An Obama Presidency: What's At Stake

[deacon blues]

For those of you planning to vote for Obama for various reasons consider this: should he get elected he will definitely have the chance to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and maybe two. As a liberal he would most likely appoint justices that lean to the left.

The Supreme Court has just in the past two weeks ruled in favor of two horrible cases. They basically gave prisoners of war the same legal rights as American citizens. Terrorists, jihadists and Islamic fanatics are given the right to go to court even if they have killed and maimed many. Should they win their freedom, they could return with more death in their wake. The decision went 5-4. McCain will nominate strict constructionist judges.

The SC said this week that it unconstitutional to sentence to die someone who has raped children. Again the vote went 5-4.

There is too much at stake this election to vote because someone is an eloquent speaker.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

For those of you planning to vote for Obama for various reasons consider this: should he get elected he will definitely have the chance to nominate a Sipreme Court Justice and maybe two. As a liberal he would most likely appoint justices that lean o the left.

The Supreme Court has just in the past two weeks ruled in favor of two horrible cases. They basically gave prisoners of war the same legal rights as American citizens. Terrorists, jihadists and Islamic fanatics are given the right to go to court even if they have killed and mamed many. Should they win their freedom, they could return with more death in their wake. The decision went 5-4. McCain will nominate strict constructionist judges.

The SC said this week that it unconstitutional to sentence to die someone who has raped children. Again the vote went 5-4.

There is too much at stake this election to vote because someone is an eloquent speaker.

Exactly!

[SDG]

Although I am not happy with the first decision it's blanket statements like:

Terrorists just got the same legal rights as Americans ... that make these arguments against voting for the American senator seem hyperbolic and rooted in fallacy and illogic ...

The second decision ... I some problem with although they (enemy combatants/pow's0 were not GIVEN EQUAL RIGHTS WITH AMERICANS ... hello??? but rather a decision dealing with habeas corpus and the inability of a sitting Congress (legislative body) to deal with this issue when the Court gave it 3 years to do so.

Lastly ... our democracy NEVER meted out capital punishment for child rape ... until certain states sought to push the envelope ....

The act is reprehensible and disgusting but IMO should be punished with automatic life in prison ... a harsher and fairer form of retribution.

Wanting the Court to be more conservative is fine .... but that is not merely a fact that will rest on executive decision in our system of checks and balances

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Although I am not happy with the first decision it's blanket statements like:

Terrorists just got the same legal rights as Americans ... that make these arguments against voting for the American senator seem hyperbolic and rooted in fallacy and illogic ...

The second decision ... I some problem with although they (enemy combatants/pow's0 were not GIVEN EQUAL RIGHTS WITH AMERICANS ... hello??? but rather a decision dealing with habeas corpus and the inability of a sitting Congress (legislative body) to deal with this issue when the Court gave it 3 years to do so.

Lastly ... our democracy NEVER meted out capital punishment for child rape ... until certain states sought to push the envelope ....

The act is reprehensible and disgusting but IMO should be punished with automatic life in prison ... a harsher and fairer form of retribution.

Wanting the Court to be more conservative is fine .... but that is not merely a fact that will rest on executive decision in our system of checks and balances

Daniel, I love you man and respect you in many ways BUT this defending the indefensible is disturbing.

Terrorists DID get the same legal rights as Americans when the SC granted them the right to habeas corpus. The granting of habeas corpus rights to terrorists and enemy combatants is UNPRECEDENTED and returns the war on terror back to where Cllinton was trying to fight it: as a criminal action. With the first Twin Towers attack, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Kenyan Embassy, Tanzanian Embassy, Somalia debacle, and others we can well remember how well that effort worked.

Granting HC to terrorists sounds noble on paper and in theory, but it doesn't and won't work to win this war on terrorism. It assumes that the enemy combatants and terrorists are INNOCENT until proven guilty. Can you imagine fighting WWII or any other war in our history under that assumption? It worls for American citizens but it won't work in this context.

As far as Congress doing nothing with it, it's your party that had the chance to do something with it, and sat on it. They are in favor of the courts ruling. Otherwise they would have been on the fast track trying to assure that this would not happen. Besides when did an act of Congress stop the SC from writing their own legislation?

Let's talk a little about the child rape/capital punishment decision. It is unchartered waters for us as a society b/c we have not had this problem on such a large scale as we do today. It was a rare occurence in generations past. Today the child predators number in the millions. Something must be done to put a severe consequnce to these sickos actions. Life in prison? I know that I would want the man or woman who violates my young children taken from this world for such a disgusting and terribly life altering act. No child rapist should be permitted to live period. That's not pushing the envelope, thats justice.

Wanting the court to be more conservative most certinaly rests on the executive branch. Your saying it isn't, bro, betrays what seems to be a blind willingness to vote for Obama not matter what.

Still love you though.

[Rico]

I don't think McCain would appoint truly conservative justices anyway. This is a guy who was considered anything but a conservative by his own party until he managed to win this nomination. At best I think all you would get from him are moderate justices, and I am not so sure we wouldn't get the same from Obama. He's been in agreement with y'all on both the child rapist ruling and the gun control ruling.

[SDG]

DB,

1. I am a conservative/libertarian Republican who will be voting for Obama.

2. We as a nation have a responsibility to keep higher standards than the animals who seek to hurt us ... we have been dealing as a nation w/ the fine line between the civil liberties, upholding the dignity of all human beings and our national security. This has taken a delicate balancing act ... and the Court, our Congress and President have done what they all have seen as necessary to keep this in "check" while still protecting our survival and integrity.

I have no problem w/ our long track record of treating POW's and ... ( now ... this convenient term "enemy combatants" while fighting the war on Terror) with some higher standards that have made us the greatest nation in human history.

Are there concerns I have about this detainee decision ... sure ...

but is this decision a liberal vs. conservative issue?? ... I'm not sure DB.

It's your claim that somehow we are reaching an apocalyptic climax when we choose our next President that is alienating many who just don't see it quite that way ... and make this race more about partisanship rather than common sense ...

As a staunch political conservative I have always been in favor of capital punishment ... a life for a life.

I am even in favor of making capital punishment ... automatic ... if a child is raped and then murdered ...

However, even you admittedly say that this notion of executing child rapists is indeed pushing the envelope because you ... like I ... are sickened by the heinous nature of this act ...

But when did this become a "conservative" issue? That's where I get lost, DB.

Do I cease being a conservative if I believe that the punishment must meet the crime?

Remember the Duke Lacrosse team ???... what if hypothetically this group of 19-21 year old males had indeed raped a 17 year old minor ...????

Do you really believe they need to be executed for committing this atrocity?

Something in my gut tells me that this is not type of retribution that our ideologues have argued for when defending capital punishment. My gut tells me that you ... nor I think that these hypothetical 19 year olds would be deserving of this punishment.

Where do we draw the line with what we think is deserving of capital punishment or heightening our punishments for growing problems??? ... do we regress and start chopping off the hands of those that are habitually shoplifting since it's a growing epidemic and affects us all?

The Supreme Court has a responsibility ... no matter who appointed them ... or the political mood of the country ... to uphold the sanctity of the Constitution ...

In this last decision about capital punishment they have kept precedent with what has been the law of the land and decided on caution when it comes to the issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

Not wanting Obama as President is your right ... but using these recent decisions as examples or reasons not to vote for him is IMO .... is wanting at best since they are not necessarily conservative issues.

BTW, thanx for loving me ... I love you too, bro ... even if you're voting for a flip-flopper

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Rico

I don't think McCain would appoint truly conservative justices anyway. This is a guy who was considered anything but a conservative by his own party until he managed to win this nomination. At best I think all you would get from him are moderate justices, and I am not so sure we wouldn't get the same from Obama. He's been in agreement with y'all on both the child rapist ruling and the gun control ruling.

Of course ... we know that in the last 30 years ... Conservative Presidents have ruled the day ... and have made the bulk of the last few appointments ... and even Clinton had to get approval from a Republican Congress ....

AND YET WE STILL GET THE DECISIONS THAT DB IS BALKING AT ...

If today's gun ruling falls in favor of the conservative side ... which I think it will ...

What is the reaction then? ... Probably more of the same ... This is why we can't vote for Obama ... we gotta keep the Court conservative on this issue .... It's a twisted catch-22 that's being presented here as an argument against his candidacy.

It's grasping at straws to make this next election about who will tilt the Court ....

This election will be about an economy on the brink of collapsing and finding a resolution to a war (that I still support) that has cost us trillions of dollars .... THIS IS WHAT IS AT STAKE. The Court will remain moderate ... I believe for years to come ... and will not be the deciding factor ... nor should it be ... when we cast our votes this November.

[DividedThigh]

no obama, dt

[Jermyn Davidson]

no McCain. GO OBAMA!

[tstew]

I'm particularly concerned with how we do treat our POWs because some day, I could have a child captured as a POW and I would want us to have good moral standing and good precedent. I certainly don't want terrorists running wild and free, but is there any limit as to how long we can hold them and have no process?