<p>FF ask …“Can you provide examples of where the court has ruled too conservatively on social issues?”</p>
<p>But since you ask…Dred Scott would be one.</p>
<p>perhaps this?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/28/scotus.race/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/28/scotus.race/index.html</a></p>
<p>tommy, </p>
<p>If you want to jump into a discussion, you should at least follow the posts to know what the context of the discussion is. In this case, an SC ruling some time within this century would be appropriate.</p>
<p>this case, an SC ruling some time within this century would be appropriate.</p>
<p>or millenium? ;)</p>
<p>momof2inca: The McCain thread here with the bickering among the party faithful illustrates how the GOP today is living in the past and fighting the battles of the past- they are talking about Vietnam and other old issues that don’t matter any more, bringing up Bob Dole, Jesse Helms and Rush Limbaugh for heaven’s sake. No talk about fresh ideas for the future. </p>
<p>The GOP agenda seems to be: 1) War. 2) Cut taxes. 3) Replace the constitution with CONVENIENTLY SELECTED passages from the Bible.</p>
<p>I think many presidents have found that their appointees, are not quite what they had in mind-
Id also add that in the case I cited- I actually agree with the court & being personally affected by the Seattle schools districts decision to spend time and money on this issue rather than what is actually going on in the classroom- I feel vindicated somewhat.</p>
<p>"they are talking about Vietnam and other old issues that don’t matter any more, bringing up Bob Dole, Jesse Helms and Rush Limbaugh for heaven’s sake. No talk about fresh ideas for the future. "</p>
<p>Ummm, no, the “party faithful” is not bringing this up in the McCain thread. It is being brought up by those who are voting Dem in the same old tired Dem political maneuver. I thought you guys were supposed to be the party of “Hope” and cast off the old method of politics.</p>
<p>It may already be too late to prevent the conservative majority from overturning Roe v Wade. The health (and privacy) of the mother was not considered in the recent cases. </p>
<p>The hostility of social conservatives towards women and gays is really quite amazing.</p>
<p>The hostility of social conservatives towards women and gays is really quite amazing.</p>
<p>I agree- for some people, anything that challenges the status quo, is too threatening to bear.
It reminds me of parents- who upon hearing that a friends child won some sort of award- are negative, as if that accomplishment takes away from their own child.</p>
<p>What should Ozzie and Harriet fear if Steve & Adam get married? Doesn’t marriage supposedly add stability?</p>
<p>“What should Ozzie and Harriet fear if Steve & Adam get married? Doesn’t marriage supposedly add stability?”</p>
<p>If not supporting gay marriage is an example of hostility towards gays, then what is a Democratic voter going to do? I don’t think that there is anyone left on either ticket that supports gay marriage. Of course, the Dems will pretend they do - as long as they are talking to a Hollywood audience. Courage of one’s convictions and all that.</p>
<p>Tommy- you remind me of a kid who when their parents have gone away for the weekend- leaving specific rules as to what not to do- finds a loophole where they did not specify restrictions & then when they returned horrified to find that he has been selling their furniture to make more room for his party- complains " well you didn’t tell me not to do it~"</p>
<p>The discussion is about Current political candidates & it seems more relevant to discuss Recent court decisions- at least regarding decisions made by those still on the bench. But since you have cited one historical case, made 152 years ago- I will repeat FFs request and ask you to cite a decision made in the last 10 years by the Federal Supreme Court that was excessively conservative.</p>
<p>If not supporting gay marriage is an example of hostility towards gays, then what is a Democratic voter going to do?</p>
<p>What this democratic voter is going to do, is look for the candidate that is supportive of equal rights for all US citizens- who will repeal the defense of marriage act- who will examine the restrictions of don’t ask , don’t tell in the military and who will eliminate discrimination by sex in employment & housing.</p>
<p>The country may not be ready for gay marriage but it is ready for gay civil unions with the same legal rights as marriage. I don’t know if any of the remaining GOP candidates are supporting civil unions. If they are, they certainly are not promoting that platform.</p>
<p>momo:</p>
<p>“LTS, I just finished 50 phone calls to potential voters in California, and your post has inspired me to do 20 more. Off to dial now…”</p>
<p>After getting a mailer from Obama to “Make A Call” this morning, I called relatives in Atlanta and Long Island, NY asking them to vote and to contact friends in support of Obama. Just hoping the extra effort will put him over the top.</p>
<p>
And just what vast experience does Hillary have that Obama doesn’t have? In fact, neither of them have that much experience as a politician and none in a political executive capacity (i.e. Governor). </p>
<p>And what’s meant by ‘cultural experience most Americans have’? I imagine that my cultural experience, yours, 50cent’s (have you seen the episode on his house on MTV Cribs - the biggest house in Connecticut), Jesse, and Hillary’s are all quite different from each other. It’s irrelevant. It’s the difference that in part, shapes us and gives us different perspectives. We hopefully don’t vote for candidates based on their ‘cultural experiences’ - we vote for them on ‘who’ they are now - what their current thoughts and direction will be despite the fact that it was shaped by their many environmental influences in their past.</p>
<p>Actually, Obama has more years of experience than Hillary as an elected official. The “no experience” schtick is from Hillary’s campaign. I’m sorry, but First Lady doesn’t count as political experience - no lawmaking, no working with opposing parties to form a solution…it’s exposure, certainly, but not experience. I would argue that Obama’s years working for voting and minority rights in Illinois would equate Hillary’s as First Lady.</p>
<p>The good news is that Obama, Hillary and McCain are all FAR better than Bush.</p>
<p>The bad news is that we still have one more year of Bush.</p>
<p>As a very conservative person, someone who has always voted Republican, who agrees with the war in Iraq, and who likes Bush, when I hear Obama speak, I find myself very, very interested in what he has to say. I find myself intrigued by his perspective, and wanting to know, and hear, a LOT more from him. Even though my starting place is in exact opposition to his position on nearly everything, I find myself wanting to understand a whole lot more about where he is coming from, and curious to know if perhaps there might be another way of looking at things. He engages my brain and makes me want to agree with him. </p>
<p>Comparatively, every time Hillary says something, it makes me want to run screaming as fast as I can in the opposite direction. Perhaps it’s a matter of style.</p>
<p>Edited to add - vicariousparent, I think the bad news is that we cannot have four more Bush years, but, oh well…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, he has more years as a legislator than she has.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you had a chance to read either of his books?</p>