Please help save Geronimo from voting for Kerry

[Ramo]

Actually, Kerry has taken a stand against indefinite detention of at least citizens (maybe noncitizens, but I don't recall him saying that). See the quote I posted earlier in the thread. As for partial birth abortion on demand or racial quotas, I've seen no reason to believe that Kerry advocates any of that.

I don't know why you're assuming that Kerry takes these extremely liberal positions on abortion and affirmative action, and an extremely conservative ( Bush's) position on civil liberties, when all the evidence is to the contrary, that he's a little left of center in both respects.

It's not nessecarily politically hurtful in itself if a leftie gets through. It would be politically hurtful if they made themselves out to be brazen hypocrites?

They already have. After holding up Clinton appointees for 8 years, they're *****ing about the Dems doing a much milder version of the same thing.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Please help save Geronimo from voting for Kerry"

Consider this. As problematic as this current President has been at times, the Next President will likely appoint several Supreme Court Justices, and the effect of that will continue long after Bush and Kerry's political careers have ended. Supreme Court justices have the ability to make rulings that have far reaching effects and can set the national pollicy for a long time. With the parties generally deadlocked right now, it seems the judiciary will be far more likely to be able to make the big decisions on national issues such as States Rights, Affirmative Action, etc. Kerry would appoint left-wing justices who would move our country in the wrong direction.

Souter

[Ramo]

And what about Lincoln, then? Kick him out of office? Now, suppose everyone felt as you did in the North, and upon realizing what he is doing they turn overwhelmingly against him, allowing the Dems to sucsesfully nominate a peace candidate and have him win. Too bad for all those slaves, huh?

Kerry doesn't support slavery, you know.

[MRT144]

shi, they are hypocrites. Fiscal conservatives?

[Imran Siddiqui]

They already have. After holding up Clinton appointees for 8 years, they're *****ing about the Dems doing a much milder version of the same thing.

There is a big difference. The Republicans (in majority) mostly voted down Clinton appointees while the Democrats (in minority) use the filibuster. So as long as the Republicans have the majority and let them come to the floor, but vote them down, they won't look like hypocrites.

[Ramo]

Hatch didn't let tons of appointees out of the Judiciary committee with his blue-slip policy. IMO, that's worse than filibustering.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If you vote for Kerry when you do not support his policy, then you give him a bigger mandate than he deserves, which can have a huge effect on how he governs.

It could be a one issue election for Geronimo. Obey the Constitution or risk losing the Republic. I can't help but see things his way. Bush lost me (for what little my opinions matter) on just such issues. He doesn't deserve to hold the office of dog catcher, let alone POTUS.

Kerry, if he wins and reverses the trend of dragging the American flag and Constitution through the mud, would be an improvement even if he were not as effective at defending the US against further attack, IMO.

Put it this way, would you favour taking some slightly higher risk that Canada is attacked when we could lessen that risk by rounding up extremely likely suspects and holding them for years on end without a lawyer or so much as a hearing?

[Shi Huangdi]

"Actually, Kerry has taken a stand against indefinite detention of at least citizens (maybe noncitizens, but I don't recall him saying that). "

Fair enough. But were he to release Padilla he'd face political charges that he was weak on terror and that he cared more about protecting Moslem's constitutional rights then the safety of the American people. Not that that'd be justified, but it makes it questionable if Kerry actually would.

" As for partial birth abortion on demand or racial quotas, I've seen no reason to believe that Kerry advocates any of that."

Well, you can check his voting record on Affirmative Action or Abortion. Kerry is also likely to appoint justices who are of his same general ideology, who are likely to hold those views. The Supreme Court has already been interfering with partial birth abortion laws and the liberal wing of the supreme court(Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg) in favor of quotas already.

"
They already have. After holding up Clinton appointees for 8 years, they're *****ing about the Dems doing a much milder version of the same thing."

The Clinton stuff was before they came out so strongly against ideological screening of nominees. Now it will be harder.

Souter

Was over 10 years ago, was appointed in a far less ideological and partisan time, and was appointed by a President who was very moderate himself.

[MRT144]

shi, its not if he doesnt support indefinite detention he supports unquestioned release. he might want him charged and tried ASAP

[Ramo]

Not that that'd be justified, but it makes it questionable if Kerry actually would.

I disagree. If he were that spineless (and there's no reason to think that he's that bad, since he was the only Senator up for re-election to vote against DOMA, for instance), why'd he be criticizing Ashcroft's policies to that effect?

Well, you can check his voting record on Affirmative Action or Abortion.

What in particular?

The Supreme Court has already been interfering with partial birth abortion laws and the liberal wing of the supreme court(Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg) in favor of quotas already.

And what in particular?

The Clinton stuff was before they came out so strongly against ideological screening of nominees. Now it will be harder.

But they came out so strongly against ideological screening of nominees after they came out so strongly in favor of ideological screening of nominees. Why not another flip-flop?

[Ted Striker]

SCROTUM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hatch didn't let tons of appointees out of the Judiciary committee with his blue-slip policy. IMO, that's worse than filibustering.

Well IMO, filibustering is worse. It is a deplorable practice which never should have been part of Senate rules.

[Ramo]

Filibustering allows a large minority of Senators to prevent the vote, the blue-slip allows one Senator to prevent the vote. The latter is definitely worse.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Put it this way, would you favour taking some slightly higher risk that Canada is attacked when we could lessen that risk by rounding up extremely likely suspects and holding them for years on end without a lawyer or so much as a hearing?

This is precisely why even the security argument fails to persuade me even though as a supporter of the partiot act I can probably be recognized as someone who takes national security very seriously. It should be obvious that thousands of american lives could be saved by simply rounding up all of the usual suspects in every area where violent crime is common and holding them indefinately but that would be a gross negation of our constitution. I am willing to sacrifice many things for security even precious things such as my privacy but never my personal liberties. He who would trade freedom for security deserves neither. As true now as the day it was first said.

[Ramo]

If you oppose indefinite detention, why do you support the Patriot Act? An provision of it allows the indefinite detention of aliens on the attorney general's whim.