SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (383262)5/8/2008 10:07:41 AM
From: i-node  Respond to of 1575465
 
I like Ten and i think that unlike David Ray, he might eventually vote for Obama. You will take his vote if offered? On the obama thread some indicate they want only the purest of votes.

So, is that the deal? You're trying to round up Obama votes?

No, there is no way I would vote for a man for president who has not one accomplishment to his credit.

You say he isn't an extreme liberal and you pretend that an extreme liberal isn't what you're seeking. But in one of the most important votes in his brief career, he voted with the likes of Barbara Boxer to oppose Roberts' nomination. Likely, the most qualified Supreme Court justice to be nominated in your lifetime.

Roberts is a total straight-shooter. But Obama felt he he needed a judicial activist. Just like Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer and Clinton. There is absolutely no excuse for any Senator voting against Roberts. He is indisputably one of the most qualified people to ever be nominated. How do you defend your position?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.



To: michael97123 who wrote (383262)5/8/2008 10:35:42 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 1575465
 
Character counts

"I picked up a copy of Time magazine yesterday, in which a columnist declared that issues of 'character' were a 'distraction' in the Presidential race. [Sen. Barack] Obama actually said the same thing in his North Carolina press conference, that the Reverend Wright affair has been a 'distraction.'

"Isn't this what liberals usually say when their own characters come under public scrutiny? What a heap of pure poppycock! Character is the primary issue in every Presidential election. Period.

"And we, the voters, have an inalienable right to know the specifics, as much as can be discerned, of a candidate's character. But don't take my word for that. Take John Adams' words on the matter: The people 'have a right, an indisputable, inalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge — I mean of the character and conduct of their rulers.' "

— Kyle Anne Shiver, writing on "It's Obama's Character, Stupid," on May 2 at the webzine American Thinker