One reason I may vote McCain instead of Obama...

[Eraserhead]

The new Josh22.

[Torie]

The new Josh22.

It is not a crime to change your mind is it?  A lot of voters are no doubt struggling with their decision. Just because you and I are not, does not mean we have some special perspicacity, I don't think.

[War on Want]

The new Josh22.

It is not a crime to change your mind is it?  A lot of voters are no doubt struggling with their decision. Just because you and I are not, does not mean we have some special perspicacity, I don't think.

I actually have to agree with Torie. Besides if the man cares more about wedge issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage let him vote for McCain as he is sorta the right person for his views.

[WalterMitty]

he went from hillary to obama to now mccain.

jeez.

[Beet]

The Supreme Court.  I prefer a conservative-tilted court over a liberal activist court.  Justices like Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor, and the late William Rehnquist are the types of justices I like.  I do not want anymore Ruth Bader Ginsberg's or any of her type.

The current balance is not between a conservative-tilted court over a liberal activist court; it is between a court with Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote (which you can categorize as liberal or conservative or moderate; I would consider moderate to conservative) versus a conservative-activist court. So the entire premise of your choice is not even right.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since vacancies on the court are almost certainly likely to come from the older more liberal members, if Obama were President and there was a vacancy, the nature of the court would not likely change. Therefore a vacancy under Obama and having no vacancies at all would be equivalent; so it makes no sense for you to pray there would be no vacancies. McCain were President and a vacancy occured, it would inaugurate a sea change. If you are satisfied with the court as it is today, Obama is your choice. If you are looking for a sea change with a likely conservative activist majority taking over, McCain.

[A18]

Perhaps you'd like to specify what you have in mind by a "conservative activist" court?

I do agree that a vacancy in Obama's first term would likely come from the "liberal" bloc. Justice Stevens's seat is the most probable vacancy. (Of course, others are possible--even among the "conservative" bloc.)

[Beet]

Here are some areas of law that would likely change significantly with a new conservative appointment based on the track record of the court:

I. Gonzales v. Carhart and Roe v. Wade: "Last year, in Gonzales v. Carhart, the court upheld a prohibition on abortion procedures even when they are necessary to avoid serious harm to a mother. Justice Kennedy wrote that opinion. But Kennedy is also one of the co-authors of the central opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the key case reaffirming the main idea in Roe v. Wade. Kennedy may hesitate to abandon his own handiwork entirely. With another conservative appointee, there will be five conservative appointees with no stake in Casey or Roe."

II. Massachusetts v. EPA: Justice Kennedy was the fifth vote in the Supreme Court’s decision last year requiring the Bush administration to reconsider regulation
of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The dissenters favorably cited statements by the Environmental Protection Agency questioning whether global warming is caused by human activity and greenhouse gases. Research by Cass Sunstein and Richard Revesz shows that ideology matters enormously in environmental law cases, even on the circuit courts. A fifth solid conservative would provide a majority that is friendlier to industry claims and more skeptical about a national response to global warming.

III. Altering Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States:

"Congress generally protects the environment under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, but conservatives want to cut back that power. In two decisions over the last eight years, a court majority has read the Clean Water Act narrowly, citing “constitutional doubt” about Congress’ power.

Four Justices, but not Kennedy, would limit federal regulation only to those lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands where water is “relatively permanent.” This would shield from federal authority polluters that dump sewage and chemical waste into thousands of miles of streams and wetlands that regularly go dry. The same reasoning would undermine other critical environmental laws as well, such as the Endangered Species Act.

Conservative interpretations of property rights would have a similar effect. The takings clause is an important constitutional rule that the government cannot confiscate private property without paying for it. In recent years, however, property rights advocates have pushed aggressive interpretations of the provision that would require the government to pay for any reduction in the value of property caused by regulation.

These interpretations would make many key environmental protections prohibitively expensive and complicated to administer, threatening the health and well-being of many Americans. The court has recently turned away two broad claims under the takings clause. In one of those decisions, Justices Kennedy and O’Connor provided the majority; in the other, more recent decision, it was Kennedy alone. With a fifth highly conservative justice, the takings movement would surely pick up steam again, and could even take on limits on use of carbon-based fuels. (Justice Alito gave the first indication of his readiness to take up this cause just this week.)"

IV. Boumediene v. Bush, Al Odah v. United States

"Under the Constitution, an individual must claim to have been injured before filing a lawsuit. Conservatives often throw out cases by interpreting this “standing” requirement narrowly.
Four justices would have thrown out the global warming case on these standing grounds, and just this week, four justices would have rejected another case by construing
standing narrowly and ahistorically. In the recent case brought by Guantánamo detainees, four justices also would have allowed the government to continue indefinitely detaining individuals without access to the courts to determine whether they should continue to be held. With a fifth conservative to Justice Kennedy’s right, a majority of justices would likely erect new “standing” barriers that not only keep Americans from getting their day in court to protect their rights, but also liberate the executive to act without any kind of court review."

V. Extreme Applications of the Death Penalty

"All of the current Supreme Court Justices have voted to allow dozens of executions to proceed. Justice Kennedy has, however, voted against the most glaring excesses in the death penalty’s implementation. He has joined narrow majorities blocking the execution of individuals who were under 18 at the time of their crimes, or mentally retarded, or demonstrably insane. The replacement of Justice Kennedy by another justice in the Roberts-Alito mold would likely lift even such modest brakes on the most extreme executions."

[Хahar 🤔]

Perhaps you'd like to specify what you have in mind by a "conservative activist" court?

I do agree that a vacancy in Obama's first term would likely come from the "liberal" bloc. Justice Stevens's seat is the most probable vacancy. (Of course, others are possible--even among the "conservative" bloc.)

Certainly. John Paul Stevens is just waiting to retire.

[A18]

No doubt, the balance would be altered in those areas. But I, IV, and V all involve mere deference to political branches. The same can be said of II, though in the field of statutory construction; it is clear that Congress had long presupposed that the EPA had no such obligation to regulate. Judicial non-intervention can scarcely be equated with conservative judicial activism.

Of your five, it seems that number III is the only plausible candidate. I'm not familiar enough with environmental law to address it in any detail, but I concede that it's potentially a fair example--under a certain conception of "activism," anyway. Of course, Rapanos itself dealt with a rather extreme application of the Clean Water Act... (Let me add that your source's objection to the regulatory takings doctrine is somewhat misleading. For an example of the sort of regulation that's really at issue, see Lucas v. South Carolina Coast Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).)

There is the flip side to consider. If liberals get a fifth vote, they'll continue to push--but now with far more success--for death-penalty abolition; require discrimination against religious groups and organizations; perhaps invalidate experiments with single-sex education; etc. Even the replacement of an older "liberal" jurist with a younger one makes this scenario significantly more likely.

[Beet]

No doubt, the balance would be altered in those areas. But I, IV, and V all involve mere deference to political branches. The same can be said of II, though in the field of statutory construction; it is clear that Congress had long presupposed that the EPA had no such obligation to regulate. Judicial non-intervention can scarcely be equated with conservative judicial activism.

And yet the relations between the branches themselves, and between any given branch and the Constitution itself, is an issue-- to put it mildly. Even overturning Brown could be called "deference to the states-- a political branch."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This could be true, but if the implications argued by the source are accurate, the legal particulars would for better or worse be of mostly academic concern to voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The liberals could not get death penalty abolition with the 1976 court; they certainly could not get it with a fifth vote in the 2008 court! They would have to replace just about every justice on the court with a Brennan/Marshall type. Your others I cannot comment on, but since a Stevens vacancy if replaced by a liberal would leave Kennedy as still the swing vote, I don't see how it would make any of those things likely.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is far more moderate and reasonable than Thomas, Alito, or Scalia.

Harry, you're hysterically funny!

[A18]

I agree that "the relations between the branches themselves, and between any given branch and the Constitution itself, is an issue." But I don't see the connection between this statement and our "activism" dispute.

Would overturning Brown be "activist"? I would not say so, and I was not aware that anyone would. Something can be incorrect--even ridiculously incorrect--without being activist.

In saying that they would push with far more success for death penalty abolition, I meant only that they would block more and more executions; leading the nation further in that direction. But in truth, the four liberals on the Court have never specifically affirmed that the Constitution does not categorically forbid capital punishment; and Stevens has now said the opposite. Even Breyer--often regarded as the most moderate of the four--has gone out of his way to reserve the question.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, it wouldn't make them "likely"--just more likely. (A Court with four conservatives, four liberals, and one centrist, more easily falls into the hands of a liberal majority, than a Court with five conservatives, three liberals, and one centrist.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't understand why some people are so worried about the possibility that the moderates could reclaim the court from the conservatives. Need I remind people that in 2000 a majority of the court voted to steal a Presidential election for the worst President in US history, and that this court is if anything further to the right? The current court is only 1 justice away from being 100% batsh**t crazy.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

he went from hillary to obama to now mccain.

jeez.

Edwards to Hillary to Obama to McCain.

THAT'S why he's the new Josh22.

[Franzl]

Alright, this Presidential Forum Did It!!!  I am voting for John Sydney McCain in November.

Alright! Let's protect America from those damn f****ts!!!

Hooray for values voters!

[Joe Biden 2020]

Alright, this Presidential Forum Did It!!!  I am voting for John Sydney McCain in November.

Alright! Let's protect America from those damn f****ts!!!

Hooray for values voters!

Thats not my main prerogative.  I do want to protect the sacredness of the marriage institution and keep it between one man and one woman, but I believe civil unions are okay (same position as Obama and McCain).

I do want to protect the rights of the unborn baby, which McCain said it best when asked when life begins.  Life begins at conception, not at birth or some gray area in between.  Now, I do agree that in cases where the life of the mother AND the life of the baby is in danger, then abortion might be a last resort.  For rape or incest, no, abortion should still be highly discouraged.  Adoption is a much better option.

Those aren't my only two initiatives, though.  I'm a Rick Warren-type conservative, not a Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell-type conservative.  That means I have more issues than just abortion and gay marriage.  I also have issues such as AIDS, the crisis in Darfur, Education, Health Care, etc.  I believe I am well-rounded and well-versed in the issues I care most about.

Now, even though I will be voting for McCain in November, I would still be satisfied with an Obama administration.  I still like the man and believe he would make an excellent president and would not feel a bit of sorrow if he were to defeat McCain.  I would welcome it with prayer and I would immediately get behind President-Elect Obama.  I just feel that McCain aligns slightly better with me on the issues.  Still not great, but slightly better.

In terms of protecting my Christian values, either one would be okay.

I will probably remain a registered Democrat (it is too late to change before the 2008 election in Oklahoma).  I will probably remain a Democrat long after the 2009 inauguaration and probably at least through the 2010 mid-terms as I do want to try to get rid of Tom Coburn (who Obama says he admires).

[Joe Biden 2020]

Reactionaries can be just as activist as leftists. But who are we kidding? Your vote doesn't matter. You live in Oklahoma.

You have a point, but I don't take into account the way the rest of my state would vote.  I know voting for Obama would be useless in Oklahoma, but when I was supporting Obama over McCain it was purely to vote MY beliefs, not necessarily Oklahoma's beliefs.  Same thing is happening now that I'm supporting McCain over Obama.  I'm doing it for MY beliefs, regardless of which way Oklahoma votes. 

My beliefs have not changed a whole lot even though I switched candidates.  Even when I was supporting Obama, I was so close to the fence that my wing span touches the edge of McCain's camp and now that I'm supporting McCain, my wing span still touches the edge of Obama's camp.

[CPT MikeyMike]

Besides if McCain is president he will do nothing about Abortion or Gay Marriage.

Actually you are correct there. I really don't care about either issue but I'll bet a month's pay that neither issue gets stricter legislation during a McCain presidency.

[opebo]

Perhaps you'd like to specify what you have in mind by a "conservative activist" court?

I think what is meant is a right-wing activist court.  There are no 'conservatives' on the court.

[Frodo]

Just one question: you have named one reason -are there any others as you seem to imply here?  Just curious. 

[War on Want]

Besides if McCain is president he will do nothing about Abortion or Gay Marriage.

Actually you are correct there. I really don't care about either issue but I'll bet a month's pay that neither issue gets stricter legislation during a McCain presidency.

Yep and I also don't really care about either issue. I mean I would prefer that civil unions were instituted and that abortion was kept legalised but I would sacrifice both things to get Single Payer Universal Healthcare instituted as a comprismise.

[ottermax]

Any replacements on the court will be of liberal justices. For the most part the conservative justices are quite young and will dominate the court no matter what Obama does.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Any replacements on the court will be of liberal justices. For the most part the conservative justices are quite young and will dominate the court no matter what Obama does.

He could always slip something into their bedtime drinks...

[Democratic Hawk]

Alright, this Presidential Forum Did It!!!  I am voting for John Sydney McCain in November.

You disappoint me, immensely. For me to endorse McCain would be tantamount to abandoning my Christian Democratic convictions on economic and quality of life issues

Dave

[Flying Dog]

For me, this year my economic concerns are trumping my social positions. If it were 2000 and I had the same positions and awareness as I have now, I'd probably would have supported McCain over Gore if he had beat Bush because social issues took higher precedence then and the economy was less of a concern.