Do you ignore certain parts of platforms?

[SWTXBelle]

I don't know about ignoring - but certainly, I give some parts of a platform more attention.

One of my pet peeves is voters who will work themselves into a frenzy over the presidential candidate, but have no idea who their senators or congressman are, and put no thought or research into deciding for whom to vote. The bottom of the ticket may not be as glamourous, but it will probably have a greater impact on your life.

[KSigkid]

I don't pay attention at all to abortion, for the reasons KSigRC outlined. Despite what is going on in the states, I think there's almost no chance that Roe or Casey (i.e. the case everyone forgets about) are overturned, or at least in a substantial enough manner to make abortion illegal everywhere. I just don't think you'll ever have a majority of the court who will be so eager to overturn that precedent. You'd need a very conservative justice who doesn't care about precedent, and I don't think that's happening anytime soon. I think it's a hot button issue that gets people's attention, but I don't think anything is changing.

I do pay attention to the spending programs that are proposed, as well as the promises regarding taxation.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I don't pay attention at all to abortion, for the reasons KSigRC outlined. Despite what is going on in the states, I think there's almost no chance that Roe or Casey (i.e. the case everyone forgets about) are overturned, or at least in a substantial enough manner to make abortion illegal everywhere. I just don't think you'll ever have a majority of the court who will be so eager to overturn that precedent. You'd need a very conservative justice who doesn't care about precedent, and I don't think that's happening anytime soon. I think it's a hot button issue that gets people's attention, but I don't think anything is changing.

While this isn't a push-button issue for me, and while I agree that we are not likely to see Roe or Casey overruled ouright, I think we very well could see their application limited. The Court has shown itself to be quite willing to respect stare decisis by not overruling precedent outright while limiting the effect of that precedent to the point that it might as well be overruled.

So I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Court chipping away at earlier decisions.

[pbear19]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

While this isn't a push-button issue for me, and while I agree that we are not likely to see Roe or Casey overruled ouright, I think we very well could see their application limited. The Court has shown itself to be quite willing to respect stare decisis by not overruling precedent outright while limiting the effect of that precedent to the point that it might as well be overruled.

So I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Court chipping away at earlier decisions.

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie and I do not see this Court as being so bound by precedent as some of you guys above do. I've seen them make decisions exactly as MysticCat says - without overtly overruling a previous decision, but subverting it so far beyond its original intent as to make the original case virtually obsolete.

Justice Stevens isn't going to live forever, and McCain has expressed admiration for Roberts and Alito. Roe v. Wade isn't the only decision out there, either. The Court has so much more influence than people seem to realize, along a huge scope of issues.

That being said - I choose a party platform based on how well I identify with it as a whole. I have a degree in Economics and spent a good bit of time in college and afterwards studying historical econ. I am not a believer in a pure capitalism system. I realize this sounds preposterous, but I am a bit of a fiscally conservative socialist. It's much harder to explain than I have time to type this morning - but it's based on historical precedent partially here and partially in other countries. Since republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in years, and I am a social liberal, I have no reason not to align myself with the democratic party.

An absolutely fascinating book for anyone who is interested in why some people identify with one party over another is Moral Politics by George Lakoff. It's not without flaws, but it's a great read.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie and I do not see this Court as being so bound by precedent as some of you guys above do. I've seen them make decisions exactly as MysticCat says - without overtly overruling a previous decision, but subverting it so far beyond its original intent as to make the original case virtually obsolete.

Justice Stevens isn't going to live forever, and McCain has expressed admiration for Roberts and Alito. Roe v. Wade isn't the only decision out there, either. The Court has so much more influence than people seem to realize, along a huge scope of issues.

I'm a SCOTUS junkie as well (law school has only increased my SCOTUS nerdness), and I would slightly disagree with some of your post. I don't want to derail the thread, however, so if you have any thoughts, or want to discuss it more, feel free to PM me. I'm always up for discussing SCOTUS issues.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

While this isn't a push-button issue for me, and while I agree that we are not likely to see Roe or Casey overruled ouright, I think we very well could see their application limited. The Court has shown itself to be quite willing to respect stare decisis by not overruling precedent outright while limiting the effect of that precedent to the point that it might as well be overruled.

So I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Court chipping away at earlier decisions.

And this is my hope/expectation with the judicial appointments that I'd like to see. And really, it's what I think would be the best resolution to the abortion issue and one that would probably reflect the views of most Americans. There seem to be relatively few people at both ends of the abortion rights spectrum: from all abortions legal at any time to no abortions legal at any time for any reason, and yet, the issue is almost always discussed in these terms.

ETA: Interestingly, this was linked on Instapundit today and seemed topical. It's about abortion not being as much of a political issue: http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/09/i...ncreasing.html

So, I suppose I ignore any promises to ban all abortions but I hope for appointments more likely to restrict it in some cases.

Basically, I ignore most of both parties' platforms. Up until W and the Republican congress during his administration, I regarded the Republicans as less likely to assume that domestic government bloat and intervention were the answers to every issue. (Obviously, I had to be willing to ignore drug policy during my whole life and a few other social issues to maintain this delusion.)

Now, I'm looking at judicial appointments and whether I think a candidate recognizes that military strength (and resolve?) is probably the most important aspect of foreign policy. ETA: I'm interested in American economic strength as well but both parties have strengths and weaknesses on that, I think.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie . . . .

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm a SCOTUS junkie as well (law school has only increased my SCOTUS nerdness) . . . .

When you refer to it as SCOTUS, especially in a non-legal forum, the junkie part may be a tad bit redundant. Just sayin'

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

When you refer to it as SCOTUS, especially in a non-legal forum, the junkie part may be a tad bit redundant. Just sayin'

Haha - I came to terms with my nerdness a while ago, although maybe I shouldn't flaunt it quite so much...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Haha - I came to terms with my nerdness a while ago, although maybe I shouldn't flaunt it quite so much...

LOL. Welcome to my world.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by pbear19

Agreed x1000. I am a SCOTUS junkie and I do not see this Court as being so bound by precedent as some of you guys above do. I've seen them make decisions exactly as MysticCat says - without overtly overruling a previous decision, but subverting it so far beyond its original intent as to make the original case virtually obsolete.

Justice Stevens isn't going to live forever, and McCain has expressed admiration for Roberts and Alito. Roe v. Wade isn't the only decision out there, either. The Court has so much more influence than people seem to realize, along a huge scope of issues.

That being said - I choose a party platform based on how well I identify with it as a whole. I have a degree in Economics and spent a good bit of time in college and afterwards studying historical econ. I am not a believer in a pure capitalism system. I realize this sounds preposterous, but I am a bit of a fiscally conservative socialist. It's much harder to explain than I have time to type this morning - but it's based on historical precedent partially here and partially in other countries. Since republicans haven't been fiscally conservative in years, and I am a social liberal, I have no reason not to align myself with the democratic party.

An absolutely fascinating book for anyone who is interested in why some people identify with one party over another is Moral Politics by George Lakoff. It's not without flaws, but it's a great read.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm a SCOTUS junkie as well (law school has only increased my SCOTUS nerdness), and I would slightly disagree with some of your post. I don't want to derail the thread, however, so if you have any thoughts, or want to discuss it more, feel free to PM me. I'm always up for discussing SCOTUS issues.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Haha - I came to terms with my nerdness a while ago, although maybe I shouldn't flaunt it quite so much...

So what do you law nerds think about this:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...7-faf565ec9105

To me it reads a little like Biden hagiography, but what do you all think? It's linked on Instapundit too.