matter how painful? Is that because after listening to Republican lie after lie, Americans need to brace themselves?

If that's the case. I agree. Well put, IHOP :halo:

[IHOPSkins]

Is that because going to the dentist is something everyone should always do? Is it because the Conservatives are like cavities and the liberals are always digging for the truth no matter how painful? Is that because after listening to Republican lie after lie, Americans need to brace themselves?

If that's the case. I agree. Well put, IHOP :halo:Liberals are like "Wisdom teeth"

You think you need them but after they are removed you find out otherwise :laugh:

[Teller]

Liberals are like "Wisdom teeth"

You think you need them but after they are removed you find out otherwise :laugh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Burgold]

Liberals are like "Wisdom teeth"

You think you need them but after they are removed you find out otherwise :laugh:

That was pretty good :cheers:

(I thought I had a couple of good zingers too. Did any make you chuckle?)

[IHOPSkins]

Seven of the current justices of the court were appointed by Republican presidents, while two were appointed by a Democratic president. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito compose the Court's conservative wing. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing. Justice Kennedy, generally thought of as a conservative leaning moderate, is considered most likely to be the swing vote that determines the outcome of certain close cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

[IHOPSkins]

That was pretty good :cheers:

(I thought I had a couple of good zingers too. Did any make you chuckle?)Yes (you completed my partial analogy to my points detriment....good for you:applause: )

Tongue and cheek is good

Open debate (with respect) is the BEST

I appreciate your posting sensibilities
:cheers:

[JimboDaMan]

Seven of the current justices of the court were appointed by Republican presidents, while two were appointed by a Democratic president. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito compose the Court's conservative wing. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing. Justice Kennedy, generally thought of as a conservative leaning moderate, is considered most likely to be the swing vote that determines the outcome of certain close cases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_StatesTo slow the spin just a bit:

Kennedy is considered moderately conservative, and indeed the "swing vote". But he was Reagan's second try at it, Robert Bork being the first attempt. Had that nomination not been blocked, Reagan's intention of turning the Court sharply to the right would have been much closer to being accomplished.

Souter was selected as the "stealth" nomination. Vouched for by the conservative John Sununu, his lack of a judicial track record was supposed to rob the Democrats of ammunition to sink his nomination while his conservative alliances were supposed to guarantee a right-leaning Justice. His subsequent left-leaning voting record has widely viewed among Republicans as a huge lost opportunity.

Stevens, much the same as Souter, is widely seen as having been nominated as a moderate conservative but wound up voting far more liberally than expected.

So your point is valid, but with the caveat that none of the Republican nominations were intended to be anything other than one flavor or another of conservative. So I'm not sure how much credit we can bestow on Republicans for these nominations. It might just be that Democrats have been better at picking the guys they want. The movement of moderate conservatives to the left probably resulted in the appointment of the more hard-core conservatives like Thomas, Scalia and Alito, who are generally considered more ideologically committed than their left-wing counterparts.

[IHOPSkins]

.....Kennedy is considered moderately conservative, and indeed the "swing vote". But he was Reagan's second try at it, Robert Bork being the first attempt. Had that nomination not been blocked, Reagan's intention of turning the Court sharply to the right would have been much closer to being accomplished......Bush's Harriot Myers comes to mind

[IHOPSkins]

......It might just be that Democrats have been better at picking the guys they want......Your points are good

If the Liberals can always push extreme appointments....the Conservatives should also be allowed this

Balance can change in the future....it has in the past

Bush was very forthright with his before the election promise on conservative appointments (despite stealth Myers)

McCain has promised the same (only reason I am voting for him)

The people decided which way the court should move

[Burgold]

So, uh...

You're voting for McCain because history proves that Republicans are more easily fooled and duped?

You're voting for him because he's unlikely to appoint the guy he thinks he wants? That's like McCain saying he believes that Roberts and Alito are great judges because they disagree with his viewpoints.

[IHOPSkins]

...You're voting for McCain because history proves that Republicans are more easily fooled and duped?

You're voting for him because he's unlikely to appoint the guy he thinks he wants? That's like McCain saying he believes that Roberts and Alito are great judges because they disagree with his viewpoints.McCain has been consistant with his Judge policy.....Not saying he won't change in the future

Obama is Sure to nominate someone more liberal than McCain, thats enough for me

[Larry]

I've been observing what I think is some delicious irony in the comments I've been reading about the court's decision concerning McCain-Feingold's "millionaire exemption".


As I understand it, M-F imposes limits on the size of donations, and on total spending. But a candidates own money doesn't count towards either limit.

There was apparently an exception, however, that said that if a wealthy candidate exceeded some, larger, spending limit, then his opponent could be exempted from some of the fundraising limits.

The Supreme Court struck down that exemption. No, candidates still have to comply with the limits, even if their opponent's wealth is allowing them to exceed them.

At least one conservative I've read (George Will) hailed this decision as one that preserved the First Amendment.

Which seemed surprising, to me, since I was pretty certain that when M-F was originally passed, every conservative voice in the land was claiming that the entire law violated the First Amendment. (Apparently under some kind of "strict constructionist" view that says that, for example, pornography is neither Speech nor Press, but that anonymous suitcases containing millions of dollars in cash is clearly speech.)

This seems contradictory, to me. (To claim that passing M-F violates the Constitution, but that allowing a candidate, under specific circumstances, to escape from the law also violates the Constitution.)

How can you simultaneously claim that enforcing a law is unconstitutional, but allowing people to bypass it is, too?

(My usual assumption, when I see people arguing what appears, pretty plainly to me, to be contradictory positions, is to assume that (in this case), they were opposed to passing the law because they felt that the law would hurt their party, but they're opposed to allowing an exemption to the law because the person asking for the exemption isn't in their Party. That, in short, their opinion of a law's Constitutionality hinges mostly on their opinion of which interpretation will help their Party. But I haven't attempted to check.)

[Larry]

So, uh...

You're voting for McCain because history proves that Republicans are more easily fooled and duped?

You're voting for him because he's unlikely to appoint the guy he thinks he wants? That's like McCain saying he believes that Roberts and Alito are great judges because they disagree with his viewpoints.

Well, I will freely admit that lately, I've been voting Democrat mostly because I'm convinced that the Democrats, while they'd like to turn this country into a (liberal) Dictatorship, aren't as competent when it comes to implementing that goal. :)

[Smoot Point Really]

That's completely untrue.

In fairness, I should've also mentioned it was one of those early morning threads with few on that usually end up turning into banter between two or three...

[DarrellsMyHero28]

One thing that I am very concerned about, in that article the overall point was that the judges most likely to be replaced during the next presidency are the more liberal minds on the bench.

McCain would obviously nominate conservative judges, throwing SCOTUS' balance completely out of whack.

Liberal or conservative, if you're smart, you'll realize that a balanced court is a better court.

Just as I, in general, feel that in order to keep an appropriate balance in the US government-the President shouldn't be of the same party as the majority in Congress.

The checks and balances, as they were originally designed, make this government what it is.

[Burgold]

I agree. A vote for Obama would probably keep the Supreme Court somewhat in balance. A vote for McCain would likely take it from listing to the right to capsizing. It'd be a very dangerous imbalance.

[Smoot Point Really]

Who thinks the Supreme Court is "in balance?" 5-4 decisions aren't desirable... The Supreme Court should have more consensus on issues than you seem to crave... They should be basing their decisions on the same document, shouldn't they?

Why would a vote for McCain change anything on the Supreme Court? You will likely have a Senate that is predominantly democrat. I'm sure the new Senators aren't above "Borking" another qualified candidate.

[Burgold]

Who thinks the Supreme Court is "in balance?" 5-4 decisions aren't desirable... The Supreme Court should have more consensus on issues than you seem to crave... They should be basing their decisions on the same document, shouldn't they?

Why would a vote for McCain change anything on the Supreme Court? You will likely have a Senate that is predominantly democrat. I'm sure the new Senators aren't above "Borking" another qualified candidate.

The Supreme Court is already chocked full of ideologues and is listing towards a decidedly political form of Conservatism. One more judge would be dangerous. Yes, the Senate could prevent really fringe nuts from being selected, but the court would become a fully Conservative Court under McCain and that would be a negative for the country.

The Supreme Court as we all know is a life term. That was done to try to reduce the influence of parties and people in charge, but the fact that it is a life term means it's important to get it right... not just get a guy who agrees with you on a few hot potato political issues.

And contrary to what you just typed, for some issues 5-4 does make sense. There are some issue that are just not Constitutionally clear and that's why they need to be taken all the way up to a Supreme Court. If they were obvious and simple, then they would have been resolved earlier. The trick is to find people who will really judge the merits and the case, who will base it on the Constitution and not some pre-defined political metric.

You can say, and you'd probably be right, that I'm worried about this now because my philosophy is the one on the endangered list, but most cases should not be pre-decided. And often, too often with this Court, you know how each person is ruling after listening to a three sentence synopsis of the case. That is not a good thing.