2008 Presidential Hopefuls

[Inspector]

Out of curiosity, why the strong aversion to McCain?

http://z7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...?showtopic=1054

Be sure to follow the link to Myrhaf, as well. McCain suffered for his country... and if he gets his way then all of us will, too. That's what he stands for in a nutshell.

[Seeker]

The way forward for Giuliani is to promise to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court (the actual term preferred by Scalia, I believe, is "textualist"). That might placate the conservative base which views court appointments, not the presidency, as the key to social issues, and which might give a pro-choice candidate a pass on that basis. I don't know much about Giuliani but so far he seems infinitely preferable to Hillary Clinton who is simply a great big bundle of lies piled atop lies. Uggggh. All this could change as more details about Giuliani are revealed, of course, but up front I'd say he could be a winner.

[softwareNerd]

The way forward for Giuliani is to promise to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court (the actual term preferred by Scalia, I believe, is "textualist").

That's the way forward in terms of getting more conservative votes. To my mind, it would be a huge negative. (Not that Guiliani will ever get my vote, ever.)

Indeed, in the 2008 election, I can see myself voting Democrat simply on the argument that we need to keep balance on the court and allow some of the left-wingers to retire and be replaced by other left-wingers.

[aleph_0]

http://z7.invisionfree.com/capitalistparad...?showtopic=1054

Be sure to follow the link to Myrhaf, as well. McCain suffered for his country... and if he gets his way then all of us will, too. That's what he stands for in a nutshell.

To list McCain's negatives, I take it, 1) he is an environmentalist (and who knows what that means in terms of public policy), 2) he's pro-mandatory service? (2) is a big problem and keeps me from voting for him, but in those links I see little else that is solid.

The way forward for Giuliani is to promise to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court (the actual term preferred by Scalia, I believe, is "textualist"). That might placate the conservative base which views court appointments, not the presidency, as the key to social issues, and which might give a pro-choice candidate a pass on that basis. I don't know much about Giuliani but so far he seems infinitely preferable to Hillary Clinton who is simply a great big bundle of lies piled atop lies. Uggggh. All this could change as more details about Giuliani are revealed, of course, but up front I'd say he could be a winner.

And that's exactly what he's doing.

That's the way forward in terms of getting more conservative votes. To my mind, it would be a huge negative. (Not that Guiliani will ever get my vote, ever.)

Indeed, in the 2008 election, I can see myself voting Democrat simply on the argument that we need to keep balance on the court and allow some of the left-wingers to retire and be replaced by other left-wingers.

1) You want activist judges? 2) Why would you not vote for Giuliani?

[DarkWaters]

(Not that Guiliani will ever get my vote, ever.)

Indeed, in the 2008 election, I can see myself voting Democrat simply on the argument that we need to keep balance on the court and allow some of the left-wingers to retire and be replaced by other left-wingers.

I assume that you do not wish to vote for Giuliani for the same reasons expressed here. I may try to borrow that book you mentioned from a library.

What candidates, if any, seem to be the best amongst the given choices in your opinion and why?

[softwareNerd]

1) You want activist judges?

To me, "activist" is a non-essential in our current situation. Scalia will use his textual-ism to achieve his aims and someone else will use revisionism to achieve theirs. If there is a judge who will say: individual rights form the foundation of the constitution, he gets my vote. Unfortunately, short of that, I view the Supreme Court as more of a super-senate type of legislative body. Viewing it that way, I want to see political "balance" in the form of near SCOTUS-gridlock.

2) Why would you not vote for Giuliani?

In him, I see a success-hating mediocrity who is very much in the vein of people like Hillary Clinton. (I do not detect that same attitude in Bill Clinton, nor in Bush.) Edited February 21, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Capitalism Forever]

Romney?... They guy who wants to destroy women's lives by dictating that they carry a fetus to term?

Does he? I know he is not pro-choice, but that does not mean the same.

Besides, carrying a fetus to term (and then having it adopted) does not really destroy a woman's life. If you do not want a child at that point, it effectively makes you work for the government for ... how long? two months? As 29-year-old taxpayer, I have worked for the government for somewhere near two YEARS by now.

But even that is moot because, as I hinted above, Governor Romney is hardly likely to prevent you from having an abortion overseas. If you don't tell him, he doesn't even have the means to find out you had an abortion overseas. So if you don't want to work for the government for two months, you'll have to take a vacation somewhere in the Caribbean for the government. An inconvenience, I grant it--but is this really the greatest inconvenience threatened by politicians today?

But even that may well be moot. We have had "pro-lifers" in power in the Federal Government almost uninterrupted since 1981. Taking into account the two-year interruption, that's 24 years. They don't seem to be in a hurry, do they?

[The Wrath]

Out of curiosity, why the strong aversion to McCain?

The only reason I need is Campaign Finance Reform, but there are a host of other reasons.

[Inspector]

To list McCain's negatives, I take it, 1) he is an environmentalist (and who knows what that means in terms of public policy), 2) he's pro-mandatory service? (2) is a big problem and keeps me from voting for him, but in those links I see little else that is solid.

Of course there is campaign finance censorship, but I thought that too obvious to mention. The point is that all three show the man doesn't have even the slightest hesitation to initiate force using the government. It's the principle of the thing. Someone like that, cloaked in the auspices of "conservatism" can stand to do a lot of damage. He is also well known to "work with" the democrats to push "compromises" where the dems and republicans find their common goal of statism. As president, he would have a big platform for this.

He has the will, and he has demonstrated the ability to create coalitions to push bad legislation through. It's the worst possible combination out there. At least Hilary might provoke opposition.

[The Wrath]

Of course there is campaign finance censorship, but I thought that too obvious to mention. The point is that all three show the man doesn't have even the slightest hesitation to initiate force using the government. It's the principle of the thing. Someone like that, cloaked in the auspices of "conservatism" can stand to do a lot of damage. He is also well known to "work with" the democrats to push "compromises" where the dems and republicans find their common goal of statism. As president, he would have a big platform for this.

He has the will, and he has demonstrated the ability to create coalitions to push bad legislation through. It's the worst possible combination out there. At least Hilary might provoke opposition.

You just nailed my other reason for disliking him right on the head. He goes out of his way to appease the Democrats. Whenever the Republicans have enough votes to break a Democratic filibuster, McCain decides that he would rather compromise with them, rather than defeat their filibuster.

[Inspector]

You just nailed my other reason for disliking him right on the head. He goes out of his way to appease the Democrats. Whenever the Republicans have enough votes to break a Democratic filibuster, McCain decides that he would rather compromise with them, rather than defeat their filibuster.

It's a no-brainer for him; he wants the same thing they do.

[The Wrath]

I don't think that's true. I think it's more accurate to say that he wants whatever is politically expedient at the time. And that's worse.

[Inspector]

I don't think that's true. I think it's more accurate to say that he wants whatever is politically expedient at the time. And that's worse.

I'm actually going to have to disagree with you there. McCain is, from what I can tell, not actually a compromiser. He is a man of principle, just as his reputation states. It is simply a matter of fact that, when implementing statist policies with the Democrats, he is perfectly in line with his principles. That is what is so completely scary about him. Bush implements statism because he has no principles against it and what weak ideas he does have are vaguely for it (i.e. pragmatism, then altruism). McCain will, because his principles are squarely for it; he is a weaker pragmatist but a much stronger altruist. I don't think McCain would compromise for a second on something where he saw his principles threatened... but given the nature of said principles, that is quite a scary prospect.

This "principled stand" of his gives him "character" in the eyes of the voting public. For the vast swarms of politically clueless voters, they merely pick up on his vibrations of being honest.

...but honestly what; aye, there's the rub.

[The Wrath]

I suppose that's possible, but I still see him as a person who will change with the wind. He has been criticizing the Iraq War recently, after being one of the most ardent supporters when it was popular.

[Inspector]

I suppose that's possible, but I still see him as a person who will change with the wind. He has been criticizing the Iraq War recently, after being one of the most ardent supporters when it was popular.

We'll have to examine the basis of his criticism. The answer will be there.

[aleph_0]

To me, "activist" is a non-essential in our current situation. Scalia will use his textual-ism to achieve his aims and someone else will use revisionism to achieve theirs. If there is a judge who will say: individual rights form the foundation of the constitution, he gets my vote. Unfortunately, short of that, I view the Supreme Court as more of a super-senate type of legislative body. Viewing it that way, I want to see political "balance" in the form of near SCOTUS-gridlock.

In him, I see a success-hating mediocrity who is very much in the vein of people like Hillary Clinton. (I do not detect that same attitude in Bill Clinton, nor in Bush.)

It is non-essential whether an un-elected judge (and hence your vote doesn't count for much) decides based on the letter of the law, rather than judging according to his largely unaccountable whim?

Does he? I know he is not pro-choice, but that does not mean the same.

I would argue, it does mean the same thing. Nine months of pregnancy, medical costs, time off of work, the potential for getting fired, and all of the other hardships incurred by pregnancy are all reasons why pro-life destroys lives. Certainly, some women may be able to carry the burden, namely, the independently wealthy with no goals that are time- and labor-intensive, and the freedom to leave the States if they can get a foreign abortion. However, the damage incurred by other women and the very principle of the law reaching so deeply into the personal lives of citizens are two reasons why pro-choice is simply the most important political issue.

[Marty McFly]

Does anyone else find it disconcerting that by the time Jeb Bush leaves office in 2024, there will have been a Bush or Clinton in the White House for 36 years? If Chelsea ever runs, it'll be 44.

OMG lol! I hope it won't happen though.

[softwareNerd]

It is non-essential whether an un-elected judge (and hence your vote doesn't count for much) decides based on the letter of the law, rather than judging according to his largely unaccountable whim?

Let's get the straw-men out of the way first: re: "unelected"... this whole discussion is about what judges that elected representatives will appoint, if these were hereditary appointments, there would be no relationship between the election and the judge. re: "whim"... this gives the impression that the judge will decide one thing one day and then the opposite the next; in fact, judges are using principles; again, that's the whole point: one candidate will appoint a judge with certain principles, while another will appoint a judge with different principles. So, it's not a question of whim, but of their principles being right or wrong. So, the question is not "will the judge use whim", but: will the judge use the right principles when deciding a case?

If one assumes a radically different context -- say the Soviet Union -- then, what kind of judge would one want? If it were a run-of-the-mill criminal case, a judge who lived by the law might be just fine. However, if it were a state vs. individual case, one might well want a judge who will be lax.

Of course, the US is very different, but the essential point is that the US today has plethora of illegitimate laws. If one is bearing the brunt of one of those laws, what type of judge does one want? I submit, that the essential is the extent to which the judge understands individual rights to be the purpose of all law.

From what I can tell, Scalia has no principled legal-philosophy. In the abstract, it sounds nice to say that judges should not make law, but if the law was so blatantly obvious, then what's the case about in the first place? Judges have to seek meaning and intent, and what could be more basic than a judge who works this back to an understanding that the intent and meaning of the constitution was to let individuals pursue their life, liberty and happiness with rights against the oppression by the majority?

[Marty McFly]

I have a question: I'm a registered republican because I want to vote the primaries. but I found out that there are no voting booths where I live. is that possible? I never knew that you cannot vote the republican pimaries in NY (I didn't need to register democrat in order to vote twice against Hillarious Clipton)

[Dorian]

In the future I'd like to see a poll on all the candidates. Seeing that information will motivate me to investigate the top candidates for my vote.

[gags]

I'm not sure that I understand you. Do you mean that you'd like to see a public opinion poll ranking all announced candidates?

[Dorian]

I'm not sure that I understand you. Do you mean that you'd like to see a public opinion poll ranking all announced candidates?

Basically, a poll on these forums.

[aleph_0]

Judges are still unelected officials, though, whether appointed by an elected official or not.

Now to cut to the chase, the reason that I believe judges should be constructivists is for the sake of the rule of law. We have written laws as a guarantee to know what we can and cannot do within the domain of the law. These laws might be unjust, but so long as they are defined they ought to be upheld as such. Certainly anti-trust laws and others are undefined, and so they are essentially a grant of arbitrary power to the courts, and should be (if not already) unconstitutional. However, suppose a law states that insider trading is forbidden, and stock-trading entities develop their economic strategies around the presumption that people do not insider-trade. If you start letting people get away with insider trading, then while you've vindicated one class of innocent people, you've harmed another that had counted on the laws in place being enforced. As another example, say that you matriculate to a distant college where the government has a price ceiling on books, and then the judges refuse to uphold the price ceiling. It never should have been there in the first place, and would make a lot of book businesses leave, but it now makes that student stuck in a new city with no way to afford to study and has to drop out, and losing his college fees.

So I believe that the only way a law should properly be repealed or overturned is 1) if it is actually contrary to standing Constitutional law or 2) by further legislative action. By (2), you at least have a heads-up about the laws to come.

The discussion about meaning and intent, however, is a different topic. I certainly agree that judges should try to understand exactly what is intended by the laws that are on the book, and uphold that intent.

[softwareNerd]

Now to cut to the chase, the reason that I believe judges should be constructivists is for the sake of the rule of law. ...

Yes, I understand that. However, the constitution would have us believe many laws are unconstitutional; yet, Scalia will pick and choose whatever he feels like allowing and whatever he feels like rolling back. I think, any further discussion on this sub-topic belongs in this earlier thread.

[aleph_0]

Fair enough, but I would like to bring this back around to the topic of 2008 presidential hopefuls and note that it is at least controvercial whether constructionism is good and does not clearly count against Giuliani.