<p>bz, why exactly do I need new friends? I must have missed something.</p>
<p>McCain’s mother is still up and about at 90something - good for her! His father died at 70, though. He could very well not deal with the mental deterioration that plagues so many of his peers, but it isn’t a chance I would particularly feel safe with. On top of that, I don’t like his policies. But I have no qualms admitting that his age is a major reservation for me, and I don’t think that is a bad thing.</p>
<p>pmrlcomm, I hope that McCain could whip me when it comes to mental agility, and he probably could (and I mean that, seriously…would it be low to bring up his class rank? Probably.) I am also not seeking the presidency of the United States of America, nor do I think I would be qualified to do so (now or ever) so I don’t really understand the point. I can imagine that many Obama supporters would take umbrage at the statements I have just made, too, but I don’t particularly mind.</p>
<p>Yes, but no change at all could also be disastrous. It depends on how you look at the situation. …</p>
<p>I don’t put much credence in the National Review’s anointment of Obama as the “most liberal” senator. It’s a conservative publication which I recall named John Kerry as “most liberal” during the 2004 presidential election. Coincidence? … I must disagree with you that Obama is an extremist; I see him as an inspiring, Kennedy-esque figure who happens to represent my political point of view better than McCain does. But I respect your enthusiasm for the senator from Arizona. He should hire you as his PR director!</p>
<p>Obama is the new kid in school - fresh & appealing, very attractive and sparks your curiosity. In your mind you think, “Wow! This could be the one I’ve been waiting for! Isn’t he great!”. </p>
<p>But as time goes on, you realize that he isn’t really that special, and they guy you really like, the one you’re truly in love with - the one who can make you happy in a deeper more meaningful way is the guy who’s been sitting next to you all along. </p>
<p>Sometimes it takes going thru the attraction to somethig new to in order to realize how great what you already have really is!</p>
<p>It is not the job of the Supreme Court to uphold the laws the Congress pass, no matter how well written it is. That would throw checks and balances out the window.</p>
<p>Even though I initially referenced that piece on another thread I have to say that they are making the numbers dance to their tune. Voting record may be a criterion but when you pick and choose the votes you want to use to paint a picture it’s wrong.</p>
<p>I thought it was the whole voting record in entirety.</p>
<p>To Cartera:
SCOTUS’ job is to determine whether cases brought before them have had decisions made in previous courts are in accordance with the law as it is written.</p>
<p>They do not have the power to repeal laws. Only a legislator can introduce a bill. If you don’t like a law, you must vote for legislators who will work to throw it out and create new ones.</p>
<p>Only Legislators can LEGISLATE - that IS the system of Checks & Balances. If the Executive or Judiciary created or threw out laws, what would we need the LEGISLATURE for?</p>
<p>It is only applicable in terms of Constitutionality. Hence, laws can be overturned if they are not Constitutional -that is not an issue in every case.</p>
<p>“They wouldn’t be able to overturn “Roe v. Wade” or any other law if it is a well-constructed law in the first place.”</p>
<p>What? Of course they will be able to. Perhaps you mean that you believe McCain’s justices would CHOOSE not to overturn any well-constructed precedents. But they will have the power to do whatever they want. Many a robust precedent has been overturned decades after it was decided. (After all, Plessy v. Ferguson was very well-reasoned.)</p>
<p>Regarding ageism - it’s easy to make generalizations, but I’ll be the first one to admit that I’ve known people in their 90s (and 101, like my grandma) who had all their wits about them… much more so than some 50 and 60 year olds who do not make a point to mentally challenge their brains. </p>
<p>However, I work with a lot of people McCain’s age, and the majority of them do not have the mental capability/recall or could handle the physical demands of running our country. And I do believe, because of his age and past history of cancer, his running mate must be someone the country can be willing to respect and accept if he were to become incapacitated. That being said, the same could be said of Obama’s running mate with all the speculation that he’s at a higher risk of being assassinated. Let’s face it, any of us who have had, or have parents in their 70s know that we worry more about them and potential health issues than we do most people we know in our 50s and 60s.</p>
<p>Right, but to say that the Supreme Court can only review laws with regard to priciples of stare decisis is not correct. The Constitution trumps precedence.</p>
<p>The role of SCOTUS is precisely to determine whether precedent should stand w/ regards to the constitution.</p>
<p>Hanna, you’re right also - but I do believe that McCain’s justices will stand on constitutionality. And I actually don’t think that bodes well for RvW. But if it is a bad law (i.e. unconstitutional) shouldn’t it be overturned??</p>
<p>“But if it is a bad law (i.e. unconstitutional)”</p>
<p>I don’t hear Roe v. Wade being attacked as unconstitutional – possibly wrong or poorly argued, but not unconstitutional.</p>
<p>But no, at least according to Justice Rehnquist (among others), a wrongly decided precedent should sometimes stand if people have come to rely on it (Miranda being the classic example).</p>
<p>Don’t mean to contribute to the morph of this thread into a SCOTUS discussion, but Roe v Wade is just part of the conservative agenda with regard to constitutional law. Scalia and Thomas do not hide their belief that there is no right to privacy under the Constitution. There is a whole line of cases, of which Roe v Wade is only one, that would fall.</p>
<p>What I find to be ironic that the left if pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. The right is anti-abortion and pro-death penalty. Isn’t it mixed up? If you are anti-abortion, shouldn’t you be anti-death penalty and vice versa?</p>
<p>All in all it should still be a states right to make it legal or illegal, not federal.</p>
<p>I am pro-death penalty (theoretically) and pro-choice (not “pro-abortion”). Not everyone fits in your little boxes, but I personally see no contradiction between being pro-choice and anti-death penalty or pro-death penalty and anti-choice.</p>
<p>And I don’t care whether it is the state depriving me of my right to have an abortion or the federal government doing so; it makes no practical difference to me at all. The federal government needs to protect this freedom.</p>
<p>I used to be a pro-choice, anti-death penalty person, but after having two children, I changed my tune on the latter–especially when it comes to murderous pedophiles. I’d rip a creep apart from stem to stern with my own hands if he victimized one of my daughters. No one can accuse me of being Michael Dukakis!</p>
<p>Unregistered–I agree with your last sentence!</p>