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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
:lol: 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?
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)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Basically, a poll on these forums.
Here it is.
Hi,
I hope it’s not too late to revive this thread after a 3 months break of no further comments.
I have read Peikoff’s comments about voting republican. He seems to hold that anyone who votes Republican does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism.
I find this very confusing. I see that there are a lot of Christian conservatives running that party, but still, I am not convinced that most of them really LIVE by the standards of their religion. It would be much much worse if they really would, but in fact, I think it’s exaggerated to say that party would bring us back to the dark ages.
To me they are religious in name only, just in love with certain traditions which seem to give them a sense of identity and self confidence that they fail to discover objectively. I look at them more like a club of traditionalists who happen to count economic freedom as one of their traditions they proudly try to maintain. Although many of them may not understand the true basis of freedom, I think Guiliani does much more than most of them.
And most of all, the degree to which their poor remnants of religious convictions could ever affect American lives negatively seriously is far less than the amount of added socialism by the Democrats could do.
And given the list of potential candidates, I think Guiliani qualifies in the field of leadership, I think he can bring that original sense of RATIONAL self confidence back to the country, I think he can remind Americans WHY their country is so great on a rational, objective basis, rather than just by quoting the bible. And I think by presenting America with his rational views, he could give the rest of the world some REAL arguments to ponder on, and remind the rest of the world why America ORIGINALLY has a properly founded constitution.
Because most people outside America seem to think America was founded on the Bible. It is time for the world to get the right impression. It is time that America gets a President who can really DEFEND America’s actions rationally, rather than lowering America to a false basis even LOWER than that in many middle and western European countries by arguing with religious commandments.
I can’t think of any European head of state who would really talk about God in any assembly, meeting, or other public performance or try to justify or convince others of certain actions with religion. And this is why no majority in any of these European countries would EVER take America serious again. They will always feel morally superior as long as America has a president who tries to argue with that mysticism.
I think a president who reminds Americans about the right philosophy is of fundamental importance now.
I believe Guiliani is goal directed, nows how to set goals and motivate others to keep their focus, nows how to think positively, nows how to look at the important aspects in life, those that matter, he’s the one that believes in progress and understands the joy it brings rather than statism. I believe he can lead America through ANY crisis without splitting up the country and without making Americans feel ashamed of themselves, because he will always argue rationally.
I think America should use that rare opportunity and vote for Guiliani in hope of steering the country into the right direction philosophically.
I’m sorry, I didn’t notice there already IS a thread on Guiliani. I have placed my latter comment there now, so please post your replies there.
It is fairly certain that the Democratic ticket in 2008 will unfortunately be Hillary Clinton for President and Barak Obama for Vice President.
Article by Mark Alexander - Hilrya Rodhamovich Clintonov’s economic plan
She and Bill go to great pains to hide it, but every once in a while Comrade Hillary slips and a little bit of her Marxism peaks through the camouflage. It’s sad, but she’s going to be our next president.
p.s., not only is she a socialist, but she’s a deeply religious one too.