Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2015, 05:37:25 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 639
12201  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you a crazy Trondheimite? on: March 01, 2006, 04:21:35 pm
1 It is hypocritical of society to ban cockfighting, but legalize the conditions under which poultry are currently bred by the meat industry. (N)

2 Western prosperity in the 20th century was due to a combination of technical advances and the exploitation of locally unearned ressources, and probably won't be here to stay. (Y)

3 The ideal society is the one in which there is maximum personal freedom, the maximum equality, and only an extemely lean state. Obviously it is not  a capitalist society. (N)

4 People wouldn't be particularly well-off in such a society, but that is irrelevant. (N)

5 Such a society, if it ever existed, certainly will never exist again. (Y)

6 Laws restricting international migration are fundamentally immoral, and cause much suffering, death, and private debts. (Y, just for kicks, but really N)

7 An evil man in prison is called "officer". Paraphrase of this quip: Imprisoning your fellow man, whatever he has done, is necessary in the current societal framework (or: all the alternatives are worse), but is certainly immoral. (N)

8 Anybody who claims that women must have the unrestricted right to abort their fetuses right up to birth is a horrible person. Anybody who wants to outlaw all abortions - or even all abortions except for some very unusual exceptions - is a horrible person, probably with a hidden agenda to boot. (Y)

9 Suburbanization destroys both urban and rural communities (to the point where many modern young suburbanites do not know what rural might be like). This is not to say that the cramped conditions of 19th century working class urban areas were good - they were not - but continuing suburbanization now is bad, and any tax incentives that further it should be removed as quickly as possible. (N)

10 Freiheit ist immer die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden, Freedom is always the freedom of your ideological opponent. (Y)
12202  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you an afleitch style 'Demo-Tory'? on: March 01, 2006, 04:18:13 pm
1. The government should keep it's nose out of your bedroom so long as the bedroom contains consenting adults. Y

2. Marijuana causes long term psychological damage, keep it illegal unless it is prescribed by a doctor. N

3. If abortion is made illegal, it will not stop. It will be driven underground where it becomes unlicenced, unsafe and expolited by people wanting to make a quick buck. Therefore it is important that abortion be 'safe, legal and rare.' Y

4. Private schools need to be supported and expanded and more children admitted, based not on income, but on academic ability. Y

5. The progressive taxation system hurts middle income earners. It needs to be replaced. N

6. If an ethnic of religious minority does not like, or disregards it's 'host' nations belief system or political system then they should leave. Y

7. ''Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear.'' N (there are better definitions than that!)

8. Barry Goldwater was a better Republican than Ronald Reagan and Evan Bayh is a better Democrat than Ted Kennedy. Y

9. Globalisation is the solution to, and not the cause of, most of the world's problems. Y

10. Two gay people 'marrying' will not threaten your own heterosexual marriage. If anything it promotes loving and lasting monogamy. Y
12203  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would conservatives do this trade? on: March 01, 2006, 07:29:05 am
The more you offer something up as a chip, the less valuable it becomes, because you signal that it is not really that important to you to begin with-- so why should the other side sacrifice so much to take it from you?

The same argument goes for all those Democrats waiting with baded breath for Roe v Wade to be overturned so that the supposed "massive backlash" will sweep the Democrats into office... while in the next breath reassuring themselves that overturning Roe v Wade would not actually change anything.

Both cannot be true.

And where is this supposed "massive backlash" to come from? If Democrats do not care for the ruling now, why should Democrats and independents and Republicans care for it after it is overturned?

These are only rationalizations for one's own equivocation. One should not fail to notice, first of all, that a ruling may be modified without being overturned. If one doesn't like the fact that Roe protects late-term abortions, one should realize that the recognition of the central holding or Roe-- that the right to privacy applies at some stage to the womb-- need not be changed at all though the stage of pregnancy at which the right is protected may change, indeed as happened in Casey. Second of all, law is largely a matter of argumentation. The Constitution may not mention the word privacy, but neither does it mention the minimum wage-- or, for that matter, judicial review. Which particular Supreme Court cases become more controversial than others reside largely not on the legal merits of the case, but on the political factors surrounding it. Taken together, I see no need for such a level of equivocation on Roe v Wade except for doctrinaire pro-life Democrats who believe that life begins at conception.
12204  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you a Freedom Fighter on: March 01, 2006, 01:21:50 am
1. Do you completely oppose abortion, in any and all cases? No

2. Do you support government wiretapping of every phone in America? No

3. Should we return election of the Senators to state legislatures? No

4. Should slavery replace the death penalty in sentencing for most crimes? No; though the death penalty is not currently used in sentencing for "most crimes"

5. Do you oppose gay adoption rights? No

6. Would you support an amendment banning flag burning? Yes

7. Should the PATRIOT Act be made even more expansive in the powers it grants to law enforcement? No

8. Should the US conduct its foreign policy based on our own national interest? Yes

9. Do you oppose the emergence of anti-American leaders in South America? Yes, but some specific leaders are more left/populist than necessarily anti-American

10. Do you support using Biblical codes as legitimate laws? No
12205  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you a Milk_and_Cereal libertarian? on: March 01, 2006, 01:18:02 am
1. Not now
2.Depends on the alternatives
3.Yes
4.Not sure what you mean
5.Yes
6.No
7.No
8.Yes, but they must first obtain a permit, and authorities have the right to deny on the basis that the protest site is unprotectable (i.e., KKK march in a heavily black neighborhood, and there arent enough uniformed officers to ensure the peace).
9.Yes
10.Yes, personally, except for parents and small children (though the government obviously can coerce people to obey laws and pay taxes or tariffs)
12206  General Politics / Individual Politics / Are you a thefactor Democrat? on: March 01, 2006, 12:35:53 am
Agree/Disagree on each statement.

1. One of the main things that makes America exceptional is that it has historically stood for liberal principles compared to other countries.

2. The public school system is the greatest and strongest bastion of socialism in America and this is a bad thing.

3. Among different types of political activism, the effectiveness of zealous passion and hard work is heavily underrated.

4. Powerful individuals and groups cannot be trusted to use that power benevolently and thus must be constrained.

5. The most significant cleavage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the 1990s was between pluralists and confrontationists.

6. The eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency witnessed the most dramatic improvement in America's domestic economic and social environment from the Kennedy era to today.

7. My views are morally superior to the alternatives and not just formed due to self-interest, or one of many possible equally valid positions.

8. A family with two parents and children living in the suburbs is a desirable lifestyle and forms the core basis of our society.

9. The most important question in the abortion debate is at what point the fetus becomes a person.

10. Economic prosperity is just as important as political freedom for third world countries in Africa and Asia.
12207  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you a BRTD Democrat? on: March 01, 2006, 12:01:19 am
Stop changing his questions into ones that make sense.  Tongue

Couldn't help it, the Paris Hilton question was way too biased Tongue
12208  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you a BRTD Democrat? on: February 28, 2006, 11:55:28 pm
1. Do you disapprove of the socially authoritarian tilt adopted by the FCC since viewers' complaints during the 2004 Super Bowl received wide coverage and influence?

YES

2. Do you oppose a progressive tax system?

NO

3. Do you approve of cynical, dishonest political jockeying for the purpose of banning gay marriage?

NO

4. Do you think tobacco executives are far less moral than strippers?

NO

5. Are you happy with the fact that the Iraqi government is more theocratic than the one that preceded it?

NO

6. Should large corporations be scrutinized heavily for irregularities?

YES

7. Do you think Ralph Nader cares about anything besides his ego?

NO

8. Have you ever drank more than $200 worth of alcohol in one week?

NO

9. Do you support public universities distributing "voter guides" to students published by openly communist organizations?

NO

10. Do you consider fundies like Pat Robertson to have a positive impact on America?

NO
12209  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you a nini2287/Porce Republocrat? on: February 28, 2006, 11:44:05 pm
1. The death penalty should be abolished for all crimes. NO

The popularity of the death penalty tends to go up and down with the crime rate. The only reason it was not abolished in the 1960s was that the crime rate went up suddenly. Now that it has diminished, it is not surprising that popular opinion again swings back in the other direction.

The Christian notion of forgiveness heavily might inform one's view of the death penalty. It should never be applied when there is no evidence to suggest that an inmate is not genuinely contriteful of their acts; on the other hand, secular justice ought not be confused with God's infinite forgiveness.

2. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional and should be overturned. NO

It should be substantially modified, but not completely overturned. It is no more our job to decide what is constitutional than it is the sports fan's job to decide whether the referee made a fair call.

3. Current copyright laws are restrictive and draconian, and intended to favor Hollywood over the consumer. CONDITIONAL YES

Copyright laws for literature are definitely draconian; for film I'm not so sure.

4. Immigration laws should be eased to help curtail illegal immigration. NO

5. Farm subsidies should be abolished. YES

Just another form of corporate welfare. Small farmers don't see any of this money, btw.

6. The Iraq War was unjustified and has been badly handled since it began. YES

7. Marijuana, for recreational and medicinal purposes, should be fully legalized. YES

8. Gun control has no place in the federal government. NO

9. Campaign finance reform laws censor free speech and force politicians to find ways to exploit the system. NO

They restrict free speech but do not censor it. Censorship to me means the suppression of some content, regardless of the form or means by which it is delivered. It is distinctly more destructive toward the concept of free speech than the mere restriction of its activity (which may include not only campaign finance, but laws prohibiting distribution of pamphlets on public property, or requiring a permit for an official demonstration, for example, all of which are accepted in our society otherwise).

10. It is desirable that over time, social security will eventually be phased out. UNDECIDED
12210  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Are you a jfern Democrat? on: February 28, 2006, 11:21:20 pm
1. Do you favor a meritocracy? YES
2. Do you favor large increases in scientific research? YES
3. Have you been opposed to the Iraq war all along? NO
4. Do you believe that 940 heads and 60 tails are statistically significantly different from that of a fair coin? YES
5. Are you opposed to the Rapists Reproductive Rights Act bill that passed the South Dakota legislature? YES
6. Were you opposed to the nomination of Justice Alito? Confirmation: NO Nomination: YES (I probably would have nominated someone else)
7. Do you think that large corporations have too much power in America? NO
8. Do you think that right-wing Republicans have too much power in America? YES
9. Do you think that the August 6th, 2001 memo to the President titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" was an important memo? YES
10. Do you believe that the scientific process should be used to help govern? YES
12211  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: does the preceding atlasian make atlas a better/worse place on: February 28, 2006, 11:14:31 pm
Better
12212  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment? on: February 28, 2006, 10:48:08 pm
To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.

Um, no.  What Bono was demonstrating (I think) was that even a people with inferior weaponry to our own could stand up to the world's only superpower, and eventually force them to withdraw, as they had in Vietnam, and what they threaten to make us do in Iraq.  And as far as I know, they have no nuclear weapons.

Therefore, it follows that nuclear weapons are not required to stand up to our own government -though they can help in such an extreme circumstance. 

That's exactly what I meant. Thanks for saving me the trouble to explain. Smiley

The problem with that reasoning is that, in Iraq, the entire problem is that the soldiers must differentiate between innocent civilians and violent insurgents, who blend together exceedingly well.  On the other hand, if the American military decided that it would enslave the masses, every citizen would be a legitimate target, eradicating this issue.

As, becuase there would be no loyalists. Besides, I doubt exterminating everyone in the country would be a realistic objective, even for a dictatorship, and would be quite counterproductive.

I'm not talking about extermination, but simply that they wouldn't need to worry if they accidentally shot an innocent person who they thought posed a threat to them.  If they did worry about such a thing, it's highly unlikely that they would have taken over in the first place, rendering this whole discussion moot.

The problem with this whole discussing is that Iraq is not a "free state" except insofar as the American government is willing for it to be. Frodo has completely misconstrued the purpose away from creating anarchy (which the insurgents are doing) and safeguarding a free state. The insurgents are in no way capable of establishing any sort of order. Furthermore, as is obvious in Iraq, Americas primary difficulty lies in establishing a self-sustaining democratic state that can survive free of American influence and being self-coherent. If the matter was simply putting down the insurgents, a Saddam-Hussein style (or Waco-style, or Pine Ridge Reservation) repression would do very well. But to truly win one's way over a modern government, requires nuclear weapons, rather than any sort of small arms.
12213  General Discussion / History / Re: Who's Alive, Who's Dead on: February 28, 2006, 10:37:58 pm
According to this, Boris Yeltsin is still alive.

And he is in great health - much better than back in 1999. No stress, little drink, good care. He is only 75 - just had a big birthday bash this month.



Wait, I thought he died.  Could I be thinking of someone else?

Not unless he died in the last week (god forbid!) and I somehow missed it. No Soviet/Russian leader has died since Chernenko in 1985 (Gorbachev is actually a month younger than Yeltsin, and will turn 75 next month).  You must have confused the country as well.

Boris Yeltsin passed away shortly after his poor health cost him the 1996 presidential election to Gennady Zyuganov, ag. I hardly think it's appropriate to be making fun of his memory through these bizzare fantasies.
12214  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Would you vote to ratify the 2nd Amendment? on: February 28, 2006, 11:36:51 am
"Arms" is clearly too vague.

Clearly in the 1780s, a "well regulated militia" in the form of a large number of armed colonials bearing rifles was able to pose a significant threat to any government. The same does not hold true today. The Branch Dividians certainly could not call upon their small arms to save them. There would be nothing to stop it today if the Armed Forces decided to suspend the constitution and grant themselves police power. What we need today to protect ourselves from our won government, including the governments of other countries, clearly includes nuclear weapons.

What are those people in Iraq doing?

Precisely the point! In order to stand up to even Iraq's dilapidated, demoralized little army required a vast system of command, control, communications centers, aircraft carrier battlegroups, laser-guided missiles, intelligence operations, and loads of tank battalions and mechanized infantry heavily trained, utilizing essentially blitzkreig tactics.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It is significant that the founders inserted their reasoning explicitly into the text of the amendment. They did not have to do that.

To stand up to our own government today, to protect "a free State", would require nuclear weapons.
12215  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is America moving to the Left or Right? on: February 28, 2006, 11:18:47 am
I can't imagine that an industrialized nation like American could move any further to the right.

There is nothing wrong with being Conservative.  The only reason why Liberalization still exists is because people constantly want more, and are not content with what they have. 

If people were content with what they had, we would all just stop working and sit around drinking iced tea until we starved to death. Life is about pursuit.

hahaha . . . I wasn't referring to employment.  I was referring to society.  I guess I should have made that more clear. 

I know. But I was half busting your balls, as dazzleman would say. Only half, though. the ultimate aim of the political ought to be governance in accordance with the highest possible standards.

Good thing I've got a cup. Wink  Never enter the forum without it.  hahaha

Smiley
12216  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: report: darfur chaos spills into chad. on: February 28, 2006, 11:12:20 am
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/28/news/chad.php

i know the media prefers 'stories' such as the bird flu, while they blithely ignore real horrors in the world.

discuss.

That's because 'bird flu' is scaaaaary, while this stuff is not. Dont worry though, they'll report it when someone in Africa dies of ebola.
12217  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is America moving to the Left or Right? on: February 28, 2006, 11:10:02 am
I can't imagine that an industrialized nation like American could move any further to the right.

There is nothing wrong with being Conservative.  The only reason why Liberalization still exists is because people constantly want more, and are not content with what they have. 

If people were content with what they had, we would all just stop working and sit around drinking iced tea until we starved to death. Life is about pursuit.

hahaha . . . I wasn't referring to employment.  I was referring to society.  I guess I should have made that more clear. 

I know. But I was half busting your balls, as dazzleman would say. Only half, though. the ultimate aim of the political ought to be governance in accordance with the highest possible standards.
12218  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 72% of US troops in Iraq say we should pull out in the next year on: February 28, 2006, 11:02:42 am
LOL, after D-Day the Allied troops occupied France for about 1 year before the founding of the Fourth Republic. We have already been in Iraq for 3 times as long as liberated France, and no sign of a sovereign self-supporting government in sight. It is interesting that seven days before the surrender of Paris, the Parisian people launched a general strike and threw up barricades against the Germans. This is because they knew the liberating armies were there to throw back the aggressors and re-establish France's right to national self-determination. Bush's crusade is quite the opposite: Bush being the aggressor with the purpose of undermining Iraq's self-determination.
12219  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Is America moving to the Left or Right? on: February 28, 2006, 10:57:04 am
I can't imagine that an industrialized nation like American could move any further to the right.

There is nothing wrong with being Conservative.  The only reason why Liberalization still exists is because people constantly want more, and are not content with what they have. 

If people were content with what they had, we would all just stop working and sit around drinking iced tea until we starved to death. Life is about pursuit.
12220  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: jfern vs. dazzleman on: February 27, 2006, 10:44:31 pm
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Beet. I'm well aware that Southern Democrats held the balance of power during the period from to 50s to the 80s. Your points in the other thread are interesting, though they hardly prove even Republican (forget about conservative) control of the judiciary. Quite the opposite, especially when you look at cultural cases where the precedent is firmly in the liberal camp, rendering many lower courts impotent to change them, especially with the culturally liberal court we had up until a month ago and the split court we have now.

The point is that about 99.8% of cases never make to the Supreme Court. 99.8%. When Appellate Courts publish opinions, these opinions are just as much precedents as any precedents published by the Supreme Court. Even if the Supreme Court wanted to, it could not overturn all of these precedents because it would take it 100 years just to undo one year's worth of Appellate court work. (Furthermore, Appellate rulings heavily influence which cases the Supreme Court chooses to take up to begin with. For example, one of the main criteria used by the Supreme Court to decide which cases to hear is whether the lower courts issued split rulings or influential dissents.)

The D.C. District Circuit (8-4 GOP majority last year) in particular handles all cases arising from federal legislation and regulation, and largely acts as the court of final appeal in these instances. I'm not saying the Supreme Court is not important of course, but it hardly deserves the exclusive focus of attention that it is often given. Further, the data show that Republican judges do tend to rule, significantly, toward what we could consider to be more conservative outcomes. That, combined with Republican control of 11 or 12 of the 13 Circuit courts, suggests that conservatives do dominate most judicial outcomes.
12221  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Poster Superlatives Pt. IV (?) on: February 27, 2006, 10:25:23 pm
Most liberal: Progress, jfern, Lewis Trondheim

Most conservative: jmfcst, A18, StatesRights

Most libertarian: Emsworth

Most communitarian: Al (where is he?)

Most moderate: Joe Republican, Alcon, Gabu

Most loyal to their party: htmldon

Sharpest wit: angus, opebo

Funniest: opebo

Creates the most interesting topics: A18 (the word "discuss" is very interesting! Tongue)

Creates the least interesting topics: BRTD

Most optimistic: ILikeVerin

Most pessimistic: Boss Tweed

Most communitarian: thefactor

Why am I communitarian? Smiley
12222  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bush approval rating at 34% approval, 59% disapproval on: February 27, 2006, 10:21:43 pm
1,018 respondents

Democrats - 409 - 40%
Republicans - 272 - 26%
Independents - 337 - 33%

No bias here....

Even if you re-weight it to 37-37-26, you still get the following:

Approve: 40.7%
Disapprove: 55.8%

It's entirely possible that this is one of those 1-in-20 things for polls, but it seems pretty clear that the simple fact that Democrats are oversampled is not the only thing that accounts for Bush's disapproval.

But the reason that polls are generally not re-weighted this way is that partisan identification is just another question asked on the poll, rather than some objective measure like checking each person's registration (which would have its own problems). When party A's president in unpopular, respondents are less likely to claim to be members of party A, and independents may be more likely to claim to be members of party B. In any case, a respondent's self-reported party identification is highly unreliable. About two-thirds of people who claim to be independents are actually closest 'de facto' partisans.

As long as the original sample is as close to random as possible, it will be correct with the highest possible margin of error.
12223  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: does the preceding atlasian make atlas a better/worse place on: February 27, 2006, 08:48:23 pm
More interesting, and that's always good.
12224  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bush approval rating at 34% approval, 59% disapproval on: February 27, 2006, 08:30:39 pm
1,018 respondents

Democrats - 409 - 40%
Republicans - 272 - 26%
Independents - 337 - 33%

No bias here....

Of course, people who disapprove of Bush are also more likely to claim to be Democrats, and less likely to claim to be Republicans, so we don't know what is endogenous and what isn't. This could very well be a poll of party identification. Of course, it's always better to see a poll with lots of people who claim to be Republicans yet disapprove of Bush.
12225  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Some Facts about the Courts on: February 27, 2006, 08:21:58 pm
Thank god, some one (Jake, in another thread) has finally brought up the hundreds of other judges of the federal judiciary, including the 13 appeals courts that have the final say in well over 99 percent of all appealed cases.

According to an article published in April 2005 before the appointment of three major appeals court judges as a result of the so-called "Gang of 14 agreement", Republican appointees constituted a majority of judges on 10 of the nation's 13 federal appeals courts, with at least one court tied. As few as three more lifetime appointments on key courts would have tipped the balance in favor of GOP appointees on all but one appeals court.

Since April 2005, those three appointments have been made. Furthermore, those three vacant slots were actually left over from the Clinton administration, where Republicans had blocked Clinton's appointments for years. Presumably the GOP now controls all but one or two of the 13 circuit courts.

During Bill Clinton's second term, only 55% of his circuit court nominations were confirmed (compared to 78% for Bush Sr., 85% for Reagan 2nd, 85% for Reagan 1st); only 77% of his district court nominations were confirmed (compared to 76% for Bush Sr., 91% for Reagan 2nd, 90% for Reagan 1st).

During George W. Bush's first term, 67% of his circuit court nominations were confirmed and 93% of his district court nominations were confirmed.

The regional appeals courts decide more than 63,000 cases each year, while the Supreme Court agrees to hear only 80 to 90 cases per term. In short, the GOP dominates the federal judiciary.

The Democratic-controlled 100th Senate took an average of 117 days to confirm Ronald Reagan's circuit court appointments.

The Democratic-controlled 101st Senate took an average of 128 days to confirm George H.W. Bush's circuit court appointments.

The Democratic-controlled 102nd Senate took an average of 101 days to confirm George H.W. Bush's circuit court appointments.

The Republican-controlled 104th Senate took an average of 156 days to confirm Bill Clinton's circuit court appointments.

The Republican-controlled 105th Senate took an average of 313 days to confirm Bill Clinton's circuit court appointments.

The Republican-controlled 105th Senate took an average of 374 days to confirm Bill Clinton's circuit court appointments.

Seventeen Clinton Circuit Court nominees never received a hearing during the 106th Congress, and those who did appear before the Judiciary Committee had to wait an average of 247 days for a hearing. During President George H.W. Bush's Administration only eight of 192 judges waited nine months or more to be confirmed, and only four waited more than a year.

What about that old adage that one cannot tell how a judge votes by the party of the President who appointed them?

In 2005, a team of researchers at the University of Chicago examined 4,488 published appellate panel decisions (over 13,000 individual appellate judge votes) on cases with an ideological flavor, extending from 1982 to 2002.

They find that "on issues with ideological flavor, Republican appointees vote very differently from Democratic appointees." How?

Campaign Finance Reform
Democratic appointees vote to uphold campaign finance laws 46% of the time. Republican appointees vote to uphold only 28% of the time.

Environmental Protection Agency
Democratic appointees vote against industry's position one environmental regulations 64% of the time. Republican appointees vote against industry's position only 46% of the time.

Sex discrimination
Democratic appointees vote in favor of the plaintiff alleging discrimination 51% of the time. Republican appointees only 35% of the time.

Corporate veil
Democratic appointees vote to pierce the corporate veil 41% of the time. Republican appointees do so only 27% of the time.

Americans with Disabilities Act
Democratic appointees vote in favor of the plaintiff bringing suit under ADA 43% of the time. Republican appointees only 26% of the time.

Abortion
Democratic appointees vote pro-choice 70% of the time. Republican appointees only 49% of the time.

Capital Punishment
Democratic appointees vote against capital punishment 42% of the time. Republican appointees only 20% of the time.

Title VII Cases
Democratic appointees vote in favor of the plaintiff 41% of the time. Republican appointees only 35% of the time.

Federalism
Democratic appointees vote to uphold federalism 99% of the time. Republican appointees only 95% of the time.

Criminal
Democratic appointees vote for the defendant 36% of the time. Republican appointees 33% of the time.

(It is interesting for all the talk of the left being 'soft on crime' or not respecting the rights of states, there is actually very little difference when it comes to federalism and criminal cases between Republican and Democratic appointees.)

Overall, 3-judge appeals panels composed of all Democrats were 57% more likely to uphold campaign finance regulations, 45% more likely to vote against industry in EPA cases, 44% more likely to vote for the plaintiff in sex discrimination cases, 34% more likely to reject constitutional challenge to contracts, 33% more likely to pierce the corporate veil, 32% more likely to vote for plaintiff under ADA, 25% more likely to vote pro-choice, 15% more likely to vote against capital punishment, and 13% more likely to vote for the plaintiff in Title VII cases. But there was no significant difference on federalism, criminal cases, or the takings clause.

All of which is to say, unsurprisingly, that the notion that the courts are not political is a farce that no honest and intelligent person believes, the Republicans dominate the appeals circuit (except for the 9th, which is under attack by federal legislation seeking to split & pack it), Bill Clinton's judicial nominees were horribly mistreated, and that there is more to the federal judiciary than the Supreme Court.
Pages: 1 ... 484 485 486 487 488 [489] 490 491 492 493 494 ... 639


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines