The real thing at stake this election - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-26-2004, 12:50 PM   #1
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,769
Local Time: 03:42 AM
The real thing at stake this election

No, it isn't Iraq, the economy or social security. The real thing at stake for this election is the Supreme Court.
Here's an excerpt from today's Electoral Vote editorial (http://www.electoral-vote.com):
Quote:
Supreme Court news: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, 80, has thyroid cancer and had an emergency tracheotomy at Bethesda Naval Hospital according to a report in today's Washington Post. Thyroid cancer has several forms, but all are difficult to treat in older patients according to medical experts. Rehnquist is not the only member of the Court to have been diagnosed with cancer. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71, had colon cancer, Sandra Day O"Conner, 74, had breast cancer, and John Paul Stevens, 84, had prostate cancer. This latest occurence of cancer once again spotlights the age of the current justices and the fact that the next president is almost certainly going to have multiple vacancies to fill, probably including the Chief Justice. With respect to judicial apppointments, it is harder to imagine two candidates whose judicial appointments would differ more than Bush and Kerry's. Will the next president appoint Justices determined to reverse Roe v. Wade or to reaffirm it? What about teaching of creationism in schools, separation of church and state, medical research using stem cells, and so many other issues on which the candidates differ? Ultimately, practically all of them end up in the Supreme Court. Ten years from now the war in Iraq will be over (hopefully), but the justices the next president appoints will still be on the Court making decisions that affect many aspects of life in America. Think carefully about this issue before voting next Tuesday.
In the editorial of 22 October (http://www.electoral-vote.com/oct/oct22.html) there was also this interesting piece of information:
Quote:

Justice Appointed by Sworn in Age

Stephen Breyer Clinton 1994 66
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Clinton 1993 71
Anthony M. Kennedy Reagan 1988 68
Sandra Day O'Connor Reagan 1981 74
William H. Rehnquist Nixon 1972 80
Antonin Scalia Reagan 1986 68
David H. Souter Bush 1990 65
John Paul Stevens Ford 1975 84
Clarence Thomas Bush 1991 56
As you can see, 5 of the 9 judges have been appointed before 1990 (so more than 15 years ago), with 2 of those even being appointed in the Seventies! So the new judges will be in the Supreme Court for a long time. And by the look of it, the new president may even appoint 4 new judges. So do not (only) consider where you'd like the USA go in the next 4 years, but maybe even more important, where you'd want it to go the next 24 years.

C ya!

Marty
__________________

Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 12:51 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:42 PM
all the more reason to vote Bush
__________________

diamond is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 12:54 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,652
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Re: The real thing at stake this election

Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn
No, it isn't Iraq, the economy or social security. The real thing at stake for this election is the Supreme Court.
That's what I keep telling people who don't want to vote because they don't like either candidate.
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 01:02 PM   #4
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 90
Local Time: 01:42 AM
whoever wins .. I just hope they appoint judges very much unlike the ones here in MA that have taken away our right to vote on core social issues.
Boston01 is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 01:06 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:42 PM
This is nothing new. The issue has become a recurring theme for Presidential elections following the full politicization of the Supreme Court with the Bork nomination. Prior to that, the only politics involved with the Supreme Court dealt with the suggestion that there was a "Jewish seat" or an "African-American seat".
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 01:12 PM   #6
Refugee
 
boosterjuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: CANADA
Posts: 1,810
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Excellent point.
boosterjuice is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 01:44 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:42 AM
This is definitely a reason to vote.
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-26-2004, 02:03 PM   #8
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,769
Local Time: 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
This is nothing new. The issue has become a recurring theme for Presidential elections following the full politicization of the Supreme Court with the Bork nomination. Prior to that, the only politics involved with the Supreme Court dealt with the suggestion that there was a "Jewish seat" or an "African-American seat".
Indeed, it is nothing new (can remember that points like these were also raised for the 2000 elections). The difference now is that no judge has resigned in the past four years (i.e. they all have gotten 4 years older) and that 4 have been diagnosed with cancer. I hope they all recover quickly and completely, but I do think these four seats will become vacant in the next four years. Either because they lose the fight against cancer, or because they want to step back to fight the disease. So the situation (that the president has to appoint new judges for the Supreme Court) has become more realistic for the next four years.

C ya!

Marty
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-27-2004, 04:40 PM   #9
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 34,303
Local Time: 09:42 PM
thanks for posting this, Marty.

it's something I have been talking about w other voters!
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 10-28-2004, 06:27 AM   #10
War Child
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ann arbor mi
Posts: 935
Local Time: 09:42 PM
Yes, thanks Marty for posting on that....

The pollsters (hard to type that word sometimes...I wonder if they do blowbyblow cortisol level reactions on this topic as well as campaign ad soundbytes) keep saying that voters never consider the Supreme Court when making their choices in the privacy of the curtained booth, but the situation this year seems hard to ignore.

I hope it changes the fear spotlight from terrorist attacks, over which bush and kerry likely have similarly little control, to the 'supreme' power the highest court has to seriously affect basic rights and interpret the constitution!

cheers all!
ShellBeThere is offline  
Old 10-28-2004, 08:40 AM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
all the more reason to vote Bush
I'm not a Bush lover, but it does scare me to think of John Kerry appointing a bunch of liberal judges we'll be stuck with for years to come And I absolutely love the way republican presidents have chosen minority conservatives that can't be voted against due to pc-ness that's the biggest in your face turnabout to the liberals I've ever seen. Very clever!

Not meaning to joke, seriously, I mean it, could there be something in the court building making all these people sick? That's a very above average high incidents of cancer per capita is it not? Any other workplace in America have a 50% or higher rate? Maybe they should investigate this, really.
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 10-28-2004, 02:52 PM   #12
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,769
Local Time: 03:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
Not meaning to joke, seriously, I mean it, could there be something in the court building making all these people sick? That's a very above average high incidents of cancer per capita is it not? Any other workplace in America have a 50% or higher rate? Maybe they should investigate this, really.
Well, I think that a lot probably also has to do with the fact that they are 71, 74, 80 and 84.

And BTW, I'll be more worried for the US when Bush wins and he appoints judges from the fundamental right.
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-28-2004, 03:07 PM   #13
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 09:42 PM
Kitten -- with a Republican president and Republican controlled Congress, Bush can grab from as far right as he wants to.

Boston -- sometimes the people are wrong and the court has to decide a case based on what is just, not what is popular. You have to look no further than Brown v. the Board of Education. And guess who Brown's lawyer was? Former Justice Thurgood Marshall.

The court has been unchanged for the past ten years -- the longest uninterrupted court in almost 200 years I believe. And this is not a normal one judge here, one judge there thing. The youngest is 65 years old. Whoever wins could truly shape judicial law for the next twenty years. Now what do you want -- restrictions on women's rights and religious tolerance? And think about this: Bush won his election court case by a vote of 5-4 -- guess how the justices voted? Now granted, the justices are now doing whatever they can to stay out of this election. They know the decision damaged their reputation and unlike politicians, they try to be non-partisan and I believe they take their positions much more seriously than the congressional or executive branch. Regardless of the candidate, the next four years will be quite interesting.
sharky is offline  
Old 10-28-2004, 04:23 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
Kitten -- with a Republican president and Republican controlled Congress, Bush can grab from as far right as he wants to.
More fear mongering to incite the left to vote.

Bush has had the "opportunity" to grab as "far right" as he wants to for the last four years.

Obstruction from the Democrats has made that impossible.

With Supreme Court nominations far more politicized, Bush will not have free reign on his appointments.
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-28-2004, 04:37 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 05:42 PM
i would not put a recess apointment passed him
deep is offline  
Old 10-28-2004, 05:27 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:42 PM
On a Supreme Court position? Nonsense.

I guess it has gotten to the point where people will say anything to make GWB look bad.....
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-28-2004, 11:10 PM   #17
War Child
 
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


More fear mongering to incite the left to vote.
You have no problem with the poster who comments on being afraid Kerry might appoint a bunch of liberal judges, but as soon as someone says that Bush will reach as far right as he can it's "fear mongering". Be consistent.
Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 10-28-2004, 11:24 PM   #18
War Child
 
Inner El Guapo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 609
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

I guess it has gotten to the point where people will say anything to make GWB look bad.....
I hear ya, but it's not like there are a bunch of righties out there lobbing compliments at Kerry. You'd think both of these guys are Satan if you didn't have a mind of your own.

I have never in my life seen a witchhunt like the one pulled on Clinton, it forced me to wash my hands of the Republicans for good (I was already leaning that way). And I'm no Democrat either or even a big fan of Clinton, but that was just ridiculous to the point it was disgusting.

And here we have a President who has waged two wars, has seen the economy tank under his term, seen the most divided nation in decades and is a polarizing character all by himself because of his policies. The only point is, maybe it's easy to see why he gets a lot of heat, some deserved, some undeserved.
But it's a contentious time, people are fired up about the direction of their lives and their country.

IMO, Clinton was villified far worse, for far less than what Bush has done, Clinton was berated on cable news, talk radio, non-stop. At least Bush has allies on those fronts Besides the fact that Willie was actually impeached. I don't think Bush is going to get many breaks, probably never was after what happened to Clinton, who had attempts to tear him down for 8 years. Bush is only a four years in, I wouldn't expect it to ease up if he gets re-elected. And I woouldn't expect an easy ride for Kerry either, I'm sure he'll have a hell of a time trying to get anything done.

Funny how it works both ways, there should be no one who thinks it doesn't. well...what was that Jon Stewart said?.....partisan hacks? Yeah that's it.
Inner El Guapo is offline  
Old 10-29-2004, 01:07 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 02:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Bush has had the "opportunity" to grab as "far right" as he wants to for the last four years.

Obstruction from the Democrats has made that impossible.
This looks like an important piece of information.
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 10-29-2004, 02:54 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Diane L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Freaked out in a Moonage Daydream, oh yeah!
Posts: 8,864
Local Time: 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
On a Supreme Court position? Nonsense.

I guess it has gotten to the point where people will say anything to make GWB look bad.....
Doug, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. But IMHO, Bush does so much to make himself look bad that other people don't have to say anything at all.

And the thought of Bush appointing Supreme Court judges frightens me.
__________________

Diane L is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×