No. What you're not getting (see, I'll individualize it instead of defining you by stereotype) is that the way I see it, I have a choice. None of these guys are perfect. They BOTH have associates that I find offensive. I find them EQUALLY offensive... I think Rev Hagee is a sick SOB who shoiuldn't be embraced by ANY politician.
Yep Hagee's a nut, but he is only an endorser of McCain, so its moot
Where did I say that ANY judge wants to overthrow Marbury v Madison? That WAS, however, pretty much what McCain said, which is why he could walk on hot coals and I wouldn't vote for him.
When and were did he say this.
However, anyone who knows Constitutional Law knows that the constitution is not intended to be read literally like a fundie reads a bible or koran. From day 1 Marbury v Madison, BY IT'S INTERPRETATION of the Constitution said there was a right of judicial review in order to effectuate the RIGHTS guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet NOWHERE DOES THE CONSTItUTION PROVIDE FOR JUdICIAL REVIEW. Yet, it exists. And it exists because people did not pretend that there is something called "strict constructionism" in terms of the words. When originally used, (by a LIBERAL JUDGE) it was used to say rights couldn't be abridged and you don't allow limitation of them.
M v. M was a unique and political case. Correct me if I am wrong, but President Adams appointed Marbury for commission and Marshall witheld then until Jefferson took off. At that point TJ told Marshall told Madison to refuse it.
Before then the Supreme Court could only hear diversity case but M v M allowed it to hear the Federal Question and Judicial review. Hence creating the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. But unlike
Roe v Wade, the interpreted Federal Law. The Judiciary act of 1789!
U.S. Const. art. III, Section 2 Clause 2
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
I think YOU need to look into the "conservative judges" because I know all about them. And I will never vote for anyone who talks about how judges shouldn't engage in judicial review of legislation. That is the whole point of the bench, IMO... limiting the power of the other two branches. And if you think for a second that I think Antonin Scalia is upholding the Constitution, I'd reconsider that if I were you. You don't uphold the Constitution when you violate precedent by inserting the USSC's opinion in an election law matter over the highest court of a state and then stating within the decision that it has NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.
To tell you the truth I am not a big fan of Scalia. I like his philosophy; however, I don't think he follows it. I believe he makes some political moves. The Gore decision is one of them, but come on you know Gilberts would have done the same thing if the table was turned.
So, with every candidate it's about what the dealbreakers are for you.
Not sure I understand this question.
Obama's associates, while I don't appreciate some of them, aren't because ultimately they won't affect public policy. McCain's BECAUSE HE INTENDS TO ADVANCE THEIR AGENDA... are relevant to me... and ARE dealbreakers, especially when we're one, maybe two judges away from overturning RvW and the next president is going to get to appoint at least one justice, probably two.
I care more about Obama's fiscal policies then who he hangs with. I am just glad these things came to light, because it hurts a socialist, who is very charismatic!
Really that simple.... and talking about one's "associates" without talking about the others is silly... because each of us gets to decide on the dealbreakers.
McCain's are dealbreakers... for me. Obama's might be... for you.
Obama's fiscal and immigration (same with Clinton's for that matter) are dealbreakers for me.
