Describe a Hillary-Romney-McCain-Kerry-Gore-Dole-Bush voter

[MarkD]

I voted Dukakis, Bush41, Dole, Bush 43 (who lost the popular vote). Then I stayed away from the voting booth the next 3 elections. Then I voted for McMullin.
I had more enjoyment the times I did not vote.

[MarkD]

Why?
I don't mind telling you some "personal" stuff.
I'm gay.
In 1986 the Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, that laws banning "sodomy were constitutionally permissible. For about the next three years I was on the gay community's bandwagon about wanting that decision - Bowers v. Hardwick - overturned. So I voted for Dukakis for only one reason - to make the Supreme Court a little bit more liberal. It was a mistake. I regretted it the next year and I've continued regretting it - my motive for the Dukakis vote, not the consequence - ever since.
In 1989, I realized my overall philosophy was more right-of-center than to the left, and it made more sense for me to be a Republican. In 1990 I began intensely studying constitutional law. Robert Bork's "The Tempting of America" was a very important early influence. Voting Republican for the next three elections was my way of trying to put more Borks on the Supreme Court. By that I mean "originalists" ... people dedicated to giving all clauses in the Constitution the meanings they were intended to have.
Then what happened in Dec. 2000? Bush v. Gore. That proved to me that the Republicans did not appoint better Supreme Court Justices than the Democrats.
And in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers. I hate the Lawrence decision, and the Court's opinion, passionately. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote both Bush and Lawrence. I loathe him so much I can't even begin to describe, ..... it's like flames on the side of my face, .....
There was just no point in voting any more. If the Supreme Court can hand down a secision that could prevent my vote from being counted, why bother? If the Supreme Court defines "liberty" whatever way they feel like, they could strike down laws I voted for (and which I am 100% positive are not truly unconstitutional), why bother to vote?
I voted for McMullin because he was the only one who said the right thing appoint what kind of people should be appointed to the Court.

[MarkD]

Boy, I should have edited that last post better. Embarrassing.

Without picking apart every thing you said which made me go "Hm, ...."

The odd thing about many of these types of threads is that it is rare to actually have individuals that talk about their own voting history, and the motivations behind their decisions.

Generally, it is more like "in theory this a XYZ voter living in a certain state/region from a certain socio-economic category and then maybe because they are part of a cultural minority (Religious/Sexual Preference, environmentalist....) that for whatever reason this explains the voting patterns.

Yes, this is one of the most tiresome things to see in these threads -- people trying to come up with theories based on stereotypes about why certain demographic groups vote the way they do.

[MarkD]

And in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers. I hate the Lawrence decision, and the Court's opinion, passionately. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote both Bush and Lawrence. I loathe him so much I can't even begin to describe, ..... it's like flames on the side of my face, .....
There was just no point in voting any more. If the Supreme Court can hand down a secision that could prevent my vote from being counted, why bother? If the Supreme Court defines "liberty" whatever way they feel like, they could strike down laws I voted for (and which I am 100% positive are not truly unconstitutional), why bother to vote?

If you're gay, why do you hate the Lawrence decision, when you opposed Bowers? Or is this a typo?

That's not a typo. I opposed the Bowers decision for a period of about three years because I made a subjective and uninformed decision based only on my need at the time. I changed my mind based on knowledge I didn't have before and persuasive arguments. The new, opposite decision I made - that Bowers was the correct conclusion - was based on objective analysis and having accurate information what certain clauses in the Constitution were intended to mean. I hate the Lawrence decision because it was neither an objective nor an accurate interpretation of the Constitution.

[MarkD]

And in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers. I hate the Lawrence decision, and the Court's opinion, passionately. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote both Bush and Lawrence. I loathe him so much I can't even begin to describe, ..... it's like flames on the side of my face, .....
There was just no point in voting any more. If the Supreme Court can hand down a secision that could prevent my vote from being counted, why bother? If the Supreme Court defines "liberty" whatever way they feel like, they could strike down laws I voted for (and which I am 100% positive are not truly unconstitutional), why bother to vote?

If you're gay, why do you hate the Lawrence decision, when you opposed Bowers? Or is this a typo?

That's not a typo. I opposed the Bowers decision for a period of about three years because I made a subjective and uninformed decision based only on my need at the time. I changed my mind based on knowledge I didn't have before and persuasive arguments. The new, opposite decision I made - that Bowers was the correct conclusion - was based on objective analysis and having accurate information what certain clauses in the Constitution were intended to mean. I hate the Lawrence decision because it was neither an objective nor an accurate interpretation of the Constitution.

Are you saying you disagree with sodomy laws, but believe they are not unconstitutional?

Yes. State legislatures should have repealed those laws, like they did in most states, but there is no constitutional guarantee of "liberty."

[MarkD]

The Ninth was the provision of the Constitution I was thinking about the most during the three years I was hoping to overturn Bowers. But that was before I learned what the Ninth was originally intended to mean. So the first thing I studied carefully and thoroughly was the Ninth.
All of the first ten amendments were originally understood to be binding only on the federal government. The Bill of Rights was proposed and ratified only in order to restrain the federal government's powers, not the states. That's what the Supreme Court said, unanimously, in Barron v. Baltimore. Furthermore, the purpose of the Ninth is parallel to the Tenth: they both require the federal government to justify the laws of Congress by pointing to constitutionally delegated, enumerated powers. For example, if someone challenges the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act by saying that Congress was never delegated the power to pass laws requiring people to get health insurance, that was a Ninth Amendment claim. (That's what they should have argued.)
States should not be forced, by the federal government, to respect any un-enumerated, substantive rights, except the right to travel within the United States. That's one of the originally intended purposes of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. The other purpose of that clause was to require the states to respect rights that are enumerated in the first eight amendments, thus overturning Barron. Imposing the concept of the Ninth on the states is implausible.
Inferring the "right to privacy" from the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments was the slight-of-hand trick that Justice William O. Douglas performed in Griswold v. Connecticut. I have no respect for that inference; the late Prof. David P. Currie said Griswold is "one of the most hypocritical opinions in the history of the Court."
If there are many conservatives and many liberals who respect an interpretation of the Due Process Clauses that those clauses protect substantive "liberty," in addition to procedural fairness, then they're cynics who just want that doctrine to exist so that they can disempower their opponents.