Do you ignore certain parts of platforms?

[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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

I'll PM you - Rosen has some interesting things to say, but I don't want to derail this thread.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Some of us had this discussion a few months ago about McCain being a POW and a vet. Some of you didn't like the idea that I was put offish about his status being more concerned about what he did in office as opposed to what he did during the war. Fine...cool. BUT...like I said, you served your country years ago...what are you doing NOW.

Just did a lil digging and what I find is bothersome. For someone that has the status and position to do something for those that has been in some of the same situations as he is/was....he looks like he doesn't show any love for fellow vets.

the link shows in numerous cases, he has voted against bills that in many cases could probably help a lot of vets and even voted FOR a bill that would outsouce jobs from Walter P Reed Medical Center.

Here is the link: http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/mccain_vets.cfm

Status doesn't mean everything....

This should probably go in the "Election 2008" thread. Unless, of course, you just find it that hard to take off your Partisanship hat when you post.