Judging Yourself and Sarah Palin

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I think the Vice-President should in fact be an experiencd capable executive. The VP should have somewhat similar stances and convictions as the President (at least if they want to get elected). Palin has those attributes.

I’m not going to say she is the most qualified person, that doesn’t pass the straight face test. I do feel, however, that by working closely with the President when he is de-briefed of ‘what he needs to know’, she will have the tools she needs. You don’t honestly think that any of the candidates in the past decade had much more real experience in warfare than her? She certainly has the political acumen for the job.

Please don’t say John Kerry-- he was a farce. Edwards? Gore? Obama? Bush? Hillary? How much foreign policy experience did the Liberal God Bill Clinton have as Governor of small population state Arkansas? How much foreign policy experience did Reagan, the guy who ran the USSR into the ground, have?

I have no doubt in my mind she could step right in on fiscal and social policy, in fact, I think she’d do better than McCain (I don’t particularly like McCain at all), at least her views are more in line with mine than the populist and borderline Socialist views of McCain. Palin showed in a short time that she could make tough fiscal decisions and stood up to the Feds for her state.

Yes, I can name all the Presidents and the VP’s. I know all the states and capitals, too. I know the Preamble to the Constitution and can list off the Bill of Rights.

I also know that from reading and understanding some History that Marxism/Socialism is a scary and failed social experiment.

Shouldn’t every citizen of the US know these things before they even graduate Highschool. But, I digress.[/quote]

As far as the merits of your argument, there have been plenty of VPs and vice-presidential candidates that haven’t had much foreign policy experience. In some cases, it’s been inadequate and it hasn’t been a good thing. I think it’s more important than it’s ever been and doesn’t get as much attention as it should. Is Palin a good choice? I like many of her personal attributes. Some of her views. I still question whether she was the best choice as VP for this country. From an electability standpoint, I also have my doubts. As much as many like her and find her more appealing to the base, are there really any who weren’t going to vote for McCain that now are? I have my doubts. Maybe some conservative Republicans who weren’t going to pull that lever at all and somehow feel her views are going to translate to McCain actions. And some centrists that just couldn’t stomach McCain. Would another running mate have been better? Maybe. The point is that the approach people have been taking to evaluate this is wrong. The issue is whether Palin has the requisite experience in her own right and whether she was the best choice to increase McCain’s chances of being elected. The comparison is not between Palin and Obama. If a comparison at all should be drawn, it’s between Palin and other potential choices and maybe between Palin and Biden.

62

I know I’m late to this party…but there are people whose choice for president was teetering on who the vice-president might be?

Has that EVER happened?

The only reason this even matters significantly here is because McCain just may not live another 4 years. Is that a good thing?

63

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I know I’m late to this party…but there are people whose choice for president was teetering on who the vice-president might be?

[/quote]

It’s ludicrous.

64

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I know I’m late to this party…but there are people whose choice for president was teetering on who the vice-president might be?

It’s ludicrous.[/quote]

I agree with you both, and PX, yes, but true (not in my case) but this is the Democrat strategy-- they will harp on Palin’s “inexperience” for VP while trying to ignore Obama’s inexperience for President. Conversely, the Republicans hope to attract just the people you describe.

Just to be clear, I’ve voted Independent or Libertarian (eg Harry Browne twice) since I’ve been old enough to vote. The candidates who best represented my views had very little political and bureaucratic experience-- which is HUGE plus in my view. I don’t WANT seasoned politicians.

I really, really like Palin, but in the end, I probably won’t pull the lever for McCain because of her. I won’t vote for McCain because I’m AGAINST Obama either-- I vote FOR people, not the lesser of two evils. If McCain can insure some things for me, I’ll consider it, but then again, Bush had potential, but has disappointed.

I only registered Republican earlier this year to support Ron Paul and am active in my local Liberty Caucus (ie the Republican Wing of the Republican Party – Libertarian Republicans).

You can see how someone like myself is disenchanted with the current selection of candidates-- a Marxist vs. a Socialist. It’s no fun watching Liberty flush down the toilet.

65

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Has that EVER happened?

[/quote]

To answer this, yes. The Vice-Presidential selection has always been considered by the various parties to bring in certain demographics. It was true during the Founding presidents (eg Washington - Madison), to the Civil War era, to modern times. The JFK Presidency is well known for the selection of Johnson on the ticket for the southern demographic.

Of course in the earlier days the Vice President was selected differently than today, for example the famous race between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. They ran together Jefferson for President and Burr for VP, but Burr was almost elected President. Jefferson was elected president by a vote in the House

Explanation:
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0221880-00&templatename=/article/article.html

Point is, the Vice President should be considered in the decision, but the weight should most certainly be placed on the Presidential selection.

One of the drums that has been beat for the past 8 years is that Cheney has been in charge. Who believes this? If you’re leaning toward Obama and you believe it, then likely you’re thinking that Biden is ultimately going to be pulling foreign policy strings or at least that Obama will be leaning heavily on him.

66

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I know I’m late to this party…but there are people whose choice for president was teetering on who the vice-president might be?
[/quote]

I can’t speak for everybody, but picking a real conservative as a running mate convinced me to vote FOR McCain instead of AGAINST Obama.

I was going to vote for McCain regardless, but the only real reason was to do what I could to keep the looming Supreme Court appointments out of Barry’s hands.

Now with Palin in the picture, it seems as though McCain actually gives a shit about the right wing. If he does die in office, we’d still have a far more capable president in Palin than we would ever have with Obama.

67

RJ-- that is a very good point as well, but what guarantees that McCain wouldn’t appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Remember-- he’s a Republican that wants to appease the Left in the name of Bipartisonship, and he’s already shown that he can’t be trusted with the Constitution (McCain-Feingold).

PX - One last point on your statement. Sadly, there will be people who will vote for McCain (actually for Palin) because 1) She is a woman; 2) She is attractive; 3) She rides a motorcycle.

On the flip side, there are a large group of folks who will vote for Obama, simply because he’s black. On the flip flip side there will be people who vote AGAINST Obama simply because he’s black.

It’s a world of shit in a lot of ways, unfortunately.

68

One of the most famous VP selections to ‘sure up the vote’-- this is nothing new:

[i]"Vice President Hannibal Hamlin played an important role in the cabinet selection process�??but little role in the subsequent administration…

Hamlin was sacrificed in 1864 when President Lincoln and Republicans wanted to present a “Union” face to the electorate and added southern Democrat Andrew Johnson to the ticket…"[/i]

Source:
http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=9&subjectID=2

69

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I know I’m late to this party…but there are people whose choice for president was teetering on who the vice-president might be?

I can’t speak for everybody, but picking a real conservative as a running mate convinced me to vote FOR McCain instead of AGAINST Obama.

I was going to vote for McCain regardless, but the only real reason was to do what I could to keep the looming Supreme Court appointments out of Barry’s hands.

Now with Palin in the picture, it seems as though McCain actually gives a shit about the right wing. If he does die in office, we’d still have a far more capable president in Palin than we would ever have with Obama.
[/quote]

Oh c’mon Rainjack. Don’t be so easily fooled. McCain cares about appeasing the right wing and garnering support. I don’t for one second think that McCain is going to adopt Palin’s positions as his own if elected or that her views will have any appreciable impact on how he governs. Hell, maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see if McCain is elected. But I’m DEEPLY skeptical.

70

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
RJ-- that is a very good point as well, but what guarantees that McCain wouldn’t appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Remember-- he’s a Republican that wants to appease the Left in the name of Bipartisonship, and he’s already shown that he can’t be trusted with the Constitution (McCain-Feingold).

PX - One last point on your statement. Sadly, there will be people who will vote for McCain (actually for Palin) because 1) She is a woman; 2) She is attractive; 3) She rides a motorcycle.

On the flip side, there are a large group of folks who will vote for Obama, simply because he’s black. On the flip flip side there will be people who vote AGAINST Obama simply because he’s black.

It’s a world of shit in a lot of ways, unfortunately.[/quote]

True. People are stupid and often make their voting decisions for all the wrong reasons.

71

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
RJ-- that is a very good point as well, but what guarantees that McCain wouldn’t appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Remember-- he’s a Republican that wants to appease the Left in the name of Bipartisonship, and he’s already shown that he can’t be trusted with the Constitution (McCain-Feingold).
[/quote]

I know what Obama would put on the bench. I highly doubt McCain would go for a Scalia, or a Thomas as he is way too liberal to put a strict constructionist on the bench.

But like I said earlier, I will take 3 Kennedy’s over 3 Ginsbergs any day.

In a perfect world McCain gets elected, and is unable to fulfill his duties, and Palin gets to nominate the justices.

72

[quote]rainjack wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
RJ-- that is a very good point as well, but what guarantees that McCain wouldn’t appoint another Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Remember-- he’s a Republican that wants to appease the Left in the name of Bipartisonship, and he’s already shown that he can’t be trusted with the Constitution (McCain-Feingold).

I know what Obama would put on the bench. I highly doubt McCain would go for a Scalia, or a Thomas as he is way too liberal to put a strict constructionist on the bench.

But like I said earlier, I will take 3 Kennedy’s over 3 Ginsbergs any day.

In a perfect world McCain gets elected, and is unable to fulfill his duties, and Palin gets to nominate the justices. [/quote]

Actually, there are NO strict constructionists, including Thomas and Scalia. The opinions of all of the justices are highly outcome and result driven. You just like the outcomes Scalia pursues better than other justices. Scalia’s opinions are brilliant and he is a master at textual interpretation and other methods to bring him where he wants to go. He himself has said that he is not a strict constructionst and that no one ought to be and has called the whole philosophy “a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute.”

73

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Oh c’mon Rainjack. Don’t be so easily fooled. McCain cares about appeasing the right wing and garnering support. I don’t for one second think that McCain is going to adopt Palin’s positions as his own if elected or that her views will have any appreciable impact on how he governs. Hell, maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see if McCain is elected. But I’m DEEPLY skeptical.
[/quote]

I don’t think I made any insinuation that McCain had turned into a real conservative by appointing Palin. I said that with Palin on the ticket, I have someone to vote for.

Odds are that if McCain wins, he’s only going to be in for 1 term. Palin will have the inside track for the nomination in 2012. She will be the first real conservative to run for the oval office since Reagan.

74

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Actually, there are NO strict constructionists, including Thomas and Scalia. The opinions of all of the justices are highly outcome and result driven. You just like the outcomes Scalia pursues better than other justices. Scalia’s opinions are brilliant and he is a master at textual interpretation and other methods to bring him where he wants to go. He himself has said that he is not a strict constructionst and that no one ought to be and has called the whole philosophy “a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute.”
[/quote]

Compared to Ginsburg, Scalia is a flaming constructionist - maybe not a perfectly strict one, but you know as well as I do that he sticks to what is written, and not what isn’t way more often than the 4.5 judicial legislators that are on the bench. I apologize for mis-using the term.

But yes, I love his and Thomas’ opinions. There has yet to be one from either of them that I disagree with.

75

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Oh c’mon Rainjack. Don’t be so easily fooled. McCain cares about appeasing the right wing and garnering support. I don’t for one second think that McCain is going to adopt Palin’s positions as his own if elected or that her views will have any appreciable impact on how he governs. Hell, maybe I’m wrong. We’ll see if McCain is elected. But I’m DEEPLY skeptical.

I don’t think I made any insinuation that McCain had turned into a real conservative by appointing Palin. I said that with Palin on the ticket, I have someone to vote for.

Odds are that if McCain wins, he’s only going to be in for 1 term. Palin will have the inside track for the nomination in 2012. She will be the first real conservative to run for the oval office since Reagan.

[/quote]

I suppose the argument that it paves the way for a Palin presidency makes some sense as opposed to her views being put into practice during McCain’s time in office.

76

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Actually, there are NO strict constructionists, including Thomas and Scalia. The opinions of all of the justices are highly outcome and result driven. You just like the outcomes Scalia pursues better than other justices. Scalia’s opinions are brilliant and he is a master at textual interpretation and other methods to bring him where he wants to go. He himself has said that he is not a strict constructionst and that no one ought to be and has called the whole philosophy “a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute.”

Compared to Ginsburg, Scalia is a flaming constructionist - maybe not a perfectly strict one, but you know as well as I do that he sticks to what is written, and not what isn’t way more often than the 4.5 judicial legislators that are on the bench. I apologize for mis-using the term.

But yes, I love his and Thomas’ opinions. There has yet to be one from either of them that I disagree with.

[/quote]

Yes, by and large, he tries to find the ordinary meaning of words and takes an originalist view. But he too departs from this to get the results he desires. You can see this in many Scalia opinions. But it is true that he does not so much invent law as tweak it. The same cannot be said for many other justices.

77

I will say that the more law you study, the more you see that justices of the right as well as the left are often activist too. Maybe not to the same degree. But they are. I am not so sure this is a bad thing. A completely originialist view is not feasible. The Constitution is often inscrutable and the original intent of the founding fathers is indiscernable.

There are also instances where it makes no sense and is entirely unworkable in today’s world. Where the constitution is subject to interpretation, I see no reason whey theirs is necessarily superior to ours. However, I do have issues where constitutional rights are FORMULATED out of little more than air.

78

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I will say that the more law you study, the more you see that justices of the right as well as the left are often activist too. Maybe not to the same degree. But they are. I am not so sure this is a bad thing. A completely originialist view is not feasible. The Constitution is often inscrutable and the original intent of the founding fathers is indiscernable.
[/quote]

So in other words, you think that life-time appointees that we never even directly vote for having lots of control over our lives is a good thing?

A good example of what happens when these “wise judges” have their heads up their asses:

79

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I will say that the more law you study, the more you see that justices of the right as well as the left are often activist too. Maybe not to the same degree. But they are. I am not so sure this is a bad thing. A completely originialist view is not feasible. The Constitution is often inscrutable and the original intent of the founding fathers is indiscernable.

So in other words, you think that life-time appointees that we never even directly vote for having lots of control over our lives is a good thing?

A good example of what happens when these “wise judges” have their heads up their asses:

[/quote]

No doubt that was a bad decision. But bad because it was wrongly decided or because the court should not have ruled on it at all? The Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Doesn’t define what it it is. Who’s going to define it? The legislature? Well it hasn’t. Until Congress passes a federal law deciding what is cruel and unusual punishment for each and every crime (and it’s not the role of Congress to do so), someone must make these decisions when the issue arises.

There are plenty of instances where the court created law when it shouldn’t have. Most of the privacy rights are an example. Even those I agree with from a normative perspective were fashioned out of nowhere. This example is not one of them. This is an interpretation of what constitutes a clearly defined prohibition laid out in the constitution. This was a bad decision because the court decided wrongly on what is cruel and unusual punishment.

Not because it overstepped its authority in making the decision. You think there should be no final arbiter? There are plenty of instances where state law has been blatantly unconstitutional and directly contravened constitutional prohibitions.

80

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
So in other words, you think that life-time appointees that we never even directly vote for having lots of control over our lives is a good thing?[/quote]

On that, I do think that pretty-much-irrevocable lifetime appointments do not make sense.

While it shouldn’t be routine and ordinary for a body that made a lifetime appointment to later consider revoking it, and should not be easy – it would also be bad for judges to have to expect to be second-guessed by legislators or Presidents on whether each and every decision they make is or is not popular enough with the public or is or is not to their personal liking – it should be possible when the appointing body has “had it” and if the process is difficult enough.

For example, I think it would be reasonable that if both the current President of the United States wishes and at least 2/3 of the US Senate votes to have a Supreme Court justice removed, their ass should be out of there.