Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Modu$OperanDi, Oct 21, 2004.

  1. Modu$OperanDi
    Online

    Modu$OperanDi Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Today CNN reported -

    "...many Court watchers expect at least one, perhaps as many as four, [Supreme Court Justice] retirements in the next four years.


    Now, if four justices retire in this next term, that means this next President will have a monumental effect on this country for decades. I do not see the angle of how Bush will do a better service to his country in this regard than Kerry.

    Just look at the debates. Kerry very clearly stated multiple times that he cannot let his personal values get into the way of his decisions in appointing justices; Bush was not clear with his statements. He basically said he would appoint someone with good character. Fuck that. that is bullshit. Bush will with 100% certainty appoint people who agree with his vision. Bush supporters love him because he shares THEIR values, not AMERICA'S values.

    Honestly, the flip-flop attack does not work with Kerry on this one. In fact, someone who is able to look at the world objectively and understand the many different angles to an issue (which he brilliantly showed he does in the debates) is exactly what we need in a President who appoints judges.

    You may say that Kerry would just appoint judges that agree with him as well. Well his vision is much broader than Bush's, that's why you guys love Bush because he is so sure of his concise views. It is so clear to me that Kerry has a better shot of doing a good job at this than Bush. if Bush is re-elected, I have serious fears of how this country will behave for the next few decades.
     
  2. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,548
    Thanks Received:
    8,163
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,165
    I hardly think Kerry's vision goes past the end of his nose.

    I also think you are wrong, the winner of this election wont have a monumental effect on this nation for decades, he will have a monumental effect on this nation for centuries. this is a crucial point in American history. We decide if we are going to fight the terrorists or appease them.
     
  3. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    you SHOULD have serious fears about how this nation will behave, if:

    you believe that a man can separate his personal values from his decisions,

    your response to appointing judges with good character is, "Fuck that - that's bullshit!", or,

    you consider "concise views" inferior to a "broader vision", particularly when that vision encompasses "anything that gets me a vote".

    When President Bush is re-elected, you will see that he truly DOES share "America's values".
     
  4. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    This is where your argument breaks down. The majority of Americans have the same values as President Bush, and so if Bush appoints justices with his values, he is then appointing people with simliar values as the rest of America (the Left Coast and New england excluded).
     
  5. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    The question is: Do we want somebody that would pick Supreme Court justices based on the political climate of the time and polling data or one that will pick them based on their record?

    I will vote for somebody that will pick them based on their record over somebody that will pick somebody based on fluctuating opinions of the electorate.
     
  6. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    More likely one or two replacements. However, despite Bush picking better replacements than Kerry, I don't hold out a whole lot of hope for him picking true conservative judges. His daddy put in a couple judges which turned out to be pretty liberal. Let's hope junior has better judgement. I'd like to see a couple more Scalias in there.

    You're right about the importance - aside from the war, this issue is probably the second most important one because it will have so much impact upon our country's future. This is a key election for both reasons.

    ps: Bush's qualification of good character trumps the totally empty answer that Kerry gave. Also, Bush's vision is broad enough for America. We don't need an international court which is what Kerry would give us.
     
  7. Syntax_Divinity
    Offline

    Syntax_Divinity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2004
    Messages:
    151
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Corydon, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1
    Both Bush and Kerry only demonstrated one thing regarding their judicial appointments during the debates: they are both full of bullshit up to their eyebrows. Both candidates showed clearly that they would appoint justices based upon non-judicial qualities. Bush clearly has an agenda to appoint pro-life justices. Kerry will appoint pro-choice. Both of them are being guided by their respective social dogmas. It utterly drives me insane when social conservatives condemn "activist" judges for striking down laws because it "takes away power from the people". This is such a pitiful argument; they want to suspend the institution of judicial review when they pass laws reinforcing their social views, but keep it in place when the laws do not. Many social liberals want to use the court, as Kerry does, as a legislative arm to accomplish what the congress can't. Both demonstrate a dangerous lack of understanding of the place of the courts.
     
  8. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    Show where conservatives "want to suspend the institution of judicial review when they pass laws reinforcing their social views".
     
  9. Freedom Lover
    Offline

    Freedom Lover Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    80
    Thanks Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Ratings:
    +27
    The main difference between potential Bush amd Kerry appointments is that Bush will appoint judges who have demonstrated in their ability to INTREPET the law, not write it. Kerry's appointments will continue to follow the democrat appointments record over the last 50 years of not limiting their judicial powers to intrepetation, but writing new law whenever it fits their personal philosophy. This has created a tyranny of the courts which all Americans should absolutely be afraid of. There is only one practical way to reverse this trend and that is to re-elect President Bush so that that judges who are appointed be just that-judges, not legislator/judges.

    The only court that the Constitution specifically refers to is the Supreme Court. The legislative body was authorized to establish lesser courts, which was accomplished by the Judiciary Act. Perhaps the lower courts can be stopped from writing new laws, a power they have assumed in conflict with the law, and the Constitution, by amending the Act. If there are no changes to the law that will reign-in the courts, then government in this country will continue to be dominated by judicial fiat rather by the elected Congress who alone is granted the power to write laws by the Constitution.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. phadras
    Offline

    phadras Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2004
    Messages:
    270
    Thanks Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +17

    re-elected.. He will bring an END to activist courts that make law rather than interpret it... The major questions the Supreme Court has decided on in the recent past: Abortion, Affirmative Action, possible gay "marriage", are issues which should be decided by the PEOPLE, either themselves through referendi, or through their elected representatives, NOT by 7-9 judges in a Federal Court.....
     

Share This Page