US Prez Election 2012 Thread - Opinions and Discussions

[Ian]

To me, that's the the tail wagging the dog. To suggest that the next election will turn on who a Supreme Court nominee will be seems a stretch. The article appears to be written in such a way that assumes that the populace/voters would be more concerned about avoiding a Republican nominee than a Democrat nominee. That is by no means at all clear.

Further, every Presidential election cycle for the last 30 years has involved the same cries from the Democrats of "oh, my noGod!!!! If we get a Republican President, they'll appoint a Nazi to the SCOTUS and all of our rights will be taken away!!!! Nooooooo!!!!!!" -- Frankly, it, along with the "all Republicans are stupid" endless refrain, it's a little old. It's just a marketing ploy and a talking point.

I don't think that's the point of this article at all. The point is that if a nomination becomes a major issue in the middle of the election, and it definitely would be very important and all over the media, then the sole issue a Romney candidacy will be counting on to propel him to victory -an economy that is still weak next year and promises that he'll do better at reviving it than Obama- won't be quite as overarching as we're expecting it to be. It would also help Obama if the senate GOP starts gumming up the nomination process since the public will rightfully see such maneuvers as pure partisanship. In an election year partisanship is OK, but screwing around with the nominations process for the SCOTUS will not be well received.

I also think you're (obviously) hyper-sensitive to hearing criticism of Republicans. You're reading this article the way you want to read it; I didn't see it like that at all. Criticism of the left from the right is much more vitriolic and paranoid, IMHO, and one need look no further than FoxNews or the myriad of conservative talk show hosts for proof. A lot of it actually sounds like what you charicatured above. What does the left have to counter that level of intensity? MSNBC? Bill Maher? They're not even in the same league, in either ratings or anger.

Besides, Republicans clearly are stupid.

Sure, the SCOTUS is important, but it's not a bell-weather issue with the average voter. Most of them can't even name anyone on the SCOTUS, or maybe one or two.

Funny thing about issues like this - once they become important issues in the middle of a major election year, even laypeople learn quite a bit about them. And it doesn't take too much educating for people to realize that there are three-to-four staunch conservatives on the court, four liberal-to-semi-liberals, and one notoriously fickle, tie-breaking centrist (Kennedy). And collectively, voters like to see balance, even if it comes at the expense of efficiency.

But it's all just speculation anyway. Maybe Ginsberg will live another fifteen years, or a SCOTUS nomination won't be a pressing issue for a while, maybe even until after 2016.

[MattShizzle]

I'm hoping either Palin or Paul run as a 3rd party to take votes away from the rethug. In my opinion most Democratic politicians are too far to the right, but Republicans are all but fascists. I'm on the border between Socialist and Communist.

[Ian]

I'm hoping either Palin or Paul run as a 3rd party to take votes away from the rethug. In my opinion most Democratic politicians are too far to the right, but Republicans are all but fascists. I'm on the border between Socialist and Communist.

A nice thought, but I doubt another major ticket on the right will happen. As split as the Republicans are these days, they're not about to let the Democrats' wet dream come true.

At least there's no Nader-like candidate on the left to ruin Obama's chances. We could have been living in the wake of a Gore administration instead of the Bush one, but for that grandstanding nimrod.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ron Paul mentioned something very interesting about how he would handle the Supreme Court, specifically the Roe V Wade decision. He supports Congress passing a law removing the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over this matter. That would set aside all Federal court decisions and place the matter strictly in State hands.
That's his blue-print for dismantling much of federal power and returning it to the States.

The US will have 50 jurisdictions regarding abortion? What a great achievement!

Well, we have 50 jurisdictions for lots of things.
One less question they'd have to badger prospective Supreme Court appointees with.

I don't think that the Congress can limit the Suprmes' jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues. They can specify the number of Justices, and they can limit the court's jurisdiction in general, but I think there would be a Constitutional Crisis if the Congress tried to pass a law saying that the SCOTUS has no right to review a legislative statute as violative or not violative of the Constitution.

If it could do that, then the Congress could restrict the SCOTUS's power to decide ANY Constitutional issue, such as, if Congress or a state legislature passed a law saying "citizens can not express political opinions in newspapers," and Congress said, "and by the way, SCOTUS has no power to review that legislation for conformity with the first Amendment." So, I think Rand Paul won't get very far with his suggestion.

The Bill of Rights were originally limits only on Federal powers, which is where the derived right to privacy that justifies abortion originates from. Though it is taken for granted now that it limits State powers also, that opinion is not based on law but judicial opinion. The 11th Amendment was even passed to enforce State sovereignty against the Federal government.

The application of most of the Bill of Rights to the States was held by the Court as required by the 14th Amendment. They didn't just invent it out of whole cloth. It's a Constitutional ruling.

But Article II gives Congress the right to limit their jurisdiction "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" The only jurisdiction that the constitution requires on the Federal court System is foreign diplomats, maritime law, and intra-State law suits.

That's the Supreme Court's "original" jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that those cases are filed, initially, not in a federal district court, but directly in the SCOTUS. In addition to "original" jurisdiction, Article III also gives the SCOTUS "appellate" jurisdiction.

Technically, the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. That is where State laws and the State constitution is supposed to place limits.

Technically, they did, yes. However, after the 14th Amendment was passed, the Supreme Court held that States were not allowed to violate fundamental liberties without due process of law. The SCOTUS used the Bill of Rights to determine what rights were indeed fundamental. See, "Incorporation Doctrine" wherein most of the bill of rights was determined applicable to the States because they embody fundamental "liberties" and the states can't deprive people of "Liberty" without due process of law. Due process has procedural and substantive requirements. Procedural requirements mean that for the STate to deprive a person of Liberty, the state must follow fair procedures, with a fair hearing, right to an attorney, that kind of thing. Substantive requirements mean that the State can't make a law, say, restricting free speech or gun ownership without meeting a very strict scrutiny - meaning that the law has to be narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest.

It makes sense, because the 14th Amendment has to mean something. And, since it says that State may not deprive a person of "Liberty" without due process of law, then it stands to reason that there must be some definition of what constitutes "Liberty" that States can't deprive people of.

If we were to eliminate that application of the 14th Amendment, then States would not be required to honor the freedom of speech, or the press, or assembly, or to bear arms, or not to subject people to unreasonable search and seizure, or not quarter soldiers in private homes, or not require people, etc. to testify against themselves, etc.

[Coito ergo sum]

To me, that's the the tail wagging the dog. To suggest that the next election will turn on who a Supreme Court nominee will be seems a stretch. The article appears to be written in such a way that assumes that the populace/voters would be more concerned about avoiding a Republican nominee than a Democrat nominee. That is by no means at all clear.

Further, every Presidential election cycle for the last 30 years has involved the same cries from the Democrats of "oh, my noGod!!!! If we get a Republican President, they'll appoint a Nazi to the SCOTUS and all of our rights will be taken away!!!! Nooooooo!!!!!!" -- Frankly, it, along with the "all Republicans are stupid" endless refrain, it's a little old. It's just a marketing ploy and a talking point.

I don't think that's the point of this article at all. The point is that if a nomination becomes a major issue in the middle of the election, and it definitely would be very important and all over the media,

But, in what way? Is most of the population adverse to having Ginsberg replaced? I doubt it. Do they see her as a guardian of the rights of the people? I doubt that too. In fact, I bet most people don't know who she is or what she believes in.

then the sole issue a Romney candidacy will be counting on to propel him to victory -an economy that is still weak next year and promises that he'll do better at reviving it than Obama- won't be quite as overarching as we're expecting it to be.

Well, I just can't imagine the voting public caring more about whether Ruth Ginsberg is replaced by another person as significantly liberal as she is, as opposed to whether the economy is still teetering on a recession.

It would also help Obama if the senate GOP starts gumming up the nomination process since the public will rightfully see such maneuvers as pure partisanship. In an election year partisanship is OK, but screwing around with the nominations process for the SCOTUS will not be well received.

One, I think the populace is very familiar with the fact that both parties gum up nomination processes. That's why the Republicans had to threaten the nuclear option because the Democrats wouldn't act on Bush's nominations. Nobody expects either party to seamlessly approve the other party's nominations. There is also no indication that the GOP will do that, especially since they didn't do it with the liberal nominations that are currently on the Court. If anything, it's the Democrats who ride nominees out on rails, or try to - like Bork, and look at the way Thomas was treated. Far more scrutiny appears to be applied to Republican nominees than to Democrat nominees. That's my perception - and, I am open to being persuaded otherwise. Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotamayor each were nominated and confirmed in three months. Does that sound like "gumming up the works?" Ginsberg was appointed in June and took her seat in August of the same year, 1993. Stephen Breyer was nominated by Clinton in May, 1994, and took his seat in July, 1994. Is the idea that Republicans do everything in their power to keep Democrat nominees off of the SCOTUS just a myth? It would seem so, based on the track record.

I also think you're (obviously) hyper-sensitive to hearing criticism of Republicans. You're reading this article the way you want to read it; I didn't see it like that at all.

Not really. I don't think "hypersensitive." I am cognizant of it, and frankly, it's implicit in the article's subject matter. The thesis is that if Ginsberg has to be replaced, that the issue of her replacement will be a negative for Republicans and positive for Obama. I don't see how that can be the case unless one assumes that the voting public (a) really knows or cares all that much who is on the SCOTUS, and (b) that making sure that Ginsberg is replaced by a sufficiently liberal nominee is important to the voting public.

If the article was seeking to show that Ginsberg's replacement may well become an issue, but it would be one that would be favorable to Republicans or equally likely to be favorable to one side or the other, then what's the point of the article?

Criticism of the left from the right is much more vitriolic and paranoid, IMHO,

Well, we all have our experiences. What's yours based on? Mine is based on things like Republicans being accused of wanting people to die on the streets (recall the healthcare debate), Bush being "Hitler," Petraeus being "Be tray us," (of course, we shouldn't question people's patriotism....) Republicans want the bridges to fall down, Herman Cain is an uncle Tom and is himself a racist - and like Alan Grayson saying Republicans want people do die, quickly -- and the GOP is sadistic - Maxine Waters says the tea partiers can go "straight to hell." Democrat Rep. Slaughter said, "“In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re (Republicans) here to kill women.” - see that? Republicans want to kill women. Is that not "vitriolic and paranoid?" Democrat Rep. Mike Doyle said, referring to the GOP, “We have negotiated with terrorists… This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez said, “…the Tea Parties and the GOP have made their slash and burn lunacy clear….The arsonists must be stopped.” LOL. Arsonists...terrorists and murderers... and sadistic ones...that "betrayus".... And, of course, they're all racists -- Democrat Rep. Andre Carson said... “….some of them in Congress right now of the Tea Party movement would love to see you and me….hanging on a tree.” Jimmy Hoffa Jr said.... “President Obama, this is your army, we are ready to march. Let’s take these son of a bitches out and give America back to America where we belong.” I can go on...

and one need look no further than FoxNews or the myriad of conservative talk show hosts for proof. A lot of it actually sounds like what you charicatured above. What does the left have to counter that level of intensity? MSNBC? Bill Maher? They're not even in the same league, in either ratings or anger.

I'd love you to set forth your examples. And, MSNBC is FAR worse and FAR more overtly and unapologetically partisan than FoxNews. It's by a mile. You can't even hardly compare them. Shultz and Maddow and O'Donnell - they come right out and SAY they are in favor of Obama and the Democrats and against the Republicans. You honestly think those folks are less in the Democrat camp than O'Reilly and Shepard Smith and Greta Van Sustern are in the Republican camp?

Besides, Republicans clearly are stupid.

...except Nixon, who is allowed to be characterized as a genius because he was pure evil....

Sure, the SCOTUS is important, but it's not a bell-weather issue with the average voter. Most of them can't even name anyone on the SCOTUS, or maybe one or two.

Funny thing about issues like this - once they become important issues in the middle of a major election year, even laypeople learn quite a bit about them. And it doesn't take too much educating for people to realize that there are three-to-four staunch conservatives on the court, four liberal-to-semi-liberals, and one notoriously fickle, tie-breaking centrist (Kennedy). And collectively, voters like to see balance, even if it comes at the expense of efficiency.

It seems like a extreme stretch to me that people concerned about 9.1% unemployment, massive foreclosures and bankruptcies, a spiraling and skyrocketing deficit, the economy teetering on disaster, are going to base their vote on the judicial nomination to the SCOTUS. Nevertheless - if history is a guide, as I pointed out, it takes about 2-3 months for a Democratic President's SCOTUS nomination to be confirmed. Does that sound like something that will become a deciding factor in an election?

But it's all just speculation anyway. Maybe Ginsberg will live another fifteen years, or a SCOTUS nomination won't be a pressing issue for a while, maybe even until after 2016.

Maybe. And, maybe if Ginsberg resigns in April 2012, her replacement will be nominated in May, and approved in July or August, like Kagan, Sotamayor, Ginsberg and Breyer.....

[Ian]

I disagree with every word, except the part about Nixon.

Regarding left/right partisanship... Maybe you should actually watch some of FoxNews' evening commentators to see what they have to say. It's borderline hysteria - MSNBC isn't even close to their caliber of partisanship; what Maddow and others (including and especially Jon Stewart) do is comment more on is how ridiculous conservative media is more than conservative policies themselves. They're reacting to the overblown reactions of the right-wing talking heads, because they're so outrageous that they're easy targets. Or maybe listen what what conservative radio has to say (and there is no counterpart on the left). The health care debate? One Florida congressman blurted out that "die quickly" line about Republicans, and he was defeated for re-election. The GOP, meanwhile, actively promoted the idea of a "government takeover of healthcare" and visions of "death panels", playing to people's worst fears (the GOP specializes in this, and it works) and they re-took the House. How many times have you heard teabaggers babble crap about Obama being a socialist? I've heard it more times than I can count, and I've seen hammers and sickles and other such crap on bumper stickers. On the left I never saw anyone of any credibility saying that Bush was secretly a Nazi, and bumper stickers are a helluva lot more polite. I am NEVER going to be convinced that the partisan right is less paranoid and more respectful than the partisan left. I've seen exactly the opposite with my own eyes, so IMO your notion just doesn't make sense.

Anyway, I never said that a SCOTUS appointment would replace the economy as the premier issue for the election. But if it comes up, it would definitely BE an issue, and likely a rather prominent and well-discussed one. In other words, while neither electoral-vote.com nor me thinks it would be all-important, it would certainly be important. No question about it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I disagree with every word, except the part about Nixon.

Regarding left/right partisanship... Maybe you should actually watch some of FoxNews' evening commentators to see what they have to say. It's borderline hysteria - MSNBC isn't even close to their caliber of partisanship; what Maddow and others (including and especially Jon Stewart) do is comment more on is how ridiculous conservative media is more than conservative policies themselves.

Jon Stewart is far more balanced than MSNBC. And, MSNBC makes no pretense about who it favors. I gave many examples. What are yours?

They're reacting to the overblown reactions of the right-wing talking heads, because they're so outrageous that they're easy targets. Or maybe listen what what conservative radio has to say (and there is no counterpart on the left).

There are counterparts on the left. There are no counterparts with the same size audience, but nobody is stopping people from listening to the radio. I don't understand why liberals/left leaning folks don't listen to the radio as much. Do you?

The health care debate? One Florida congressman blurted out that "die quickly" line about Republicans, and he was defeated for re-election.

When you're that much of an idiot, you deserve being defeated for reelection. And, that wasn't his only unfortunate line. And, it wasn't the only example I listed. Hysteria, you say? I gave you a list of examples.

The GOP, meanwhile, actively promoted the idea of a "government takeover of healthcare"

That was the original proposal, and that was what Obama said he wanted. I have the audio/video of Obama saying.

and visions of "death panels",

Sure, that's the silly characterization of what is the reality of government run health care - that someone must make broad, across the board decisions about who gets what healthcare, including that someone is too old for it to be worthwhile that they receive certain procedures that are very expensive with not enough chance of success. Nobody denies that such a thing would happen. The objection was to the characterization of it as a "death panel" sentencing people to die.

playing to people's worst fears (the GOP specializes in this, and it works)

I have no doubt that they do. What I find hilarious is the complete obliviousness to the fact that the Democrats do the same thing.

and they re-took the House. How many times have you heard teabaggers babble crap about Obama being a socialist?

I think he and his staunch supporters like socialism. Don't you hear it here on Rationalia all the time? The objection is not accusing Obama or his supporters of being in favor of socialism, the objection is to people thinking socialism is a bad thing.

I've heard it more times than I can count, and I've seen hammers and sickles and other such crap on bumper stickers.

Bush is a Nazi. How many times had we heard that?

On the left I never saw anyone of any credibility saying that Bush was secretly a Nazi,

And, I've never heard anyone "of any credibility" say that Obama was a Nazi or a Communist.

and bumper stickers are a helluva lot more polite.

You must not have been looking.

Conservatives don't generally do the bumper sticker thing - if you see a car littered with bumper stickers, it's usually some leftist:






So polite:

I am NEVER going to be convinced that the partisan right is less paranoid and more respectful than the partisan left.

To me, it's obvious. I mean, lots of people think the partisan left is peaceful, when they're the ones who throw bricks through Starbucks windows during antiglobalization riots.

And, look at the stupid "Occupy Wall Street" bullshit --- LOL - a bunch of folks who want to protest who can't bring themselves to protest the government in this day and age when the Democrats are in charge. In 1968 the "left" would protest the Democrat National Convention - they'd never do that today.

Why do you think Obama gave a wink and a nod to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement? Because as long as they're not protesting Democrats, it's all good.

I've seen exactly the opposite with my own eyes, so IMO your notion just doesn't make sense.

I've seen violence and incivility almost constantly from the left. One day, there will be calls for "civil discourse" from the left, and the next day they'll make the allegations that Republicans want people to die in the streets.

Anyway, I never said that a SCOTUS appointment would replace the economy as the premier issue for the election. But if it comes up, it would definitely BE an issue, and likely a rather prominent and well-discussed one. In other words, while neither electoral-vote.com nor me thinks it would be all-important, it would certainly be important. No question about it.

Why would you think it would be an issue? I gave you examples of the last 4 Democrat SCOTUS nominees. Nominated in May or June and took their seats in July or August -- the allegations that Republicans would hold up the nominations is just not supported by the record. Now, Democrats, THEY will hold up nominations ...Bork...Thomas....

Now, where is your proof?

[Coito ergo sum]

“Most Wall Street guys, they feel like they’re going to be burned in effigy,” said Anthony Scaramucci, managing partner of SkyBridge Capital, who gave to Obama in 2008 but is now fundraising for Mitt Romney. Some moderate donors, who have given to both parties, “fled from Obama in his support of the Wall Street protests,” he said.

In 2008 Obama edged out John McCain in Wall Street fundraising and Democrats overall raised about as much as Republicans. Giving patterns went back to normal in 2010 when the GOP came out back on top.

This cycle Democrats have a particularly tough sell, since they pushed through a financial regulatory reform law last year and Mitt Romney has emerged as a Republican presidential front-runner, whose deep Wall Street ties clash with Obama’s recent populist overtures. The lip service to occupiers is only hurting an already rocky relationship.

“You can’t have it both ways,” said one in-house financial services lobbyist. “It just makes it harder for people who are Democrats in New York, Boston, Chicago to on the one hand be demogagued and then be asked ‘Hey, you can get your picture with the president for $30,000.’ It doesn’t square.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... z1bAFxlnhF

[Warren Dew]

Besides, Republicans clearly are stupid.

Just not quite as stupid as Democrats.

[Tyrannical]

Ron Paul, in case you ever wondered what a politician with integrity looked like

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141653000 ... red-babies

the practice would not participate in any federal health programs, which meant, as Paul described it, "that we will see all Medicare and Medicaid patients free of charge, and they will be treated just like all of our other patients, but we're not going to charge them and accept federal funds.
And in all those 20 years, we never accepted one penny of federal money. We saw all those patients for free, delivered their babies free, did their surgeries free; whatever they needed we did, and we didn't charge them.

In the mid-1970s, Paul decided to run for Congress to fill an unexpected vacancy — and won. But he didn't give up his practice, at least not at first.

"Back in those years Congress didn't work on Friday, and so every Friday he would fly back to Lake Jackson," says Pruett, "and he would help me then on Friday and Saturday, and oftentimes take call on Sunday, and oftentimes catch the red-eye back to Washington on Monday. And I guess he did that every single week for nine years."

[Schneibster]

Wrong Paul? Isn't he the one who wants to repeal the anti-slavery amendment?

Good luck with that.

[Tyrannical]

Wrong Paul? Isn't he the one who wants to repeal the anti-slavery amendment?

Good luck with that.

I don't recall Ron Paul ever suggesting repealing the 13th amendment

[JimC]

We have a current government lead by a Labour party that is self-destructing and a sniggering right-wing Liberal party with a maniacal leader waiting in the wings...

[Tyrannical]

We have a current government lead by a Labour party that is self-destructing and a sniggering right-wing Liberal party with a maniacal leader waiting in the wings...

maniacal? Sounds like someone I'd like

[JimC]

We have a current government lead by a Labour party that is self-destructing and a sniggering right-wing Liberal party with a maniacal leader waiting in the wings...

maniacal? Sounds like someone I'd like

But he's deeply religious, as well as prone to appearing in photos dressed in skimpy swimwear...

He is the Honourable Tony Abbott...

I suspect he will be our new PM next year...