Opinion of the Issue, part 48

[Associate Justice PiT]

32	Criminal Trials by Jury	81.3; 9.4; 0.0; 3.1; 6.3
1	Women in the Military	83.3; 5.6; 11.1; 0.0; 0.0
38	Aid for Importing Prescription Drugs	40.0; 46.7; 0.0; 6.7; 6.7
37	Water as a Public Good	80.0; 6.7; 0.0; 0.0; 13.3
9	Legalize Prostitution	73.1; 11.5; 0.0; 3.8; 11.5
19	Legalize Marijuana	74.0; 10.0; 0.0; 6.0; 10.0
31	Jury Nullification	79.2; 4.2; 4.2; 4.2; 8.3
25	Job Outsourcing	58.6; 20.7; 6.9; 0.0; 13.8
6	Allow Gay Marriage	75.9; 6.9; 0.0; 0.0; 17.2
17	Government-Sponsored Health Care	62.5; 15.0; 0.0; 7.5; 15.0
47	Reduce Student Loan Interest	64.3; 10.7; 3.6; 0.0; 21.4
26	Line-Item Veto	47.8; 26.1; 0.0; 8.7; 17.4
22	Nuclear Power	58.6; 13.8; 6.9; 6.9; 13.8
18	Eliminate the Deficit	40.0; 32.0; 12.0; 4.0; 12.0
29	Doctor-Assisted Suicide	56.7; 13.3; 0.0; 10.0; 20.0
30	Reduce Military Fudning	60.0; 8.6; 0.0; 8.6; 22.9
4	Free Trade Expansion	41.7; 25.0; 2.8; 11.1; 19.4
44	Reduce Stop Light Cameras	51.5; 9.1; 12.1; 9.1; 18.2
10	Legalize Selling Human Body Parts	44.0; 16.0; 0.0; 8.0; 32.0
5	Legalize Hard Drugs	31.3; 28.1; 6.3; 9.4; 25.0
23	Protect Strikers' Jobs	50.0; 7.7; 0.0; 19.2; 23.1
15	Campaign Finance Reform	40.6; 15.6; 3.1; 6.3; 34.4
16	Funding of Religious Charities	19.4; 35.5; 3.2; 16.1; 25.8
21	Offshore Drilling	30.3; 24.2; 15.2; 12.1; 18.2
46	Marque and Reprisal against Piracy and Terrorism	30.0; 20.0; 20.0; 10.0; 20.0
33	Reduce the Corporate Tax	36.7; 10.0; 6.7; 16.7; 30.0
34	Limit CO2 emissions	27.3; 18.2; 18.2; 18.2; 18.2
45	Eliminate Copyrights	38.5; 3.8; 3.8; 15.4; 38.5
8	Punish Illegal Immigrants	26.9; 11.5; 0.0; 7.7; 53.8
43	Shorten Prison Sentences	22.7; 13.6; 18.2; 9.1; 36.4
39	Increase Foreign Aid	25.0; 10.7; 3.6; 14.3; 46.4
42	Mandatory Public School Attendance	26.5; 8.8; 0.0; 17.6; 47.1
14	Privatize Social Security	31.3; 3.1; 9.4; 12.5; 43.8
41	Continue Monetary Aid to Israel	22.9; 11.4; 0.0; 17.1; 48.6
35	Require Helmets for Skiing	18.2; 15.2; 3.0; 3.0; 60.6
13	Reduce Federal-Owned Lands	24.0; 8.0; 24.0; 12.0; 32.0
40	Permit Segregation in Prisons	18.2; 13.6; 4.5; 18.2; 45.5
12	Stricter Gun Control	22.6; 3.2; 9.7; 16.1; 48.4
7	Eliminate the Income Tax	16.1; 9.7; 0.0; 6.5; 67.7
11	Restrict Abortion	22.9; 0.0; 5.7; 20.0; 51.4
27	Allow Procedural Filibuster	13.6; 9.1; 4.5; 9.1; 63.6
28	Government Price Controls	14.8; 3.7; 7.4; 18.5; 55.6
20	Censor Indecent Broadcasts	3.7; 14.8; 0.0; 18.5; 63.0
24	Support NCLB	8.0; 8.0; 4.0; 32.0; 48.0
3	Return to the Gold Standard	9.1; 4.5; 4.5; 9.1; 72.7
2	Support the Patriot Act	4.0; 4.0; 4.0; 12.0; 76.0
36	Ability to ban Films and Video Games	5.6; 0.0; 2.8; 13.9; 77.8

     Question courtesy of hughento.

[dead0man]

Somebody win me over.

[Verily]

Somebody win me over.

With no permanent members (or specifically no vetoes), the UN Security Council could actually act decisively. There would be no China or Russia sheltering various pet regimes from the UN. (Sudan is the most obvious.) Generally speaking, outside politics would be far less able to penetrate the Security Council's decisions.

Actually, I'm fine with permanent members. I would rather get rid of the veto and keep the permanent members (and expand to include Japan, Brazil, India and Germany).

[dead0man]

Aye.  That's where I'm at too I guess.  I don't really care about permanent members, I think it's the veto that needs to change/go away.

[Verily]

I still voted in favor on principle. The way elections to the Security Council work, you'd never get a Security Council dominated by countries with crazy leadership, although I'm a little leery of the remote possibility. Just a few perpetually sane permanent members (The US, UK, France, Germany, Japan and Brazil being perpetually sane) would guarantee sane majorities.

[they don't love you like i love you]

No, but the unilateral veto should be abolished to stop Russia and China from protecting their pet regimes as Verily mentions and the US from vetoing over 90% of resolutions condemning Israel (not that those resolutions would do anything anyway.)

[Purple State]

Did Lean No for the same reason everyone else ha stated above.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Here's a suggestion for a new one: Should airlines be able to require particularly obese passengers buy tickets for two seats?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

No, but we should remove Russia and China.

[Torie]

No. The UN would be even more meaningless than it is, if the nations who actually have military and economic power don't have a veto power. In fact, at this point, it is really only the US that can enforce much of anything of any size on this planet. The UN Security Council passing resolutions to take action that cannot be enforced, or effectively thwarted, is just a bad idea.

One cannot make power politics go away, by restructuring the the Security Council. All that would do is eviscerate it.

[Sbane]

Somebody win me over.

With no permanent members (or specifically no vetoes), the UN Security Council could actually act decisively. There would be no China or Russia sheltering various pet regimes from the UN. (Sudan is the most obvious.) Generally speaking, outside politics would be far less able to penetrate the Security Council's decisions.

Actually, I'm fine with permanent members. I would rather get rid of the veto and keep the permanent members (and expand to include Japan, Brazil, India and Germany).

^^^ This. The veto doesn't make sense to me since it allows China and Russia to protect various miscreants around the world while the US continually protects Israel from being called out for its misdeeds. I don't care if the most important and influential countries get to be permanent members.

[Torie]

Somebody win me over.

With no permanent members (or specifically no vetoes), the UN Security Council could actually act decisively. There would be no China or Russia sheltering various pet regimes from the UN. (Sudan is the most obvious.) Generally speaking, outside politics would be far less able to penetrate the Security Council's decisions.

Actually, I'm fine with permanent members. I would rather get rid of the veto and keep the permanent members (and expand to include Japan, Brazil, India and Germany).

^^^ This. The veto doesn't make sense to me since it allows China and Russia to protect various miscreants around the world while the US continually protects Israel from being called out for its misdeeds. I don't care if the most important and influential countries get to be permanent members.

The first time the UN took military action over US objections on an important matter, it would be effectively dead I would think on security matters, particularly if it constrained the US to lend it muscle. It just isn't going to happen

[Sbane]

Somebody win me over.

With no permanent members (or specifically no vetoes), the UN Security Council could actually act decisively. There would be no China or Russia sheltering various pet regimes from the UN. (Sudan is the most obvious.) Generally speaking, outside politics would be far less able to penetrate the Security Council's decisions.

Actually, I'm fine with permanent members. I would rather get rid of the veto and keep the permanent members (and expand to include Japan, Brazil, India and Germany).

^^^ This. The veto doesn't make sense to me since it allows China and Russia to protect various miscreants around the world while the US continually protects Israel from being called out for its misdeeds. I don't care if the most important and influential countries get to be permanent members.

The first time the UN took military action over US objections on an important matter, it would be effectively dead I would think on security matters, particularly if it constrained the US to lend it muscle. It just isn't going to happen

And it shouldn't happen. If they take a decision we don't like, we wouldn't provide troops for it. I think the veto hurts the US more than it helps.

[Rowan]

Let's do away with whole UN.

[7,052,770]

The UNSC badly needs reforms, but getting rid of the permanent seats/veto powers would cause the UN to crumble.

[GMantis]

Without permanent members with veto powers, the UN is pointless. Simply none of the Great powers will give it any attention.
And Russia and China have used their veto power to shelter friendly regimes since 1989 exactly three times - and two of those are arguable. The US has used it to defend Israel 14 times.