Please help save Geronimo from voting for Kerry

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by 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.

Why release Padilla unless the government has no real evidence against him? In that case, it's not Kerry being weak on terror, it's Bush holding a man outside the reach of the judicial system without real evidence. If Padilla is provably guilty, then strap him to the same gurney as McVeigh and be done with it.

" 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.

Supporters of abortion rights in general, or under limited circumstances, aren't necessarily in favor of partial birth abortions. In fact, most are not in favor of the procedure, but saw through the hypocrisy of having Congress start regulating medical procedures on a procedure-by-procedure basis. If an abortion at that stage is legal (it shouldn't be, IMO, unless there's a significant risk to the woman's life or permanent injury to her), then it should be up to the medical community and medical licensing boards to determine what procedures may be used. If it isn't legal, then the medical procedure question is moot.

Also, most AA programs do not involve or require quotas, whether in public or private sector. Quotas are (with very rare exceptions) either voluntary stupidity, or ordered pursuant to judgments or consent decrees for employers where past patterns of discrimination have been proven.

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

This assumes that Kerry will pick leftist ideologues, and that the Senate won't be able to stick the issue to Kerry in that event. Even people who loved FDR drew the line at his court-packing scheme.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Ok so maybe the judical branch is trying to end the istuation but it still seems for all the world as if Padilla, a US citizen is still being held and still has not been charged. Are the judical and the legislative branches of government completely helpless to reign in such unconstitutional offenses?

It looks as if checks and balances doesn't work at all in this instance.

It also goes further - the rulings affecting the detainees in Gitmo have effectively been voided, because the executive branch controls who has access to those detainees, and what information they receive. So if you don't tell 'em, they'll never know.

The concept of checks and balances assumes that the executive branch of government will have the integrity to correct it's actions once the judiciary has ruled. Even Nixon agreed to go along with SCOTUS on the Watergate tapes case. He knew it doomed him as President, but he had enough respect for the Presidency and the Constitution to do what was right in that case.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
We don't know what the composition of the Senate will be though. And we don't know if enough Republican Senators would have the backbone to fight Kerry's SC nominees. Of Course, it would be hard for the Republican Senate to block left-wing nominees after complaining for 4 years about blocking judges based on ideology.

Even in the scenario that left-wing justices are fought by the Senate GOP, the most likely way I would guess such a standoff would end would be Kerry appointing someone whose views on controversial issues are unknown, but whom Kerry privately knows is a liberal.

That never works. Do you think Ike expected Earl Warren to be the CJ he was? Or JFK and Byron White? Or Reagan and Kennedy?

I don't think the composition of the Senate will change much, at least not enough to prevent filibusters, and there are enough absolutely safe Republican senate seats around to maintain filibuster capability.

Regarding Padilla, yes it's clearly wrong. But it's also nothing new. Lincoln detained Southern Sympathizers in the Civil War. FDR detained Japanese Americans in WWII. We've survived it before, and it doesn't mean such unlawful detentions will soon become broadly applies to everyone who opposes Bush.

It's very new, and the Lincoln/FDR comparisons don't wash. Both Lincoln and FDR acted against a defined enemy, with a defined security threat. In Bush's "war" there is no set enemy and there is no end to the war. It's beyond Orwellian, since we're not at war with states, we're at war with amorphous groups of individuals, and any future individuals who may or may not, in the President's opinion, form some such group or be some alleged potential threat. With that definition of "enemy" the end of the war is simply a matter of personal definition for the President.

If Padilla type detentions were applied en masse, it'd be enough to get people riled up, but by being gradual and getting away with it, Bush is setting up the conditions for a second administration, or successor administrations of a similar mindset, to detain anyone, any time, for any reason the President or whoever he designates sees fit.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo
That doesn't make any sense, whatsoever. You might want to rethink this.

Ok I'll try to explain again. You believe that the constitutions applicability should follow geography whereas I believe it should follow citizenship. You claim my stance is grossly unfair. My iraq example above was to demonstrate how your stance is unfair in precisely the same way.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Of Course, it would be hard for the Republican Senate to block left-wing nominees after complaining for 4 years about blocking judges based on ideology.

Not so hard. They already spent six years blocking judges based on ideology, before they started complaining about the Dems blocking judges based on ideology.

edit: Sorry to be redundant. Who'da thunk everyone else would jump on this before me?

[Lorizael]

https://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

[Straybow]

As far as I'm concerned, the Dems pissed in the well with Borke (undoubtedly the single most capable and ethical jurist the world will ever see) and Thomas.

If they want to complain that the nomination process is tainted they can eat crow and admit they are to blame.

[Ramo]

Ok I'll try to explain again. You believe that the constitutions applicability should follow geography whereas I believe it should follow citizenship. You claim my stance is grossly unfair. My iraq example above was to demonstrate how your stance is unfair in precisely the same way.

What does geography have do with the discussion? I never said anything about that. What exactly is your "Iraq example" an example of?

Anyways, what I believe is that everyone, citizen or not, should be free from the state detaining them without due process. 'Cuz I believe in freedom.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo

Ok I'll try to explain again. You believe that the constitutions applicability should follow geography whereas I believe it should follow citizenship. You claim my stance is grossly unfair. My iraq example above was to demonstrate how your stance is unfair in precisely the same way.

What does geography have do with the discussion? I never said anything about that. What exactly is your "Iraq example" an example of?

Anyways, what I believe is that everyone, citizen or not, should be free from the state detaining them without due process. 'Cuz I believe in freedom.

Oh jeezuz...



Argh..

Look. you say "why shouldn't the US constitution apply to aliens as well?" Correct? have I got it so far?

Next I presume that you do not believe that the US constitution applies to other countries. IE if I leave the jurisdiction of the US, that is to say its geographical confines you believe that the constitution ceases to be the law of the land outside those borders. IE it is geographically limited. Correct? do you believe that?

My point is, you draw the line where geography ends, I draw the line where citizenship ends. is this correct?

[Ramo]

You're conflating multiple issues. If you're asking whether the specific liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are protected outside of the US, then the answer is obviously no. That's a matter of fact. Likewise, if you're asking whether these liberties are being protected for noncitizens in the US, again that's a matter of fact.

What I was asking is why shouldn't aliens have a set of specific guarantees enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the right to due process. That's a moral, not a factual question.
BTW, I believe that everyone, living in this country or not, should have the right to due process. So I don't where you're getting the geography nonsense.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Ramo
You're conflating multiple issues. If you're asking whether the specific liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are protected outside of the US, then the answer is obviously no. That's a matter of fact. Likewise, if you're asking whether these liberties are being protected for noncitizens in the US, again that's a matter of fact.

What I was asking is why shouldn't aliens have a set of specific guarantees enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the right to due process. That's a moral, not a factual question.
BTW, I believe that everyone, living in this country or not, should have the right to due process. So I don't where you're getting the geography nonsense.

I can respect a desire to have due process applied to everybody in the world without regard to the US constitution one way or another. I just don't want the suggestion made that the due process is guarenteed by our constitution to non citizens. I'd rather have a due process described for non citizens in some other way.

Our legal system sets extremely high standards for conviction as well as often resulting in an excessively drawn out and expensive legal process involving disrupting the lives of many ordinary citizens simply because tyranny of government cannot be prevented if citizens do not have the highest possible protection from injust disenfranchisement through imprisonment. This extreme standard is not necessary for aliens because the government could not entrench its power through disenfranchisment of aliens because aliens are already disenfranchised. I think it would be insane to spend the millions of dollars that are spent on criminal trials and put out the hundred of citizens that are put out in a jury trial for each and every alien being detained in gitmo much less apply the assumption that each of them is innocent until proven beyond any shadow of doubt to be guilty. Screw that. I accept such immense cost for citizens only because it is the only way to keep our system of government safe from despotism. If I could be sure that I could trust government not to ever abuse the power to entrench its authority I would prefer presumption of guilt until proven innocent. But I would never trust any government to resist forever the temptation to use such a process to achieve politcal ends. So I reject such a standard for citizens. I don't understand what purpose there would be in rejecting it for aliens though. The only purpose I've come up with is so that we can respect reciprical treatment from other governments for our own citizens.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I can respect a desire to have due process applied to everybody in the world without regard to the US constitution one way or another. I just don't want the suggestion made that the due process is guarenteed by our constitution to non citizens. I'd rather have a due process described for non citizens in some other way.

You think visitors to the US should be subject to arbitrary detention without consul for indefinite periods of time?

What would you think were a Yank to end up in a French or Turkish prison for years on end without charge or representation?

:Edit, and then I read the rest of your post...

[notyoueither]

but then... you think justice is a function of what exactly?

If it is unjust to do something to person x, is it not unjust to do the same to person y who is in the same circumstance, but who carries a different passport? Do we treat people well out of some calculated scheme to maximise our own advantage, or do we treat people well because it is the right thing to do?

Gitmo detainees don't count, they are not in the circumstances of having been detained as a visitor to the US. However, they should be given some process that will fulfill the obligation of the US to uphold some minimal measure of justice even for enemies. After Abu G, it is very difficult for many to accept that the people in Gitmo are just there pending figuring out what to do with them.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


Like I care what people vote for. I want Bush to lose dearly, but I am not on the same level as loathsome republicans, giving money to candidates they don;t support simply under the idea of sucking votes from others.

So at least I can say I am better than republicans

So you repudiate the attempt by numerous democratic party operations to further restrict the already onerous restrictions to getting (Nader) on the ballot?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ramo


Kerry doesn't support slavery, you know.

It's only a matter of time.