SCOTUS hears US vs. Oregon on assisted suicide - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 10-06-2005, 02:31 PM

I don't see this as a left or right issue, it is a right or wrong issue. Right being true to the Constitution and wrong being finding some way for Feds to revoke the people's voices.

I'll argue where tax money should be spent or Bush or other issues that need and should be, but when it comes to rights..... like I said Left/Right both should be able to agree on issues where our rights are at stake, such as this.

n0nsensical · 10-06-2005, 02:49 PM

There's a fantastic article on MSNBC about this.

Quote:

Assisted-suicide case a lesson in hypocrisy
Bush's efforts to overturn law contradict his statements on court's role

By <a href="mailto:caplan@mail.med.upenn.edu">Arthur Caplan, Ph.D.</a>

When it comes to U.S. Supreme Court appointments, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress have made it crystal clear what their core requirement is — no "legislating from the bench."

Both with the nomination of new Chief Justice John Roberts and now, with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Bush has insisted that he has selected people to serve as judges who will not override the will of the American people. So one has to wonder what his administration is thinking in pressing the case against physician-assisted suicide in the state of Oregon? Or, more accurately, why is the administration not telling us the truth about how it really views the role of the Supreme Court?

The state of Oregon is the only state in the nation where it is legal for a physician to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a terminally ill patient who requests assistance in dying. The citizens of Oregon approved “The Oregon Death With Dignity Act” by a ballot initiative in 1994. In 1997, a push was made to revoke the law. But again Oregonians voted to permit physician-assisted suicide, this time by a larger majority than they had three years earlier.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

Various attempts have been made by the Department of Justice to challenge the constitutionality of the law in court. In 2002, U.S. District Judge Robert Jones, in ruling against the attempt by the Bush administration to block the law, said, “Oregon voters decided not once, but twice to support the law and have chosen to resolve the moral, legal and ethical debate on physician-assisted suicide for themselves."

But Bush and his administration will not give up. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft pressed the case on appeal and it has now wound up in front of the Supreme Court. The president’s conservative base is so strongly opposed to any form of assisted suicide that it has sought all possible means to overturn the Oregon law.

The Justice Department argued before the Roberts court on Wednesday that the federal Controlled Substances Act gives the U.S. attorney general the power to prohibit the use of drugs in assisted suicide, regardless of state law. This is truly grasping at a straw to overturn the will of the people of Oregon.

No record of abuse
This 6-year jihad against the Oregon law might make some sense if there had been a pattern of terrible abuse of the dying and disabled since its enactment. As it happens, I am very wary of legislation permitting physician-assisted suicide. I worry that it could lead to pressure being put on people to end their lives prematurely or people with psychiatric or physical disabilities being dispatched for the convenience of others or to save money. But there is no such record of abuse in the wake of the law.

While some Oregonians dying of cancer, AIDS or Parkinson's disease do request a lethal dose of medication, very few actually wind up using it. There have been fewer than 300 cases in the years since the law was implemented. And despite a concerted effort by opponents of physician-assisted suicide to find cases in which the law has led to abuse or misuse, I know of only one case in the past five years in which any serious challenge has been raised regarding the ethics of patients, families or doctors who have honored a request to die.

So what is Bush thinking? Why is the Justice Department trying to use a broad interpretation of an obscure federal statute to restrict a law legislated twice by the citizens of Oregon that has not led to any problems or difficulties since its enactment?

There is only one answer: The president is not telling the truth. He is only willing to respect the decisions of Americans if he agrees with them. He is only willing to advocate for a conservative court if it upholds a social agenda that he agrees with. He is not willing to allow a state to follow a policy regarding the terminally ill if he does not agree with it. And he clearly expects the Supreme Court to "legislate from the bench" when it suits his moral agenda.

The federal government should not have brought the case against Oregon’s law. And the Supreme Court should not listen to the cockamamie argument that a statute intended to prevent the illicit use of drugs somehow gives the federal government the right to tell the citizens of Oregon how they must die when they are terminally ill.

The administration constantly bemoans the fact that Roe v. Wade imposed a policy on the American people about abortion that was never legislated. Oregon has a policy on assisted suicide that was legislated — twice. Bush and his administration should be ashamed for trying to use the Supreme Court to do what they claim they do not want any federal judge or court to do. The ethical hypocrisy involved is beyond description.

Elphaba · 10-06-2005, 03:14 PM

Quote:

The Justice Department argued before the Roberts court on Wednesday that the federal Controlled Substances Act gives the U.S. attorney general the power to prohibit the use of drugs in assisted suicide, regardless of state law. This is truly grasping at a straw to overturn the will of the people of Oregon.

I agree, but it's not Bush that will decide this. The one thing we know for certain about Rogers is his statement that he will respect decided law. He will be proving that if he goes the way of the interstate commerce clause in upholding the Fed's "right" to oversee the use of narcotic drugs.

We can all call BS, if Rogers overturns Roe v. Wade.

ObieX · 10-06-2005, 04:06 PM

What if the drugs used are produced in Oregon?

j8ear · 10-06-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Today's paper stated that based upon the direction Rogers'.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I agree, but it's not Bush that will decide this. The one thing we know for certain about Rogers....

We can all call BS, if Rogers...

Bold and Italics mine.

Are you doing this on purpose? If so, I don't get the joke. His name is Justice Roberts. Anyway not meaning to pick nits...just saying is all

.

-bear

j8ear · 10-06-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

What if the drugs used are produced in Oregon?

You mean like, California where not only were they exclusively intrastate, but they were also noncommercial? (Gonzales v Raich).

It doesn't seem to matter in the least.

We'll see.

Here, for the record, are the oft referred to 16 words of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, commonly called the interstate commerce clause, which gives congress the authority:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

-b-

snowy · 10-06-2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

Well I've heard it refered to as the Socialist Republic of Oregon on more than one occaission...lol. I think a friend of mine was not far off when she referred to Oregonians as a bunch of 'rugged individualist conservative liberals'.

People forget that we have an entire eastern section of the state that's pretty conservative. We have five representatives to Congress in Oregon--4 are Dems and 1 is a Republican (as you can guess, he represents that eastern half). But the fact is that this state passed the law by a WIDE majority BOTH times (I believe we passed it by 85% in 1997) and more than 15% of Oregonians live in the eastern part of the state. Sometimes the conservatives in this state surprise you by passing liberal legislation--but the entire state is by no means liberal.

However, you better believe it that most Oregonians are watching this court case closely, and we're prepared to raise a stink if SCOTUS rules against Death With Dignity.

analog · 10-07-2005, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

What if the drugs used are produced in Oregon?

Doesn't matter. The controlled substances laws might allow them to control any substance on the federal level, meaning they can say "you cannot prescribe lethal amounts of anything, no matter how much someone wants you to" and that's that... no interstate commerce to fuss with, and you don't have to defeat a law people put into effect...

It's like if the government wanted to outlaw guns, but the people kept voting to allow guns anyway, and the government came back and said "fine, have your guns.. but since i'm in charge of ammo manufacture and shipping, i say ammo is illegal in america. have fun with your empty guns."

Elphaba · 10-07-2005, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Are you doing this on purpose? If so, I don't get the joke. His name is Justice Roberts. Anyway not meaning to pick nits...just saying is all.

Complete brain fart.

Thanks for the catch.

Locobot · 10-13-2005, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I agree, Bear, that the IC clause was wrong the first time it was used (a farmer's personal wheat crop), and every single time it has been used since to overrule an intrastate activity.

Did you know that many of the rulings based on the IC clause, the ones that the Right-wing classically and vehemently opposes, were repealments of Jim Crow legislation passed by various states? Or that if the government had no right to impose agricultural regulations such as you oppose above it would bankrupt every family farmer in the country and distrupt the availability of food?

The question at hand is whether the federal goverment has the ability to regulate the specific dosage of a drug which it has already approved for use: morphine. I, as it seems almost everyone here, do not think it does. Clearly though, it's not an issue that was forseen in 1787. So ultimately it's left to interpretation of those appointed to the court who are in turn a reflection of the people elected over the past 25 years. It's kind of scary in that light to consider the superficial issues which cause most people to vote one way or another: boys kissing boys, regional accents, hairstyles, particulars of weapon availability, and flashy media displays.

snowy · 01-17-2006, 10:18 AM

Well, SCOTUS has made its ruling in favor of Oregon with a 6-3 majority.

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 - The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's assisted-suicide law today, declaring that the Bush administration had exceeded its authority in trying to undo the statute by punishing doctors who help people end their lives.

In a 6-to-3 decision, which would apply to other states if their people chose to follow Oregon's lead, the court held that former Attorney General John Ashcroft went well beyond his authority and expertise when he ruled in 2001 that doctors would lose their federal prescription privileges if they prescribed lethal doses of medications for patients.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, acknowledged that the long-running battle over the Oregon law is part of a "political and moral debate." But the issue for the court, he noted, was a more technical, down-to-earth one: Did the attorney general go beyond his powers under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970?

Clearly, he did, Justice Kennedy wrote, in an opinion joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The Controlled Substances Act "gives the attorney general limited powers, to be exercised in specific ways," the court ruled.

Those limited powers, however, do not include the ability to declare illegitimate "a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law."

In deferring to the will of Oregon lawmakers and voters, the high court majority said Congress had explicitly envisioned a role for the states in regulating controlled substances when it enacted the 1970 law. Nothing in the act allows the attorney general to interpret prescriptions for assisted suicide as "drug abuse," Justice Kennedy wrote.

Moreover, the majority concluded, the language of the 1970 law signals a clear unwillingness to allow medical judgments to be made by an executive official who lacks medical expertise. And the former attorney general's assertion that he was making a legal decision, not a medical one, does not hold up under scrutiny, the justices said.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in a sharp dissent, asserted that the attorney general did indeed have the authority to issue his 2001 ruling, regardless of the majority's reading of events. "If the term 'legitimate medical purpose' has any meaning, it surely excludes the prescription of drugs to produce death," Justice Scalia wrote. Also dissenting were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas.

Oregon voters approved the state's Death With Dignity Act twice, and it took effect in 1997. It sets out specific, detailed procedures for patients who want to end their lives, and for doctors who want to help them. Among other requirements, a patient must have a life expectancy of less than six months and must be mentally competent. The patient must also be advised of all alternatives, like hospice care and pain management. And the doctor who prescribes the drugs may not administer them.

As of the last reporting period on the law, in 2004, 326 patients had received prescriptions for medications to end their lives, and 208 had actually used them.

Today's ruling upheld one by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had voided the former attorney general's 2001 declaration.

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and a supporter of his state's law, said in an interview with The Associated Press that the ruling "has stopped, for now, the administration's attempts to wrest control of decisions rightfully left to the states and individuals."

But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justices, had an opposite reaction. "This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted-suicide laws," he told The A.P.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/po...rtner=homepage

pan6467 · 01-17-2006, 10:23 AM

Congrats Ore. now I can't wait to hear how the Justices legislated from the bench or see what Bush has to say.

Maybe there is hope, maybe we have a judge or 2 on the Bench that sees how Bush is stacking the court and may have decided to move a little Left in his/her decisions.

pan6467 · 01-17-2006, 10:26 AM

Quote:

But Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justices, had an opposite reaction. "This is a disappointing decision that is likely to result in a troubling movement by states to pass their own assisted-suicide laws," he told The A.P.

Oh my fucking God it shows the Neo Con's agenda right there..... "FUCK THE STATES THE FEDS MAKE THE LAWS."

That is the very essence of what this guy said.

Still lost as to how the Libertarians and true Conservatives who want less federal government can support these people.

Seems hypocritical to me.

dksuddeth · 01-17-2006, 10:35 AM

I've disagreed with Scalias opinions many times and i'll add this one to the pile. I'm starting to put Scalia in the same bucket as 'flip-flop' john kerry. How he can say he's an 'originalist' and still come out with some of the garbage opinions like this one is totally perplexing.

SecretMethod70 · 01-17-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Still lost as to how the Libertarians and true Conservatives who want less federal government can support these people.

Seems hypocritical to me.

Personally, I don't know any libertarians who support the Republican neo-cons, and I know many conservatives who don't either.

Anyway, I'm glad to see this ruling.

Rekna · 01-17-2006, 10:51 AM

how did roberts vote on this?

pan6467 · 01-17-2006, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Personally, I don't know any libertarians who support the Republican neo-cons, and I know many conservatives who don't either.

Anyway, I'm glad to see this ruling.

Ah but those people voted for Bush...... and keep voting in GOP congressmen to rubber stamp anything Bush wants.

What people say they want and how they vote are obviously at odds with each other.

It's BS for these Conservatives and Libertarians to say they don't support the neo cons and want less government, then vote for Bush and his rubber stampers.

If you are true to your beliefs you'll vote for who you truly believe in, you'll work for them and get out their messages.

People did for Perot, even though they knew he had no chance to win, they made a statement and it did shake things up a little. Sadly the GOP squashed it with their pseudo "Contract for America" which possessed term limits and balanced budgets...... Neither of which they honored or even talk about anymore.

NCB · 01-17-2006, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

how did roberts vote on this?

He, along with Scalia and Thomas, dissented

trickyy · 01-17-2006, 11:43 AM

roberts dissented with thomas and scalia.

i wonder how the vote would have turned out with alito on board. it's hard to gauge the guy, but from the hearings he seemed a bit more conservative than roberts. i don't know if that means libertarian conservative or you-can't-do-that conservative, although his record seems to indicate a tendency toward the latter. every case is unique, of course.

dksuddeth · 01-17-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ah but those people voted for Bush...... and keep voting in GOP congressmen to rubber stamp anything Bush wants.

Did you get a look at what the libertarian party had for a 04 candidate? Badnarik was a total moron to push some of the idiotology that he spewed. What other choice did we have?

SecretMethod70 · 01-17-2006, 02:04 PM

Well, maybe dksuddeth voted for Bush, but none of the libertarians (or independents for that matter) that I know voted for him. I'll concede that I live in a state where we can freely vote our conscience without worrying about "spoiling" the election, but I know there were many libertarians out of my state who did not vote for Bush either. When Badnarik was asked who was better, Bush or Kerry, he refused to pick one pointing out that both are equally bad, only differently so. Honestly, dksuddeth, I'm not sure why you felt the need to vote for Bush either. You live in a state that was going to go to him no matter what - voting for Badnarik would have had no effect on the election and if more people in situations such as yours had done it, maybe the Libertarian party would have gotten more recognition and enough votes to be declared a major national party. (Same goes for Green supporters in solid states such as IL and TX.)

Anyway, my main point is that you shouldn't be assuming that libertarians voted for Bush. People who are willing to follow a third party are generally a lot less likely to also fall under the belief that they must vote for SOMEONE. Of the people I know who did not like Bush or Kerry, they either voted Badnarik (either because they agreed with him, or simply for the purpose of lending support to an "other") or they didn't vote at all. Yes, many libertarians DID vote for Bush (and many voted for Kerry too: most libertarians are quite aware that the Bush administration doesn't resemble their beliefs socially OR economically), but many also did not. So, let's not make broad assumptions otherwise.

pan6467 · 01-17-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Well, maybe dksuddeth voted for Bush, but none of the libertarians (or independents for that matter) that I know voted for him. I'll concede that I live in a state where we can freely vote our conscience without worrying about "spoiling" the election, but I know there were many libertarians out of my state who did not vote for Bush either. When Badnarik was asked who was better, Bush or Kerry, he refused to pick one pointing out that both are equally bad, only differently so. Honestly, dksuddeth, I'm not sure why you felt the need to vote for Bush either. You live in a state that was going to go to him no matter what - voting for Badnarik would have had no effect on the election and if more people in situations such as yours had done it, maybe the Libertarian party would have gotten more recognition and enough votes to be declared a major national party. (Same goes for Green supporters in solid states such as IL and TX.)

Anyway, my main point is that you shouldn't be assuming that libertarians voted for Bush. People who are willing to follow a third party are generally a lot less likely to also fall under the belief that they must vote for SOMEONE. Of the people I know who did not like Bush or Kerry, they either voted Badnarik (either because they agreed with him, or simply for the purpose of lending support to an "other") or they didn't vote at all. Yes, many libertarians DID vote for Bush (and many voted for Kerry too: most libertarians are quite aware that the Bush administration doesn't resemble their beliefs socially OR economically), but many also did not. So, let's not make broad assumptions otherwise.

I have often stated on here that in 2000 I voted proudly for Nader, mainly because I vote for the man I think will best represent my values and beliefs and not what party or against someone. (Although, admittedly 2004 was pretty damn close to having to vote for Kerry just so Bush wouldn't win.... Kerry just does not have that charisma nor did he have much of a platform).

Third parties can flourish and get their start at local and state levels. I am saddened that more people do not vote their conscience. Perhaps, if they did the parties would have to truly take notice and change.

To me there is no excuse to say "I voted for Bush/Kerry because I wanted to make sure the other guy lost, even though I truly supported this third party guy."

Where are your values? You are definately selling your vote and voice out. Things will never change as long as people do that..... and unfortunately peoplefeel they have no choice because the press and the people we rely upon to inform us of third parties refuse to do so.

I must say Secret, I have gained respect for you and your convictions because you are one of the few who didn't sell short, who voted your beliefs. We need more in the country like you.

pan6467 · 01-17-2006, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Did you get a look at what the libertarian party had for a 04 candidate? Badnarik was a total moron to push some of the idiotology that he spewed. What other choice did we have?

You had the choice to write in a vote, to not vote for a president, to campaign all Summer for someone who did espouse your views.

You have the power man. USE IT. If you don't like the fact that the congressman in your district is too partisan, stand up be heard. Find that person that best represents you and push to be heard. Write letters to your editor, volunteer to help the man you choose campaign, print flyers, go door to door, organize fundraisers, shout as loud as you can and get others attention so that they can see there are choices.

Or do what so many others do and vote for "the lesser of 2 evils" and then complain how government doesn't listen or have accountability to the people.

The only true way a power hungry man will ever attain control over this nation is if we continue to be silent and choose to not be heard by just being sheep and voting for the same ol same ol.

dksuddeth · 01-18-2006, 03:01 AM

well heres the big problem with that Pan, NOBODY supports my entire view system. With that in mind, I have to pick the lesser of all evils. In 04, that happened to be Bush. write in votes for president , while sounding all noble, are worthless. Unless they are on the ballot, you will not be making any noticable statement. Now, more localized votes, like a state or city election, you get enough people to do the same write in, you can have an effect. I don't see one write in saying anything in a voice of 250 million.

pan6467 · 01-18-2006, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

well heres the big problem with that Pan, NOBODY supports my entire view system. With that in mind, I have to pick the lesser of all evils. In 04, that happened to be Bush. write in votes for president , while sounding all noble, are worthless. Unless they are on the ballot, you will not be making any noticable statement. Now, more localized votes, like a state or city election, you get enough people to do the same write in, you can have an effect. I don't see one write in saying anything in a voice of 250 million.

You will never find anyone that agrees with you in everything political, the key is to find the one that takes the issues closest to you and stands close to your beliefs. But at the same token don't be a one issue voter.

Our political parties and the way they have monopolized the mapping of districts, the requirements states have for people to get on ballots and the media has to change. They truly do not give anyone a chance to even try.

Perot was able to only because he had more money than he knew what to do with and bought 30 minute prime time slots on networks (after which a GOP ran Congress and a DEM President made that tactic illegal.... wonder why).

Nader had some coverage only because he has a cult following.

But Badnarik and the others who ran in '04 I never heard of in ANY form except here.

DK, I'm not trying to lecture, I believe the passion you have CAN make a difference if you want it to. Everyone on here can make a difference. The problem is when you are worried about paying bills, working long hard hours it is hard to speak out and organize.

People are so inundated with negativity about government, about the country that very few have any optimism or belief in the system left. They vote for people they know suck and are corrupt but they do not know what to do to change the system because they have been fed for so long that the 2 parties are all there ever will be and you can't fight the system.

People can fight back, it takes one voice and a few people to back that voice and more people will notice and become voices and in time the system can change.

But, as we saw in '94 we have to be careful that a party doesn't take the platform to win and then shit can the promises (Contract For America ring a bell anyone).

Our forefathers believed in us enough to give us the chance to have a voice. Those who say they didn't are the people who are scared that the system will change so they beat everyone up with the negativity.

It's bullshit but that's what keeps them in power and people from standing up.

Maybe it is truly time for college students and people unhappy with the system to stand up and be heard. It's the only way change will ever happen.

View Poll Results: How should the Supreme Court decide regarding the case?
In favor of the U.S. Department of Justice	4	9.52%
In favor of the State of Oregon	37	88.10%
Not sure	1	2.38%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

10-06-2005, 02:31 PM	#41 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I don't see this as a left or right issue, it is a right or wrong issue. Right being true to the Constitution and wrong being finding some way for Feds to revoke the people's voices. I'll argue where tax money should be spent or Bush or other issues that need and should be, but when it comes to rights..... like I said Left/Right both should be able to agree on issues where our rights are at stake, such as this. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-06-2005, 04:06 PM	#44 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	What if the drugs used are produced in Oregon? __________________ We Must Dissent.

01-17-2006, 10:23 AM	#52 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Congrats Ore. now I can't wait to hear how the Justices legislated from the bench or see what Bush has to say. Maybe there is hope, maybe we have a judge or 2 on the Bench that sees how Bush is stacking the court and may have decided to move a little Left in his/her decisions. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

01-17-2006, 10:35 AM	#54 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	I've disagreed with Scalias opinions many times and i'll add this one to the pile. I'm starting to put Scalia in the same bucket as 'flip-flop' john kerry. How he can say he's an 'originalist' and still come out with some of the garbage opinions like this one is totally perplexing. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-17-2006, 10:51 AM	#56 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	how did roberts vote on this?

01-17-2006, 11:43 AM	#59 (permalink)
trickyy ►	roberts dissented with thomas and scalia. i wonder how the vote would have turned out with alito on board. it's hard to gauge the guy, but from the hearings he seemed a bit more conservative than roberts. i don't know if that means libertarian conservative or you-can't-do-that conservative, although his record seems to indicate a tendency toward the latter. every case is unique, of course.

01-17-2006, 02:04 PM	#61 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Well, maybe dksuddeth voted for Bush, but none of the libertarians (or independents for that matter) that I know voted for him. I'll concede that I live in a state where we can freely vote our conscience without worrying about "spoiling" the election, but I know there were many libertarians out of my state who did not vote for Bush either. When Badnarik was asked who was better, Bush or Kerry, he refused to pick one pointing out that both are equally bad, only differently so. Honestly, dksuddeth, I'm not sure why you felt the need to vote for Bush either. You live in a state that was going to go to him no matter what - voting for Badnarik would have had no effect on the election and if more people in situations such as yours had done it, maybe the Libertarian party would have gotten more recognition and enough votes to be declared a major national party. (Same goes for Green supporters in solid states such as IL and TX.) Anyway, my main point is that you shouldn't be assuming that libertarians voted for Bush. People who are willing to follow a third party are generally a lot less likely to also fall under the belief that they must vote for SOMEONE. Of the people I know who did not like Bush or Kerry, they either voted Badnarik (either because they agreed with him, or simply for the purpose of lending support to an "other") or they didn't vote at all. Yes, many libertarians DID vote for Bush (and many voted for Kerry too: most libertarians are quite aware that the Bush administration doesn't resemble their beliefs socially OR economically), but many also did not. So, let's not make broad assumptions otherwise. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-18-2006, 03:01 AM	#64 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	well heres the big problem with that Pan, NOBODY supports my entire view system. With that in mind, I have to pick the lesser of all evils. In 04, that happened to be Bush. write in votes for president , while sounding all noble, are worthless. Unless they are on the ballot, you will not be making any noticable statement. Now, more localized votes, like a state or city election, you get enough people to do the same write in, you can have an effect. I don't see one write in saying anything in a voice of 250 million. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."