Quote:

---

if you really think all 3 are terrible, why would you vote for any of them?

---

Quote:

---

i'm voting for ron paul, if he's still on the ballad in november.

---

Quote:

---

we don't need any more "conservative" (read-neocon) judges on the supreme court - bush has appointed plenty already.

---

Quote:

---

Phred said:

Quote:

---

if you really think all 3 are terrible, why would you vote for any of them?

---

First of all, I'm not American, so I can't vote in the US election. Secondly, even if I were able to vote, I'd vote Libertarian.

But I realize my voting strategy is not the norm -- even amongst such non-standard voters as the denizens of this forum. The fact remains that far, FAR more of the Shroomery Political Discussion forum members will end up voting for either McCain or Hill/Barry than for all other third party candidates combined. You will note I was careful to refer to the three as the only remaining candidates with a realistic chance of becoming Prez.

Quote:

---

i'm voting for ron paul, if he's still on the ballad in november.

---

Ron Paul has no chance, neither does any of the third party candidates, so we can safely disregard their philosophies on judicial appointments.

Quote:

---

we don't need any more "conservative" (read-neocon) judges on the supreme court - bush has appointed plenty already.

---

So you didn't bother to read McCain's speech. Can't honestly say I'm surprised.





Phred

---

Quote:

---

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- no matter who wins the November 2008 election, the US is gonna be fucked for at least the next four years. All three of the candidates with any realistic chance of winning are absolutely terrible.

---

Quote:

---

Phred said:
So you think it's a good idea for the Supreme Court to be manned not by actual judges, but by legislators?

Do the world a favor and stay home on election day.




Phred

---

Quote:

---

TheCow said:

Quote:

---

Phred said:
So you think it's a good idea for the Supreme Court to be manned not by actual judges, but by legislators?

Do the world a favor and stay home on election day.




Phred

---

Scalia, (a conservative judge), has said that while he disagrees with abortion on a moral level, would always vote to keep it constitutional because there is nothing in the constitution to suggest otherwise. As far as I know hes the only so called conservative judge who feels this way, what constitutional reasons do the other conservative judges have for wanting it banned? Is this not legislating from the bench?

What specifically are you referring to when you say that liberal judges are legislators. Seems to me they are the ones opposed to government infringement on the bill of rights, in general of course.

---

Quote:

---

Try and explain to me how the constitution doesn't guarnetee a gay guy equal marriage rights w/ a straight guy?

---

Quote:

---

Phred said:
Am I and Lonestar the only ones who have actually read the speech that this thread is about?

---

Quote:

---

Q. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court did have an evolving interpretation of the equal protection clause that did read it as prohibiting those vile practices.

A. (Scalia):
Well, that’s fine. The question is whether that’s right. The question is whether, whether, you can live with an evolving constitution. Once you say it evolves, it doesn’t depend what the people thought they were doing when they adopted it -- it evolves. Somebody is going to have to decide how it evolves. Why in the world would you want nine people from a very uncharacteristic class of society -- to whit, nine lawyers -- to decide how the constitution evolves? It means whatever they think it ought to mean!...

Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court ... And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.

---

Quote:

---

Phred said:
Am I and Lonestar the only ones who have actually read the speech that this thread is about?

How many of the rest of y'all even clicked on the link before making your posts, let alone read the whole thing?


Phred

---

Quote:

---

One Justice of the Court remarked in a recent opinion that he was basing a conclusion on “my own experience,” even though that conclusion found no support in the Constitution, or in applicable statutes, or in the record of the case in front of him. Such candor from the bench is rare and even commendable. But it was not exactly news that the Court had taken to setting aside the facts and the Constitution in its review of cases, and especially in politically charged cases. Often, political causes are brought before the courts that could not succeed by democratic means, and some federal judges are eager to oblige.

---

Quote:

---

In sum, just as Justice White ultimately based his con-
clusion in Furman on his extensive exposure to countless
cases for which death is the authorized penalty, I have
relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion
that the imposition of the death penalty represents “the
pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal
contributions to any discernible social or public purposes.
A penalty with such negligible returns to the State [is]
patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment
violative of the Eighth Amendment.” Furman, 408 U. S.,
at 312 (White, J., concurring). 19
IV
The conclusion that I have reached with regard to the
constitutionality of the death penalty itself makes my

decision in this case particularly difficult. It does not,
however, justify a refusal to respect precedents that re-
main a part of our law. This Court has held that the
death penalty is constitutional, and has established a
framework for evaluating the constitutionality of particu-
lar methods of execution. Under those precedents,
whether as interpreted by THE CHIEF JUSTICE or JUSTICE
GINSBURG, I am persuaded that the evidence adduced by
petitioners fails to prove that Kentucky’s lethal injection
protocol violates the Eighth Amendment. Accordingly, I
join the Court’s judgment.

---