• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What is it with single issue voters?

TillEulenspiegel

Master Poster
T
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
2,302
I was just listening to NPR. There was a piece about voters stand on issues. There were many cross over Dem's and plenty religious Conservatives who claim that they will vote for Bush because of his stand on abortion. There are other similar issues that others site.

Don't these people have ANY clue as to how our government works??

They actually believe that Bush once in office will magically overturn Roe V Wade.There are two circumstances under which that may occur, either the SCOTUS overturns Roe, which in reviewing the current make up of the court is very unlikely, not including that any case proposed for their review must under go countless review and appeal under lower courts. The second is that he can shove thru a constitutional amendment, THAT my friends will never happen. Theres a third possibility that Bush being elected stacks the SCOTUS with anti-Roe judges to replace retirees.

Kerry followers seem almost as disoriented, I will do this, I will do that, aren't folks aware that the legislative bodies ( Representatives and Senate) are predominantly Republican??

I just don't get it, have these people had NO civics studies?

Comments, thoughts?
 
I don't understand your post. In the Dred Scott thread, you point out the importance of considering the number of Supreme Court justices who will retire when selecting a president. Four current justices are over 70. The religious right is very prepared to launch a Roe v. Wade test case once they believe that the SCOTUS might decide in their favor.
 
Ladewig said:
I don't understand your post. In the Dred Scott thread, you point out the importance of considering the number of Supreme Court justices who will retire when selecting a president. Four current justices are over 70. The religious right is very prepared to launch a Roe v. Wade test case once they believe that the SCOTUS might decide in their favor.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's a huge issue to consider. I believe we're about one dead justice away from my rights being taken away, so yeah, I'll continue to place that high on my list of priorities when voting.
 
TillEulenspiegel said:
They actually believe that Bush once in office will magically overturn Roe V Wade.There are two circumstances under which that may occur, either the SCOTUS overturns Roe, which in reviewing the current make up of the court is very unlikely
Click to expand...
SCOTUS makeup is BY FAR my number one issue.

Based on age, health and verbal cues, 2-3 justices are expected to be appointed during the next term. If Bush makes these appointments, the change is apt to be profound and it will be cast for a generation.
 
This is why I vote for opposing parties for president and congress; in the hope that they ballance each other out. Don't SC appointees have to pass congressional approval?
 
Ladewig
I did post my concerns in regards to SCOTUS, I think that You are also aware on that reality.I have no doubt that organizations on both sides have an agenda that is well planned and has legions of lawyers.

I was referring to the general voting public . Many seem to think that Bush once installed in a second term will do by executive fiat what the courts have prevented so far.
 
Ahh, yes. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Many native-born U.S. citizens know so little about their country's government that they could not pass a naturalization test.
 
Re: Re: What is it with single issue voters?

varwoche said:
SCOTUS makeup is BY FAR my number one issue.

Based on age, health and verbal cues, 2-3 justices are expected to be appointed during the next term. If Bush makes these appointments, the change is apt to be profound and it will be cast for a generation.
Click to expand...
Skeptical Community Of The United States?
 
Also, keep in mind that all those voter registration drives have brought in a lot of people not knowledgable about politics.
 
I would support an amendment to the US Constitution to limit senators to two six year terms and congress to three 3 year terms. All states the same. Try and get that through the House.

Different states keep trying to vote in term limits and getting overturned by that state's judicial or legislative bodies.
 
Theres a third possibility that Bush being elected stacks the SCOTUS with anti-Roe judges to replace retirees.

Congrats Einstein, after apparently a lot of hard crunching of your mental gears, you've stumbled upon a fact that is obvious to the people whom you think need tutoring on "how the government works". It's one of the oldest cliches of american politics that "the supreme court follows the presidential election". The current membership is far more liberal than it should have been, thanks, to errors in appointments by republicans (Sandra Day O'Connor); gutlessness in opposing leftwing nominees (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) by cowardly republican congressmen, when democrats were never shy in stopping nominees like Bork on pure ideological grounds; and the big stupid mistake of Bush I in appointing the phantom liberal Robert Souter.

In recent years, all these geezers have generally taken the approach that they won't leave till they have two feet and one arm in the grave (and who can blame them - they are in effect the unelected dictators of the last superpower) and probably one or more will either hobble out or be carried out at room temperature during the next four years. With the immense centralization of power in the USSC in the last few decades, this is probably THE key issue in any presidential election where some of the court's members are in their 80s.
 
Patridiculous, it was the Supreme Court who ultimately appointed Bush as President. If you think that is dictatorial, well, I won't argue with you.

Do you think the SC should be completely stacked with members as far right as they can go? I personally want to see a balance in the SC. Or at least a liberal court. Because liberal judges can and do vote conservatively on several issues, while a conservative judge NEVER votes outside his or her ideology.

By the way, you have basically called the entire Republican section of Congress a bunch of cowards. Also, you called Democrats tough by implication. I agree.
 
Patridiculous, it was the Supreme Court who ultimately appointed Bush as President. If you think that is dictatorial, well, I won't argue with you.

Well no, Doriarhea, actually the USSC held that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. It did so on entirely reasonable equitable grounds. That left wingnuts like you think the USSC "appointed" Bush is a kind of lefty reality morph - enough of you come to places like this and tell each other these myths enough times and you actually really end up believing it. As matter of fact, although the Florida court's actions were the only REAL attempted election theft involved, I actually opposed the USSC decision at the time on federalist grounds. Liberals, on the other hand, became instant born-again states righters for that case, swiftly transforming back to anti-federalists after the issue was decided.

Do you think the SC should be completely stacked with members as far right as they can go? I personally want to see a balance in the SC. Or at least a liberal court. Because liberal judges can and do vote conservatively on several issues, while a conservative judge NEVER votes outside his or her ideology.

Pure hokum. The four liberal judges vote in lockstep like machines. O'Connor was the "swing vote" for 5-4 decisions previously, a description the LME still use for her, but she's become liberal in her dotage. She cast the deciding vote for anti-white discrimination in the U of M cases, at at time when after 25 years of gradually declining reverse discrimination and court defeats, most constitutional scholars predicted the decision on those cases would be the "alamo" for "affirmative action". Her reasoning in the the court decision was so shakey, that even the leftwing Ginsburg, who also voted for discrimination from different reasoning, publicly questioned it. Now, she's breathed new life into discrimination, with universities and corporations eagerly dusting off anti-white policies many thought they'd never see again. The issue isn't liberal or conservative, the issue is the self-acquisition of unanswerable power on the court - liberals have been fine with this for decades - with the warren court, the burger court, and this court as it swings left. If it swings right, they can be expected to become born-again checks-and-balances advocates.


By the way, you have basically called the entire Republican section of Congress a bunch of cowards. Also, you called Democrats tough by implication. I agree.

That is exactly correct - most of them are cowards
 
O! To live long enough to be dissed by Patrick...I'll wear it like a badge.

If you examine the thread , I am complaining about the general public, not supremely educated pundits such as Your esteemed self.

I would wager <%75 know who the VP is, <%25 know what the Senate Pro Tem is and < 5% know who that is in this congress.
As far as MY understanding of the issue that is OOT and can be demonstrated by following Ludwig's link to another thread.

Inflammatory, bilious speech does not an argument make. And the estimation of your character and worth of Your POV to others slides Southward with each snide remark.
You seem to view this board as a pissing contest. It is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom