Who is currently gaining in the polls?

[dunn]

Dunn, could you change your vote on preferential voting from abstention to yes or no, because there's 45 minutes left til the polling stations close and we have 10 yes and 10 no right now...

In case of a tie we should go back to EV (the progressive way), there was no 3 way vote just 2 vote of 1to1

[minionofmidas]

The two questions are totally unrelated.
Preferential voting is still popular voting. And note that this applies to the Senate as well as the Presidency.
In other words: What you're saying is not likely to gain any support...break the deadlock now! You have twenty minutes! (There's no other registered voter who hasn't voted yes or no on this around right now, otherwise I'd molest those as well.)

[The Duke]

Yeah, Casey vs. Planned Parenthood is what I meant.

In the sodomy case, a conservative LEGISLATOR would have done the right thing and sided with liberty over blue laws, and that is how I would have voted if I were a Texas legislator.

A conservative JUDGE, however, would not reinvent the constitution to conform with his own ideas of what is a good law and a bad law.  In the law, process matters almost as much as outcomes.  The Texas legislature has the right to make any number of stupid laws that I would not support.  There is, however, no constitutional basis under a strict constructionist view that would compel us to declare sodomy a constitutional right.

As you probably know, not only are the words supposed to be interpereted strictly, but whereever possible, the constructionist tries to discern intent of the founders.  Every single founder wanted homosexuality to be a capital crime.  The one progressive exception was Jefferson, who preferred castration.  I'd say this is an outdated view, and you would likely agree.  However, this does prove that there is no cnstitutional right to sodomy.  If Texas wants sodomy legal, good.  I congratulate them on moving beyond blue laws.  However, if they want to ban sodomy, they have that power, as dissapointing as such a decision may be to me personally.

[minionofmidas]

The founding fathers seem to have opened that "unusual punishment" loophole on purpose, letting a lot of air out of your argument...which is NOT to say it's TOTAL nonsense.

[The Duke]

And what's some cases, no matter how important they are to you, to do with "consistently"? That means "all the time"!

They do side with the loose constructionists all the time.  Look over the cases the court has heard over the last few years and see for yourself.  Go ahead, wade through some of these cases.  I did not cite any three old cases, I cited the two most high profile cases of the last session and the most high profile case of the last 20 years!

supremecourtus.gov

[The Duke]

The founding fathers seem to have opened that "unusual punishment" loophole on purpose, letting a lot of air out of your argument...which is NOT to say it's TOTAL nonsense.

"Cruel and unusual punishment" sheds no doubt on the validity of my argument.  Read the US Bill of Rights to see.  It specifically says that capital punishment is expected to be part of the criminal justice system, particularly this passag:

"Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

It specifically mentions capital punishment as part of the justice system.

As for castration, this would likely qualify as cruel and unusual, yet it does not diminish the real point which is that the intent of the founders was not to give a constitutional right to sodomy.

[minionofmidas]

I checked supremecourtus an hour ago. Problem is I didn't really find a vote summary. You have to actually open each decision and scroll down to where the syllabus ends and the opinion begins. Which is a lot of hassle. Especially when you're not so sure if that case is important, and a majority of cases are unanimous anyways.
But I do not think that these are the most high-profile cases. Heck, I don't even know what that case against Planned Parenthood was. The most high-profile cases of the last few years, from my point of view, were their mingling in the presidential election (that is not really debatable), upholding the execution of minors, and voting against the execution of the insane. Those two are there because these are issues dear to my heart, and the same is obviously true of your choices. There is no objective paradigm by which to measure out how important one case is exactly. And the Sodomy thing was reported in Europe, but mostly because the fact that such laws still existed, and the rhetoric of Scalia's dissent (not or not only based on your logic) made for cheap laughs at America's expense.

[The Duke]

In the case regarding execution of minors, Kennedy and O'Connor voted with the left against the execution of minors.  Same happenned in the case on the execution of the retarded.  Your cases only serve to bolster my point-O'Connor and kennedy vote with the left more often than they vote with the right.

The Casey v. Planned Parenthood Case (1993) was a case in Pennsylvania that had to do with abortion rights.  It was a huge deal over here in the States.

As for Bush v. Gore, it was not decided in the last session, that was in 2000.  I was referring to the 2003 session which contained no higher profile cases than the affirmative action and sodomy cases.

[minionofmidas]

You're definitely right in the last paragraph, I didn't read your earlier post closely enough.
But if Kennedy and O'Connor voted against the execution of minors, who voted for it?
And, getting back to an earlier post that I didn't see because I was writing my own at the same time (happens to me all the time): It does indeed seem that Capital Punishment is indirectly written into the Constitution. However, what crimes deserve it is not. The point is that "cruel and unusual" throws the door open for later generations to have a different opinion of what is unusual and what not than the founders had, in other words, just because the founders viewed homosexuality as a crime doesn't mean they wanted to force later generations to do so (though no doubt they hoped we would too).

[MarkDel]

The court really has 2 liberals, 2 left-moderates, 2 right-moderates, and 3 conservatives.  

Names?

Liberal: Ginsberg and presumably Breyer (both Clinton appointees)
Mod-left: Souter (Bush41) and Stevens (Ford)
Mod-con: O'Connor (Reagan) and Kennedy (Reagan? or Bush?)
Con: Rehnquist (Nixon/Reagan as Chief), Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush)

This is a fairly accurate appraisal of the current Supreme Court. I would change the categorization around a little bit, and one of the biggest problems is how to categorize Stevens...he pretty much defies all political labels. Here's how I would rate them from left to right:

Extremely Liberal: Ginsburg
Liberal: Breyer
Moderate Liberal: Souter and Stevens
Moderate Conservative: Kennedy and O'Connor
Conservative: Rehnquist
Extremely Conservative: Scalia and Thomas

I think the only people who would be considered "extreme" by any objective analysis are Ginsburg, Scalia and Thomas. Some Conservatives feel Breyer is on the far left, but I think the evidence suggests otherwise. Same goes with Liberals who view Rehnquist as an extremist...I think the evidence also suggests otherwise.

[MarkDel]

I checked supremecourtus an hour ago. Problem is I didn't really find a vote summary. You have to actually open each decision and scroll down to where the syllabus ends and the opinion begins. Which is a lot of hassle. Especially when you're not so sure if that case is important, and a majority of cases are unanimous anyways.
But I do not think that these are the most high-profile cases. Heck, I don't even know what that case against Planned Parenthood was. The most high-profile cases of the last few years, from my point of view, were their mingling in the presidential election (that is not really debatable), upholding the execution of minors, and voting against the execution of the insane. Those two are there because these are issues dear to my heart, and the same is obviously true of your choices. There is no objective paradigm by which to measure out how important one case is exactly. And the Sodomy thing was reported in Europe, but mostly because the fact that such laws still existed, and the rhetoric of Scalia's dissent (not or not only based on your logic) made for cheap laughs at America's expense.

The real problem with the so-called "Sodomy Decision" is that it represented a departure from judicial precedent. The US Supreme Court had already addressed this issue in a case called Bowers vs. Hardwick roughly 25 years ago, and the current court pretty much rewrote a judicial opinion that had been "good law" for quite some time.

[minionofmidas]

This is true.

[minionofmidas]

The court really has 2 liberals, 2 left-moderates, 2 right-moderates, and 3 conservatives.  

Names?

Liberal: Ginsberg and presumably Breyer (both Clinton appointees)
Mod-left: Souter (Bush41) and Stevens (Ford)
Mod-con: O'Connor (Reagan) and Kennedy (Reagan? or Bush?)
Con: Rehnquist (Nixon/Reagan as Chief), Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush)

This is a fairly accurate appraisal of the current Supreme Court. I would change the categorization around a little bit, and one of the biggest problems is how to categorize Stevens...he pretty much defies all political labels. Here's how I would rate them from left to right:

Extremely Liberal: Ginsburg
Liberal: Breyer
Moderate Liberal: Souter and Stevens
Moderate Conservative: Kennedy and O'Connor
Conservative: Rehnquist
Extremely Conservative: Scalia and Thomas

I think the only people who would be considered "extreme" by any objective analysis are Ginsburg, Scalia and Thomas. Some Conservatives feel Breyer is on the far left, but I think the evidence suggests otherwise. Same goes with Liberals who view Rehnquist as an extremist...I think the evidence also suggests otherwise.

It's Don's appraisal, not mine. He gave the numbers, I filled in the names. If I'd have done the numbers, Breyer would be with Stevens and Souter. But then I am a Liberal...and I'm relying on second hand sources somewhat...

[MarkDel]

Lewis,

I agree with you that it is unfair to put Breyer into the same category as Ginsburg, just as I feel it is equally unfair to put Rehnquist in the same category as Scalia and Thomas. From my perspective, Breyer is a liberal, but a reasonable liberal, while Ginsburg is a left wing extremist who borders on Marxist.

[The Duke]

You're definitely right in the last paragraph, I didn't read your earlier post closely enough.
But if Kennedy and O'Connor voted against the execution of minors, who voted for it?
And, getting back to an earlier post that I didn't see because I was writing my own at the same time (happens to me all the time): It does indeed seem that Capital Punishment is indirectly written into the Constitution. However, what crimes deserve it is not. The point is that "cruel and unusual" throws the door open for later generations to have a different opinion of what is unusual and what not than the founders had, in other words, just because the founders viewed homosexuality as a crime doesn't mean they wanted to force later generations to do so (though no doubt they hoped we would too).

I didn't say sodomy SHOULD be a crime.  I just said it COULD.

The judges who voted for execution of minors and retarded people were Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.

[minionofmidas]

Somebody's confused here, and I guess it's me...Wasn't one of these held up by the Court? Oh well, what the hell, it probably is me who's confused...

[Reaganfan]

UPDATE on March 31st: Bush slowly creeping ahead of Kerry! I think USA/TODAY said:

Bush: 51%
Kerry: 45%
Nader: 4%

[??????????]

Pennsylvania!!!

Bush  56%
Kerry  40%
Other  4%


Just out today!

[angus]

Extremely Liberal: Ginsburg
Liberal: Breyer
Moderate Liberal: Souter and Stevens
Moderate Conservative: Kennedy and O'Connor
Conservative: Rehnquist
Extremely Conservative: Scalia and Thomas

glad you finally chimed in on this, there was quite a bit of subjectivity going on here.  By the way, why do we still rate them on a liberal vs. conservative scale, the way we would executive or legislative types?  Wouldn't it make more sense to do constructionist vs. activist when talking about justices?  As you know, these are different, and not mutually orthogonal groupings, but the latter seems more appropriate to justices.  If you do group them along those lines, would you care to suggest which you think belong in which category?

[Fritz]

UPDATE on March 31st: Bush slowly creeping ahead of Kerry! I think USA/TODAY said:

Bush: 51%
Kerry: 45%
Nader: 4%

The Rasmussen Reports Poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm) has had Kerry ahead of Bush every day since March 24.  Todays results are at Kerry 46%, Bush 45%.


My prediction, by Election Day: Kerry 51%, Bush 47%, Nader 2%.