Dagny Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 Just heard a news reporter say that up to four new Supreme Court Justices could be appointed by the newly elected president. They of course will hold office for about 25 years impacting many of our future laws. Up to this point I've been a Bush supporter but I don't agree with his domestic issues of anti-abortion, anti-cloning and his religious views. Most of my vote for him was based on national security. Now, what if the terrorists aren't much of a problem anymore. I just recently read an article saying Al Queida hasn't attacked because they don't have the ability to attack that they did before. If this is no longer a threat then it would put more weight on the other issues. Is this true? Has anyone else heard about how likely the Supreme Court Justices are retiring? If this has been discussed already ....my apologies ...could someone direct me to the thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I don't think we should consider Al Queda unable to attack us. It's true up to 4 Justices might retire and need to be replaced. It's hard to say, though, whether Bush or Kerry would appoint worse Justices. US News and World Reports says that Kerry might appoint Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court, where she would "judge as a 'law-and-order feminist' to build credentials to eventually run for president after Kerry." (Nov 8 issue, p. 6) It's hard to imagine anything worse than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagny Posted November 2, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 thanks for your reply. i'll still vote for Bush. I was just having election day jitters. Thoughts of prayer at public schools, ten commandments in courts and limits on scientific research made me shudder....but like i said it was just jitters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Just heard a news reporter say that up to four new Supreme Court Justices could be appointed by the newly elected president. They of course will hold office for about 25 years impacting many of our future laws. Up to this point I've been a Bush supporter but I don't agree with his domestic issues of anti-abortion, anti-cloning and his religious views. You need to go to past history. It is true that anti-abortionists like Scalia and Thomas squeezed into the Supreme Court, but, later appointments like Souter have been more moderate jurists not affected by the anti-abortion agenda. The Republicans in Congress are not firmly united regarding the faith-based agenda put forth by some conservatives. With the participation of Americans in communicating to our Senators and Congressmen regarding Supreme Court candidates, we can ensure that moderate, constructionist jurists who do not have an anti-abortion agenda be appointed to the bench. I just recently read an article saying Al Queida hasn't attacked because they don't have the ability to attack that they did before. If this is no longer a threat then it would put more weight on the other issues.... Al Qaeda is currently supporting the efforts of insurgents/terrorists in the Middle East to attack Westerners in Iraq, so that's been their preoccupation. Also, Al Qaeda is concentrating its efforts in sponsoring and suporting the Chechen rebels in Chechnya. That's not to say they won't stir up further mayhem in America but for them to do so is a major effort, whereby their current efforts seem far more convenient to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 Hopefully under an aggresive President, Al Queda will be found and killed before they can attack us again. I live is Tennessee which is in the bible belt. I don't feel like religion is very in your face here. People here care about low taxes, the 2nd amendment, and UT football. Church is just an excuse to get together and BBQ. I think that Objectivism has the greatest chance of succeeding in the "Red" states. At least they belive in some sort of morality. That can easily be replaced by the proper objectivist morality. The "Blue" states are controlled by the amoral nihilists/socialists. Anything goes and give me free stuff. It will be much harder to turn them IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Hawk Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 A helpful force of moderation, with respect to Supreme Court nominations, is Senator Arlen Spector. He is now in line to be the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which holds Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearings. Spector is a non-conservative Republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Hawk Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 This article, Thank You, Arlen, gives a description of why the conservative Right hates Arlen Spector. Here's an excerpt: Rick Santorum and George W. Bush told us that the GOP needed Arlen Specter. We needed Arlen Specter to deliver Pennsylvania for Bush. We needed Arlen Specter to boost the party in the Keystone State. We needed Arlen Specter to keep the Senate majority. Santorum and Bush were wrong. They were wrong morally, and they were wrong politically. These men saved the man who saved Roe v. Wade, and now the costs to the pro-life cause, the conservative movement, and the Republican party — for so little benefit — could be deep and long-lasting . . . Specifically, Specter is in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is in charge of confirming judicial appointments. There is no doubt that we would be better off with 54 Republican Senators and Judiciary Chairman Jon Kyl than 55 and Chairman Specter. But Bush and Santorum insisted we needed Specter in the Senate. Exactly as conservatives said throughout the contest, there is no good reason to trust Arlen Specter. When we brought up that Specter sank Bork, he didn't defend himself, but instead pointed to what he did to Anita Hill. For any pro-lifer, the Borking of Bork should be an unforgivable sin. Instead of Bork, we got Anthony Kennedy, who changed his mind at the last moment in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey and cast the deciding vote to save Roe v. Wade. So Arlen Specter saved Roe v. Wade, a ruling he has repeatedly gone on record saying was rightly decided and ought not be overturned. Still, Bush and Santorum told us Specter would play nice as judiciary chairman. Yet in a debate this October, Specter promised to deliver us "centrist" judges. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette says he told them he would not allow any "extremist" judges on the court. Both the Post-Gazette and the Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed him on the grounds he would save Roe again and block more Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagny Posted November 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/07/dorf.scotus.elections/ Found a great article explaining this very topic for anyone interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prae Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 The "Blue" states are controlled by the amoral nihilists/socialists. Anything goes and give me free stuff. And the "Red" states are controlled by a bunch of small town country rednecks. Their only agenda is to not progress in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 And the "Red" states are controlled by a bunch of small town country rednecks. Their only agenda is to not progress in any way. I can't argue with that but how does that conflict with anything I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prae Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 I can't argue with that but how does that conflict with anything I said. I just didn't want to let you get away with a low remark about "blue" states without responding (I live in NY). As for the rest of your post, republican states are probably more likely to embrace objectivist ideals. So I suppose I wasn't arguing as much as making a statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 The "Blue" states are controlled by the amoral nihilists/socialists. Just because the majority in these states voted for Kerry does not mean that these states are controlled by amoral nihilists and socialists. You have no reasonable proof to back up such a facetious statement. Take New York, for instance. George Pataki is the governor there, and the Republicans are pretty much in charge. Is Pataki a nihilist? I hope your answer is NO because, otherwise, it means you didn't do your homework. What about Connecticut, my state? It is currently run by Jodi Rell, a moderate Republican. A nihilist/socialist? Get your facts straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realitycheck44 Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 US News and World Reports says that Kerry might appoint Hillary Clinton to the Supreme Court, where she would "judge as a 'law-and-order feminist' to build credentials to eventually run for president after Kerry." (Nov 8 issue, p. 6) It's hard to imagine anything worse than that. Ha ha. I was in World History today and my teacher said that Hillary Clinton was not nearly as liberal as everybody thinks and she doesn't know why its automatically assumed that Hillary is ultra-liberal simply because she's a woman. She also said that Hillary Clinton was nowhere near a socialist. I just sat there in disbelief. It all makes sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Just because the majority in these states voted for Kerry does not mean that these states are controlled by amoral nihilists and socialists. You have no reasonable proof to back up such a facetious statement. Take New York, for instance. George Pataki is the governor there, and the Republicans are pretty much in charge. Is Pataki a nihilist? I hope your answer is NO because, otherwise, it means you didn't do your homework. What about Connecticut, my state? It is currently run by Jodi Rell, a moderate Republican. A nihilist/socialist? Get your facts straight. I agree. In fact, I've had a great success rate in bringing liberals and democrats to the writings of Ayn Rand and so far have gotten a 70% positive reply. Conservatives and Republicans on the other hand merely wrote Rand off as "satanic" or "a crackpot". I've been 100% unsuccessful with Cons and Reps. One of the reasons I fomd liberals to be more receptive. People, just because liberals and dems are further from us than republicans doesn't mean they are immune to Rand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagny Posted November 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 I did find it strange that California...while having a Republican governor can be a Blue state. My husband jokes that a lot people just voted for Arnold cause they thought it would be cool to see him on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Rexton Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 I agree. In fact, I've had a great success rate in bringing liberals and democrats to the writings of Ayn Rand and so far have gotten a 70% positive reply. Conservatives and Republicans on the other hand merely wrote Rand off as "satanic" or "a crackpot". I've been 100% unsuccessful with Cons and Reps. Really? Funny, I've heard quite the opposite from many other Objectivists. Granted, the particular liberals and democrats Objectivists try to "convert" certainly differ widely, and so do individual Objectivists' methodology of "coverting" others. So determining which group of people are more susceptible to Objectivism is difficult. The initial approach (which can vary widely among Objectivists) can often make all the difference. Personality, familiarity and many other factors also play largely on how susceptible a person is to Objectivist's promotion of Ayn Rand's ideas. So unless you have personally spoken with a wide variety and very large number of democrats/liberals as well as religious right/republicans, I highly doubt your statistics is generally accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Objectivists in the Blue states seem to be all touchy because they are surrounded by Liberals! I read somewhere Liberals in NY are so upset they want to physically fight a Bush supporter. Watch your back boys! It getting ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Capitalist Posted November 6, 2004 Report Share Posted November 6, 2004 ^^I've seen this here in DC. There are lot of sore losers--even worse than last time. I did find it strange that California...while having a Republican governor can be a Blue state. My husband jokes that a lot people just voted for Arnold cause they thought it would be cool to see him on TV. Even Taxachussetts has had Republican governors. Few states are more than 60% for one party and lots of "moderates" will cross over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.