It's the Supreme Court, Stupid! (moral, choice, evolution, America)

[s2a]

Ideological battles are being waged from some "grassroots" source every day.

Patriotism!!!
Abortion.
Gay Marriage/Adoption.
Accessible/affordable health care.
Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/Corporate Pension plans.
Taxes ("Fair" or "Flat", "Indexed" or "Adjusted)".
Global Climate Change.
"Education".
"National security".
War vs. diplomacy.
Patriotism!!!

I often wonder...what defines or describes a "values voter" (are you one)? What issues of personalized "values" would cause anyone to vote/endorse a given presidential candidate upon a single item of ideological contention?

What is an "American value"?

What do we, as Americans, value most of all (and would be willing to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor")?

Freedom from tyranny?
Freedom of speech and expression?
Freedom to own weapons?
Freedom of movement, group assembly, and personal choice?
Freedom from governmental intrusion/persecution upon individualized religion, ideology, or person?
Freedom to think, and choose, for oneself?
Freedom of opportunity?
Freedom from institutional bias, prejudice, or mob rule?

Is there ANYTHING that better defines and defends the IDEA of our America than the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

ANYTHING?

The US Constitution establishes and empowers the notion (and reality) of a Supreme Court; a body of (albeit appointed and Senate confirmed) citizens that are charged with "interpreting" the "intent" of the very document that founded the social and governmental experiment known today as The United States of America.

SCOTUS (the Supreme Court of the United States) is as old as the Constitution itself, and would have no authority in determinations of any established constitutional laws unless such were empowered within the Constitution itself.

The US Constitution was not crafted, nor intended, to endlessly remain a static and unchanging establishment of a nation, nor a binding and inalterable reflection of it's citizens.

Without serious debate from any ideological/social perspective, SCOTUS has been a major agent of CHANGE in refining the nation's informed/wizened sensibilities, and it's maturing social growth in the past two centuries.

Some "conservatives" would argue that progressive "activism" evinced in SCOTUS is a "bad" thing...and our nation would be better served by reversing "progressive [SCOTUS] interpretations" of the Constitution, for a more "constructionist" perspective.

Contemporary "rights/laws" that insure such foolishness as being "MIrandized" when arrested; or promising equality of creed, race, or gender as a matter of (enforceable) criminal law...are the products of such "activist judges" and a progressive "interpretation" of original and constitutional guidelines and principles in both intent and more perspicacious open interpretation.

Bottom line...

...the next elected President...in being both obligated and Constitutionally charged with presenting suitable candidates for service in eventually ruling upon the most critical and emotional "issues" of the day (by means of provisionally lent "advise and consent" deliberations within the US Senate), suggests two very different and (for the most part) philosophically opposing perspectives.

When must preservation of individual civil liberties bow to issues of "national security"?

When is/should the notion of "personal liberty" [be] subject to imposed social pressures of decidedly focused priorities of ethics/morality?

Is any "free society" best defined by what it allows, or by what it prohibits...in the unencumbered expression of one's own individuality?

Should our Supreme Court be a definitive "defender" of: "same-sex marriage"; "national interest/defense"; women's health/reproduction; medical science technology/advancements; industry/corporate/management profits vs. ecological/environmental impacts?

Know this...

...In the next five years, it is most likely that two to four SCOTUS justices will either retire or simply die of old age. The Constitution provides that the sitting President shall appoint/suggest the next prevailing candidate for fulfilling the role of a "supreme" judge in our highest court...a role that entails a responsibility in either looking forward--or looking back--as a prevailing precedent for all tendered rulings upon contentious aspects of constitutional interpretations of binding and enduring laws.

Civil rights/civil liberties literally hang in the balance ...dependent upon which party's candidate prevails by popular vote in the next general Presidential election.

Fer sure, any elected Republican President will bow to political base pressure to nominate the MOST "conservative" SCOTUS candidate possible.Yes...even Rudy has said as much. Goodbye "Roe". Goodbye "Miranda". Goodbye personal liberties, in favor or ingratiating an inordinately unreflective sampling of an effected mob rule.

From "Global Climate Change"; to universally accessible and affordable health coverage; to rights of person, privacy, and personal liberty; to any outlined expectations of freedoms of burning flags; to familial planning; to unfettered medical research; to the most basic and fundamental civil rights espoused (and guaranteed) within our own Constitution...there IS a DIFFERENCE between the "conservative" perspective as outlined by the major party candidates, and the appeal of a more contemporary and evolutionary perspective tendered by "progressive" Presidential candidates that wish to preserve and protect the most compelling [activist!} and moral/social "adjustments" to longstanding (and enforceable) US civil and social injustices. iniquities, and prejudices.

To argue from a "strictly [Constitutionally] constructionist" perspective is to effectively ignore and dismiss the entirety of any amendment to the Constitution...including the very first Ten Amendments. If you "believe" in the afforded constitutional "rights" of the Second Amendment, then you gotta accept the troublesome aspects of the Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments .

Sorry.

These "activist" Amendments remain both part and inseparable parcel of the US Constitution, and "interpretations" of these Constitutional Amendments (or any other foundational principles) are what SCOTUS is both constitutionally empowered, and therefore charged to both address and rule upon.

This next Presidential election will touch upon, pander to, or offer to supplicate many specialized interests and concerns as expressed either upon/within the general electorate.

"Single-issue" voters will not waver.
"Special concerns/interests" voters will not waver.
"Die-hard" party loyalists will not waver.

"Independents" constitute the largest "unaffiliated" bloc of voters in the US; a "bloc" that tends to favor "moderation", reason, perspective, inherently shared "[American/family] values", and most overriding...a sense of fairness and equality in both opportunity and measured justice.

If you accept the concept and grounding precepts of a prevailing "stare decisis" judicial perspective;...in "constitutionally" defending the aspects of personal privacy attached to Roe v. Wade; in Miranda v. Arizona, whereas all rights against self-incrimination are defended; wherein courts should retain precedent in determination of any probable cause in issuance of a warrant to governmentally spy upon legal and resident citizens; wherein the most basic "common law" concepts of "Habeas corpus" are insistently defended and insured; whether or not women should be allowed to vote, or people of color should even be allowed to own property (all of which are NOT provided within an unamended Constitution)...

...if you REALLY BELIEVE that SCOTUS justices should only be "strict" adherents of an unamended and inflexible Constitution, then you should vote for the next Republican Party presidential candidate. If you think that ANY President should swear to "preserve, protect, and DEFEND the Constitution (in it's entirety) against ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic"...I'd encourage any and all "undecideds" in the general electorate to support both the party and candidate that most seeks to preserve and defend those enumerated AND interpreted constitutional ideals and laws.

It's all about the Supreme Court, stupid!

Without our most basic expectations of any civil/personal/human rights...then what's the point in fighting (and dying) to defend liberty/freedom/equity/justice?

[Scuba Pete]

Give me a candidate to END this war, and they have my vote. Call me a single issue voter and I am proud of it!

[UltraViolet]

in principle I am a non voter.
However if an honest candidate had the desire and ability and resolve to ....

end the war
end the federal reserve & taxation scam
and/or abolish the patriot act

I would go ahead and vote.

[s2a]

Originally Posted by theNEWreality

in principle I am a non voter.
However if an honest candidate had the desire and ability and resolve to ....

end the war
end the federal reserve & taxation scam
and/or abolish the patriot act

I would go ahead and vote.

If you would care to suggest ANYONE (living today, if you please) that would satisfy your modest expectations in "earning" your vote...please name that person.

Otherwise, I'm please to know that your opinion will never be heard or registered in any accounting of expressed opinion.

Sit down, shut up, and do as you're told.

Apparently, that's what you want to hear.

I'll be glad enough to affect your deterministic fate when I vote.

I hope you like my choice...and, I really relish it most when you don't.

[s2a]

*fizzle*

*pop*

*thud*

[UltraViolet]

Originally Posted by s2a

If you would care to suggest ANYONE (living today, if you please) that would satisfy your modest expectations in "earning" your vote...please name that person.

Otherwise, I'm please to know that your opinion will never be heard or registered in any accounting of expressed opinion.

Sit down, shut up, and do as you're told.

Apparently, that's what you want to hear.

I'll be glad enough to affect your deterministic fate when I vote.

I hope you like my choice...and, I really relish it most when you don't.

Exactly.

The rest of your response however,
I really didn't understand.
However I get the sense that it was meant to be insulting...
and that's ok.

I "determine my fate" by means of a whole other paradigm,
and since I basically view the whole governmental process,
as nothing more than the perpetuation of a corrupt system,
perpetuating a fradulent reality,
via rulers (elite or elite approved),
I really couldn't care less who wins.

If you are happy with the vote you have cast...
then I am happy for you.

I cast my vote in the Spirit for something WAY WAY different.

Your vote is no threat to me.
Mine is no threat to you.
It's all good. Be happy.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by theNEWreality

However I get the sense that it was meant to be insulting...

That's the point of many rants!