WSJ: The uniter, Mike Pence for president?
- Thread starter Agorism
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mike pence
TheeJoeGlass
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 531
this is a good explaination on Pence
But we haven't actually had an originalist majority on the Supreme Court since the Roe v. Wade decision. We basically have 4 members now who support a more literal interpretation of the Constitution: Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts. If we could just get one more we would have a majority of justices on the Supreme Court who don't believe in judicial activism. That's why I usually just hold my nose and vote for a generic Republican for President, even though I don't agree with the current Republican Party on foreign policy issues.
Well a fence would stop more people than not having any kind of border security at all, but I would prefer that the military secure the border rather than building a fence.
Agorism
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2009
- Messages
- 12,663
I don't trust the conservative block on civil liberties.
We defeated Bush regime on every major decision by using coalitions of mainly the liberal block along with some of the more moderate conservatives. Boumediene was probably the biggest victory. Getting a precedent for these decisions at a time when the Bush regime was pushing a fascist agenda was very important as future courts will have to look back on these. We can't afford to have a super conservative block unless we can form a new legal society in opposition to the Federalist society in my opinion. Having said that, I don't trust the liberal block either.
Boumediene v. Bush 5-4 with Kennedy writing the decision
Rasul v. Bush 6-3
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 5-3
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Blow up this military commissions system!
We defeated Bush regime on every major decision by using coalitions of mainly the liberal block along with some of the more moderate conservatives. Boumediene was probably the biggest victory. Getting a precedent for these decisions at a time when the Bush regime was pushing a fascist agenda was very important as future courts will have to look back on these. We can't afford to have a super conservative block unless we can form a new legal society in opposition to the Federalist society in my opinion. Having said that, I don't trust the liberal block either.
Boumediene v. Bush 5-4 with Kennedy writing the decision
Rasul v. Bush 6-3
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 5-3
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Blow up this military commissions system!
Last edited:
Palin supporters and those on the fence, thinking she isnt intelligent or charismatic enough. It all depends on response and how they package him. But then again, marketing isnt a GOP strongpoint.
But aren't military tribunals actually authorized by the Constitution?
"Congress shall have the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court."
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 64,262
Fixed that for you...
Yeah, but liberal justices have traditionally been pretty good when it comes to the 4th amendment. It's just the 2nd amendment that they don't seem to like.
Have these judges commented on Roe v Wade? Are they for overturning precedence?
We can Armchair Justice all we wish, but it comes down to how the case is presented to, and ruled on by, the SC Justices.
Roe v Wade saw a bi-partisan ruling that determined that first trimester abortions cannot be outlawed, but that later one's could be. It has also held up under subsequent legal challenges as well.
Scalia and Thomas have both ruled that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I think if push came to shove Roberts and Alito would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. They just aren't going to come out and publicly say it without actually having a case presented before them. So I think we're probably 1 Supreme Court justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade. But I can understand why pro choice libertarians wouldn't agree with me on this and wouldn't vote Republican simply because of this issue. But obviously it's a huge issue for me. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and will support him again if he runs, but I'll vote for somebody like Pence over Obama because of the urgency of the Supreme Court issue.
Bush43 spent 8 years loading the Supreme Court and the DOJ for the express purpose of overturning Roe v Wade.
Considering that conservative heavy courts have already upheld the ruling, I believe that voting for a party for this reason alone to be a foolhardy venture.
Unfortunately Republican Presidents have made some bad choices over the years like David Suiter and John Paul Stevens. But I think they've learned from that, and I would certainly rather have Mike Pence appoint a justice to the Supreme Court than give Obama another opportunity.
Feeding the Abscess
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 8,340
Abortion is a bigger issue for you than illegal warmongering and police state measures?
No not really, but Obama supports those things as well. Obama really doesn't have any small government views. I'm a lot closer to Mike Pence on the issues then I am to Obama, so I would choose Pence even though I don't agree with his internationalist foreign policy views.
You are also missing the fact that any appointee must get by Congress first.
Obama never had the rubber stamp style of Congress Buch43 had, but now, even less so.
TC, do you understand what a theodemocracy is?
We'll have first hand experience if people like Pence grab the reigns of government.
I guess if Mike Pence gets elected President he'll create a bunch of federal drug laws. Oh wait, we already have that. What else do you think he would do?
