posted on November 3, 2000 08:03:30 PM newHowever; will someone care to persuade me as why I would ever want the two supreme court nominees that Bush will pick?
Maybe so that we can have a court that will do it's job of interpreting the constitution instead of re-writing it.
A constitutional amendment is a very hard thing to pass (intentionally so). This is the job of both houses of Congress and 2/3 of the state legislatures. It is not the job of nine Supreme Court Justices.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 3, 2000 08:04 PM ]
posted on November 3, 2000 08:35:55 PM new
I think it's the reinterpretation of what's already been interpreted (oh, about 1973) that has most folks worried.
posted on November 3, 2000 08:55:24 PM new
The fact that the Supreme court justices can and do rule on current interpretation issues is what the issue is. Well said, Katy D.
I am not willing to go back in time and the two nominees Mr. Bush will pick will take us there the day they are in place.
So far - unless otherwise convinced I will go with the lesser of two evils - that being Gore.
While I like what Nader stands for - the thought that a Nader vote of mine is a vote for Mr. Bush is a sickening thought.
posted on November 3, 2000 09:27:27 PM new
Don't like Bush, Gore or Nader. My views are most consistent with Browne's. Too pragmatic to go that way, though.
posted on November 3, 2000 09:35:04 PM newfemme - Sorry I wasn't here to answer your question earlier.
Bill O'Reilly hosts the O'Reilly Factor on FNC (Fox News Channel) every weekday night. He currently has a book on the shelves that is on the #1 best sellers list. It's called *The O'Reilly Factor* (same as his show's name).
His views very much mirror my own. I enjoy his shows, and show-downs with people who hold an opposing opinion.
posted on November 3, 2000 10:22:18 PM new
My opinion as to the future of the Supreme Court under Bush is that I expect he'll use the same guidelines he's used in Texas.
Of the four State Supreme Court Judges Bush has placed since becoming the Governor of Texas all four have said Bush never asked their opinions on issues such as abortion and affirmative action. Why? Maybe because Bush has repeatedly (you can find the quote all over the web, newspapers, etc) said that he seeks justices "who will strictly interpret the Constitution, and unwaveringly reflect the intent of the framers of that document."
Based on his record of appointees I would say that this is more than campaign fluff talk.
In fact, in a controversial case just a few years ago involving parental notification on abortion, three of the four Bush appointees voted to uphold a girl's desire to have the abortion without informing her parents. Research the records of Justice James A. Baker, Justice Greg Abbott, Justice Deborah G. Hankinson, and Justice Al Gonzales if you want to review the kinds of decisions his appointees are likely to make. You may be surprised.
And, when you review the records of the Justices and other political appointments he's made as Governor you'll see that he doesn't just talk the talk - he walks the walk. That's probably why he has so many democratic supporters among political leaders in Texas.
I'm still looking for proof that he's a cocaine addict - anyone? I keep seeing the accusation - but the only one who has ever said it in print that I'm aware of was the admitted druggie whose Bush book was yanked by the publisher (at a huge $$ loss to them) because they discovered that not only had the author had lied, - and later admitted lying - but also had serious drug/alcohol issues himself and had been arrested numerous times - once for bombing a car.
A publishing house isn't going to lose that kind of money unless they're sure the information they're publishing is wrong. The Gore campaign would have leaked it - all they could find was a 24 year old DWI.
Proof is a handy thing to have when you throw such a strong accusation out. I'd like to see some semblance of it.
While you're at it you might take the time to find what the National Guard really had to say about his time with them. Another "different story" than I'm reading here.
posted on November 4, 2000 05:11:42 AM newI think it's the reinterpretation of what's already been interpreted (oh, about 1973) that has most folks worried.
The foundation upon which our nation was built and the Constitution upon which our liberty depends is much too important to be sacrificed by Supreme Court justices who take it upon themselves to re-write the Constitution for political reasons.
I do happen to agree with you 100% on the issue of choice. The proper (constitutional) way to make the right to choose legal once and for all is with a constutional amendment. Admittedly, this will be very difficult to get done. The framers of our Constitution were wise enough to ensure that any changes that are made are not made hastily. But it can be done or the ladies among us wouldn't even have the right to vote today.
We need justices on the Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution as it is written. The Congress and the states are charged with the task of making amendments to the Constitution. When we allow that task to be shifted to a panel of any nine Supreme Court Justices, our Constitution will be worth no more than a losing lottery ticket.
Again, I agree completely with you on the issue of choice. But any single issue isn't important enough to damage the Constitution of the United States of America over.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 4, 2000 05:14 AM ]
posted on November 4, 2000 07:29:55 AM new
mybiddness,
His cocaine addiction is no secret. He did go through re-hab - and has admitted this early on in his election. The drunk driving is the one he attempted to keep secret and now that it is out - he admits it. The cocaine addiction is a well known fact - I believe he went through the Betty Ford clinic.
His current Supreme court choices do not match what you have stated. Have you watched any of the appointees that he will pick interviews - very scary.
If we want to talk about his term in Texas we can go into the state of the schools there, the environment, death penalty etc. and it is not a pretty picture.
IMHO,
Bush is a party hardy (well into his 30's), draft avoider with a poor record from his home state - the good ol' southern boy riding on daddy's coattails because the Republicans had no one else. There is no excuse for his lack of knowledge of our foreign policy and his backwards thinking Supreme court nominees.
posted on November 4, 2000 07:44:55 AM new
[i]There is no excuse for his lack of knowledge of our foreign policy and his backwards thinking Supreme court nominees.]/i]
Bush's knowledge of foreign policy is on a par with Gore's, and he is the one on the right side of the issues.
It also appears that there is some confusion concerning the role of the Supreme Court in our government, which works on a system of checks and balances.
posted on November 4, 2000 08:14:00 AM new
If he admitted it and went through rehab 14 years ago, I'll accept that he's learned something from the experience.
His current Supreme court choices do not match what you have stated. Have you watched any of the appointees that he will pick interviews - very scary.
Please note that these are the State level Justices appointees that he has already chosen in Texas since his term as governor began. Their records are a matter of public records and as I stated. I don't think we know yet who is appointees will be on a national level.
[/i] If we want to talk about his term in Texas we can go into the state of the schools there, the environment, death penalty etc. and it is not a pretty picture. [/i]
If you sincerely want to measure his work as Governor you should look at the improvements made in Texas under his leadership. Even the Democrats who were pro Ann Richards (which I was) have been impressed. That's not to say that I don't think we have a long way to go to get where we'd like to be.
posted on November 4, 2000 08:17:42 AM new
No confusion here. The Supreme court justices have much more power than what you are alluding to.
If the only defensive Bush supporters have to his Supreme court choices is to say - well, it really doesn't matter - they have no power is not reality and just white washing a fundamental aspect of the Bush campaign that is not favorable with a great percentage of people.
As far as foreign policy goes - Mr. Bush has not been able to answer basic questions during debate and interviews that Mr. Gore has. In addition to his inexperience in this are - this isn't the time in the world to put that type of person in the white house.
For those who support his cocaine and drunk driving and dismiss them as they happened a long time ago - they were when he was in his thirties - not so long ago and well past the average party stage. In addition, your character is defined as your actions throughout your life - he made the conscious choice to abuse illegal drugs and drive drunk with friends in the car. His character leaves a lot to be desired.
posted on November 4, 2000 08:45:07 AM newThe Supreme court justices have much more power than what you are alluding to.
You just made my point for me. Thank you. The Supreme Court does have more power than the founding fathers intended because it has been given to them by the other two branches of government. This is not a good thing.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 4, 2000 08:54 AM ]
posted on November 4, 2000 08:52:35 AM newIn addition, your character is defined as your actions throughout your...
No truer words have ever been spoken. Bill Clinton had an extra-marital affair inside the White House, and then repeatedly lied about it and perjured himself under oath. Al Gore had ample opportunity to denounce this conduct, but chose instead to "stick by" the President until it became clear that to continue to do so would amount to political suicide. This is one reason that the gender gap is the smallest that is has been in several elections.
And let's not even talk about Gore's illegal fund-raising activities that he still denies participating in.
posted on November 4, 2000 08:55:11 AM new
What I find interesting as I read these threads is that a lot of you that support Bush are white-washing his drunk driving and cocaine addiction as things the government doesn't need to know - won't affect how he is as President etc. - yet in the next breath you speak of how Clinton's personal embarassments are exactly why Gore should not be in office - a bit two faced I think.
Either personal lives should not have an effect or they do for all. If Bush is as smart as his supporters allude to then I believe he brought out this drunk driving conviction as a last ditch effort. If not, then he is ignorant if he thought a public record of a drunk driving conviction would not be found and used. If he is ignorant about that - what else?
This whole election is extremely frustrating to me. I personally do not like nor would be proud of either choice. But Gore so far is the lesser of two evils.
Do those of you who support Bush really feel he will improve the economy? The economy has flourished tremendously during the Clinton reign and having Bush in office scares me in that area too.
posted on November 4, 2000 08:59:02 AM new
The Supreme Court scare tactic isn't flying as well this time around. Gore supported the nomination of one of the most rampant conservatives on the court, Scalia. Yet, I am supposed to believe that the issue of choice rises and falls on whether or not Gore is elected? How silly. I have way more faith in women than I do Al Gore.
This is besides the fact that Gore *used* to be pro-life, and supported the Hyde Amendment, while a congressman, which ended federal funding for abortion. In essence, women that possibly needed "choice" the most were effectively shafted, and Gore supported it.
Abortion isn't the only important issue which affects women. What about poverty and the disparity between wages? Take a look at welfare reform, signed by Clinton and supported by Gore. That bill gutted AFDC, food stamps, medicaid, daycare, low-cost housing, and transportation programs. Most of Clinton's cabinet opposed the bill, including Robert Rubin, yet Gore urged Clinton to sign it.
Doesn't it say something when leading feminists and long-time Democratic party supporters are even hesitant to cast their lot with Gore?
posted on November 4, 2000 09:01:52 AM newWhat I find interesting as I read these threads is that a lot of you that support Bush are white-washing his drunk driving and cocaine addiction as things the government doesn't need to know - won't affect how he is as President etc. - yet in the next breath you speak of how Clinton's personal embarassments are exactly why Gore should not be in office - a bit two faced I think.
Well let's see... We have Bush, who admitted that he had problems years ago, sought treatment, and has been clean since long before his entry into politics and public service.
On the other hand, we have Bill Clinton and Al Gore, who both broke the law while serving as President and Vice President respectively. And they both lied about it. I'm sorry but I don't see that there is any parallel here.
And as far as the economy is concerned, we were due for an upswing anyway, a normal characteristic of the business cycle. Can you give even one example of a specific Clinton/Gore policy that influenced the economy at all? These guys benefited from blind luck by being in office at the right time. Nothing more, nothing less.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 4, 2000 09:06 AM ]
posted on November 4, 2000 09:30:41 AM new
boysmommy3:
I feel that I owe you an apology. I allowed my responses to your posts to get too personal and for that I am sorry. You have your opinion, I have mine, and that's the way it should be. I still believe that my opinions are the right ones, and I'm sure that you feel the same way about yours as well. Anyway, I sincerely am sorry for getting too personal in my answers to your posts.
posted on November 4, 2000 10:38:56 AM new
Hi abingdoncomputers, (sp?)
No apology necessary. I had a career in the Corporate world for a long time and being a young female in a position of authority you learn to grow thick skin!!
I love debating and I will also apologize if I was too personal to anyone. Not the intention.
I have my opinion but am always open to constructive arguments as to why they may be wrong or slightly skewed.
Both you and Julesy have made some very valid points that I am going to review prior to making my decision on Tuesday - so I thank both of you for that.
**********
Back on topic -
Bush did not disclose his drunk driving in the past as he did the cocaine addiction. He has admitted to that as late as today saying he did not want his children affected. That is why I have a problem with it. Either he spilled the beans or he is not as intelligent as he would you to believe. Everyone knows that all public records will come out in an election like this. Someone posted so should they say everything they have done. No one has said that but I believe being convicted of a crime such as drunk driving - yes, that should have been disclosed.
Anyway, I am still listening - will be doing my research tomorrow night and decide on Monday.
posted on November 4, 2000 10:59:21 AM new
boysmommy3:
You didn't offend me with your statements and opinions. But I feel that I did indeed cross the line and I'm sorry.
Anyway, I agree that the DWI should have been disclosed early on for political reasons. But for personal reasons (Bush's, not mine), I feel that he did the right thing in keeping it quiet. He didn't handle the situation the way that you or I would have, but you and I aren't charged with the responsibility of raising his children.
IMO the decision that he made in regards to trying to keep it from his children was a personal one and he had every right to handle it that way if he chose to.
I just don't feel that this issue should (or will) have any bearing on the election. If anyone is hurt by it, I think it will be Gore (unfairly IMO as I don't think his campaign had anything to do with the sleazy timing of the disclosure). This incident occurred too far in the past when compared to the recent actions of his opponents (Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum in the White House).
If it seems to you that I have little respect for our sitting President and Vice President, you are correct. But I have the utmost respect for those offices and to see them dishonored in such a shameful way I take it personally. Probably too personally.
Edited because I left the 3 off of your name...
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 4, 2000 11:00 AM ]
posted on November 4, 2000 11:58:28 AM new
So it is OK if Bush's children know that he used to snort coke, but he doesn't want them to know he drank beer. I buy that.
My vote goes to Nixon...
Granted, he is dead now, but there are some advantages to electing a dead President...
- Dead Presidents will never lie to you.
- Dead Presidents won't waste your tax dollars on dead-end projects that keep their wife busy while they keep their aids busy.
- Dead Presidents don't send our troops overseas to die in senseless confrontations.
- Dead Presidents don't change their opinions on major issues every time the audience changes.
posted on November 4, 2000 12:02:05 PM new
Does anyone know when Bush supposedly sought treatment for cocaine addiction? I haven not seen this "out there" and if he did, that in itself, would not bother me. More power to him. But, I wonder if this was before, he supposedly gave up drinking in 1986. If it was, it would make me wonder. Most substance abuse programs advocate refraining from ANY drug, including alcohol. Also, the site that Krs posted yesterday, has a video link, that suggests that perhaps he imbibed as late as 1992. I do not know the truth of this. Frankly, I don't care about the DUI. I don't much care for covering it up, if in fact, this has been done. On the other hand, there's seems to be much room for "subjective interpretation". IE, "youthful indescretion" as regards to driving drunk at 30 years old. And (wagging finger here) "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". What is "youthful"? What is "sex"?
posted on November 4, 2000 01:33:42 PM new
Does anyone have a prediction on who will carry your state? (Not who you would like to see win it but who actually will win it.)
I live in Virginia and it will definitely go to Bush (Virginia always goes Republican and probably always will.) Some of the neigboring states could go either way.
