BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM

Rabbi-Sol,

Hillary is going to lose the delegate count. She has almost no chance to be the nominee. After all the bridges she and Bill have burned. If she does get the nomination, She won't be President. She doesn't deserve to be President. Because by every measure she and Bill have said should be the benchmarks, McCain is the better candidate.

Experience, Readiness to be commander in chief, integrity, willingness to bring about change.

McCain has a long, distinguished record of all these things. He does not have to pad his resume on these things.

Obama is more experienced as a legislator than Lincoln was. Nixon was the Most experienced President ever. Experience is overrated.

Just in this campaign Obama has shown, leadership, integrity, pressure under fire and the courage to deal with the hard issues intelligently and head on without condescending to people. Hillary has done the opposite. She failed to show leadership in by reigning in Bill and Ferraro. She failed in the integrity by throwing the kitchen sink at Obama and by praising McCain in a feeble attempt to make Obama look bad. Under pressure she has stooped to smear tactics. She has flip flopped on Florida and Michigan, blaming the Obama for being undemocratic when it was a DNC decision which she initially agreed to.      She constantly avoid the hard issues and weasels around them. She still does not take responsibility for her vote on the war.

Based upon their performance in these past few months. Hillary Clinton is the second to the last American Politician I would like to see handle a serious crisis. Unfortunately the worst one is in office.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:27 PM

She is presently promoting the concept that any delegate should vote for any candidate at will regardless of popular vote.

This is going to make her look as good as Bush in 2000. Except that she won't own the judges and won't be able to buy the press to pull it off. Smoke city.


A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:32 PM

If Obama is the nominee, and the general election is a repeat of the 2000 Gore vs. Bush fiaso with the Supreme Court having the final word, a hypothetical situation might arise.

In a 5 to 4 decision with Justice Clarence Thomas holding the deciding swing vote; Does he vote to make history by putting a fellow African American into office or does he stick with his conservative views and vote for McCain?

It is a highly unlikely scenario but not beyond the realm of possibillity. Which way do you think Thomas would go?

                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:36 PM

I would hope he would rule based on the facts of the arguement, and NOT on who the winner would be.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:00 PM

I would so hope, as well. But the Supreme Court has betrayed that trust in the past.


A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:04 PM

THAT is a matter of opinion. Of course, if only the decision you want can be correct, then I agree- it has been wrong in about half the cases. At least in someone's opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:33 PM

Rabbi-Sol,

I am gathering that you have an underlying view that black people are inferior. Why impugn a man's ability to be a fair judge based upon his race?

What makes you think it would be decided on race?

Why not age? Old people deciding for old people? Then it would be seven to two with Alito and Roberts in the minority.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:48 PM

You only pose two possible answers, neither of them having any integrity, Rabbi Sol. You do not postulate the possibility that Justice Thomas would rule according to what he believes would be Constitutional. Is there some reason for this? Would you have posed the question the same way if we were discussing Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the candidate in question as Lieberman as the vice presidential nominee?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:54 PM

Jack,
      You are reading things into my words. I am NOT implying in any way that black people are inferior, nor do I hold that opinion.

The fact of the matter is that Justice Clarence Thomas is perhaps the most conservative of all the judges on the supreme court, with the possible exception of Justice Scalia. I believe that his voting record is prefectly pro-conservative on any matter that has ever come before the court. He also happens to be black and was appointed by the elder Pres. Bush as the token African American justice on the supreme court amid great contreversy (remember Anita Hill). His views on social issues such as affirmative action and abortion are diametrically opposed to those of Obama.

As we saw in the last election, the justices of the Supreme Court usually follow the politics of the Presidents that appointed them. That is why you usually get a 5 to 4 vote on highly controversial cases. By appointing Justices Roberts and Alito, Dubyah gave the conservatives a one vote majority.

So my question remains, does Justice Thomas, as the tie breaking vote, go with the party line or does he sieze the once in a lifetime opportunity to make history?

                                                          SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:59 PM

We appear to have cross-posted, Rabbi Sol. I pose my question again...

You only pose two possible answers, neither of them having any integrity, Rabbi Sol. You do not postulate the possibility that Justice Thomas would rule according to what he believes would be Constitutional. Is there some reason for this? Would you have posed the question the same way if we were discussing Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the candidate in question as Lieberman as the vice presidential nominee?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM

Carol,
       I do not think you are that naive to believe that the justices of the Supreme Court put their own political and idealogical views completely out of their minds when ruling on important cases before them. They interpret the Constitution but that interpretation can be biased and colored by their own political ideology. If you do not think so I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing.

                                                SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM

You continue to define this contest in terms of race.
I think that Clarence Thomas will decide the case in terms of the law as he sees it. So will Justice Ginsberg. So will the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:06 PM

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer on the court. You could pose the same question about Justice Brier (who is Jewish) vis a vis Lieberman. But Lieberman is not running for President, Obama is.

                                                       SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:08 PM

And Rabbi---who sold you that bridge?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:23 PM

Ruth Bader Ginsberg is still on the Supreme Court, Rabbi Sol.

So your answer is to not answer. As far as I'm concerned, you have answered loud and clear.

But let me go ahead and pose the question anyway... if McCain is the nominee, and his running mate is Joe Lieberman, and we find ourselves in the situation you have described with the vote going to the Supreme Court, how do you think Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer, known liberals, would vote? Would they vote for McCain and make history by helping to put in office the first Jewish vice president, or would they vote for the liberal?

I think this is in keeping with the subject of a thread entitled, "McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama".

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:25 PM

Almost forgot this part... and you have told us that someone you know has pretty much guaranteed that Senator Lieberman will be McCain's running mate.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:25 PM

Since when is Ruth Bader Ginsburg not on the Supreme Court? Are you perhaps thinking of Sandra Day O'Connor?

Also, the name is "Breyer", not Brier.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:53 PM

Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of Justice O'Connor.

                                                         SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:11 PM

I think the fact that you are unwilling to answer the question I posed, Rabbi Sol, is an indication that you don't like the two choices that I have offered. I don't blame you. That kind of question, when only those two decisions are given as possibilities, shows prejudice against the group that is being discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:22 PM

Justices Breyer and Ginsburg will definitely vote against McCain, even if Lieberman is his running mate. But they are part of the minority. Thomas is part of the majority.

Also, I feel that the case of a black president would be much more historically significant than that of a Jewish president, given the history of this country.

First of all, there are many more black people in this country than there are Jews. For this alone it is fitting that there should be a black president before there is a Jewish one.

Second of all, America has been very good to Jews, perhaps better than any country in the history of this planet. They have prospered and continue to prosper in this great land of opportunity. The election of a Jew to the presidency would be newsworthy but not earth shattering.

However the history of blacks is much different. They were brought to this country in chains, against their will to begin with. After Lincoln freed the slaves, they were systematically kept down by the Jim Crow laws of segregation and denied economic & educational opportunities by an ingrained system of racism that continues to this very day.

Therefore, were a black man to achieve the highest office in this land it would be a culmination of the dream that Martin Luther King refrerred to in his famous speech. Perhaps culmination is the wrong word. It would be the beginning of the end to racism in this country. This indeed would be an earth shattering event and a significant benchmark in the history of the United States. This is what Justice Thomas would have to consider in this case.

                                                       SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:31 PM

The only thing Justice Thomas is supposed consider is whether or not his ruling would be Constitutional. Why isn't that option included in your choices?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:44 PM

Carol,
       What is or is not Constitutional is a matter of interpretation
by the individual Justice. Just like in baseball, the strike zone varies with each umpire. One umpire's Strike 3 can be another's Ball 4. The point that I am trying to make is that it is SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE.
                                                      SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:52 PM

It is possible for a Justice to base his or her ruling or opinion entirely on the Constitution and not on race or political leaning. It does happen.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:56 PM

Thank God there are still Constitutional scholars and jurists out there. Remember Sam Ervin? He's gone now but I sincerely hope and believe that there are others that remain.

It seems to me that adherence to Constitutional law should be the first requirement for someone to be nominated to the highest court.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:07 PM

"Adherence to Constitutional law" as defined by who? The loose constructionists or the strict constructionists? This debate has been going on ever since the time of John Marshall & Thomas Jefferson. Each Judge interprets the Constitution "as he or she sees it".
                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:09 PM

Race and political leaning are obviously not the only two choices, as you have just illustrated yourself, Rabbi Sol, but you have only included those two choices in your question.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:23 PM

Carol, when folks do to you what you are doing to Rabbi Sol, you accuse them of attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:29 PM

Mick

No she doesn't.

Please show an example where Carol has attacked Rabbi-Sol or an example of where someone else has said the same things that she is saying and she has called it an attack.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:31 PM

Hardly, Mick. This is the kind of stuff that I have called an attack...

You are so married to your delusions...buy into your delusions...tin hat brigade

Those are what I call attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:39 PM

Carol,
       The entire legal profession exists because the Constitution is not just black and white. There are many gray areas that have to be defined and that is why Al Gore paid big bucks to David Bose to try to convince the justices to see it his way. Unfortunately they saw it Bush's way by a 5 to 4 vote that broke along political and idealogical lines.
                                                      SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:44 PM

Damn..... I guess I should say something about Jack so Carol can speak.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:45 PM

Mick,

I think you should point out an example or find something else to talk about.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:50 PM

Jack,

You have just given an example. My comment was not addressed to you. Mind your own business.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:59 PM

So I guess the question then, is: If the Supreme Court would find itself in the same position in relation to the upcoming election as they were the 2000 election, and the nominees were Obama and McCain, would Justice Thomas rule on strict constructionist or loose constructionist grounds? If he ruled on strict constructionist grounds, he would rule that the state should decide. If he ruled on loose constructionist grounds, would he base his ruling on the historicity of the upcoming election, or would he base his ruling on a desire to see a Black person serve as president? Alternately, would he base his ruling on a desire to keep the republican party in office another four years?

But at least with these choices, it is possible to select a choice that arises entirely from integrity, rather than self-interest or partisanship.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:06 PM

Mick,

Are you talking as a moderator? If so, you had better say so and quick. Because what you say to Carol is a lot more my business than what Carol says to Rabbi-Sol.

If you are talking as a moderator, you had better back up what you say or be a man and apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:08 PM

The question is "In his mind can he separate the two"? He believes so strongly in conservatism that it is indistinguishable from integrity. He has always voted that way 100% of the time.

                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:18 PM

Ahhhhh, as for the Supreme Court being this exclusive gruop pf jurist who are concerened with only interpreting the Constitution... Bull!!!

That's right... Bull!!!

Our Constitution has been interprted thousands of times since it was written... And that is a good thing... Each time it is interpreted that new interpretation is what is called precedence...

It's when courts ignore precedence that we have waht is know as "activist courts"... The Warren Court ignored precedence because the time had come for black folks to come out from under Jim Crow's heel... That was a good thing and moved the country further down the road toward being a just and civil society...

The Warren Court, though Chiel Juastic Earl Warren resigned in 1969 continued well into the 70's in it's "activism" in rulings that, IMO, did move the country forward...

Problem is that with every action there is an equal reaction and since 1980 the court went through a period of "less activism", but as one Repub after another nominated conservatives to the bench the court is now the exact opposite of the Warren Court...

This isn't as much about stict or loose constrution but politics...

The court has become extremely partisan and political and regardless of the tides of liberalism that is taking hold in the country, the counmtry will have to dance around this court for the next 2 decades and Congress will have to dot every "i" and cross every "t* if it enacts anything that resemebles "liberal" legislation...

And that, my friends, is the way it is...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:36 PM

The question is "In his mind can he separate the two"? He believes so strongly in conservatism that it is indistinguishable from integrity. He has always voted that way 100% of the time.

So you're asking whether or not he would discard his concept of integrity in order to help put a Black man in the presidency?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:23 PM

Carol,
       You are trying to put words in my mouth again. Let us put it more mildly "Would he change the way he looks at the Constitution in order to help put a black man into the oval office?" As Bobert just said, it is all about politics.

                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:31 PM

"Would he change the way he looks at the Constitution in order to help put a black man into the oval office?"

That one looks a bit more reasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:32 PM

Yes, that is the way I would phrase the question. Integrity is not part of the equation here.

                                                         SOL

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Big Mick
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM

No, Jack there is no apology coming. No, Jack, I am not speaking in my role as a moderator. And no, Jack, I am not worried about the implied threat in your post. I would suggest that you save that type of thing. It is a road fraught with peril.

As to my comment to mind your own business, I meant it. My comment to Carol was not addressed to you. The last time I checked, Carol is a worthy opponent in a debate, always well informed on her position, and does not need anyone to "protect" her or speak for her. Where I come from, women are very capable of handling their own discussions and don't need male protectors to speak for them. I have always found this so with Carol. I don't mind having a debate/discussion with you on a subject. But it is with you. As to Carol, she speaks just fine for herself.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM

>>>As to my comment to mind your own business, I meant it. My comment to Carol was not addressed to you. The last time I checked, Carol is a worthy opponent in a debate, always well informed on her position, and does not need anyone to "protect" her or speak for her. Where I come from, women are very capable of handling their own discussions and don't need male protectors to speak for them. I have always found this so with Carol. I don't mind having a debate/discussion with you on a subject. But it is with you. As to Carol, she speaks just fine for herself<<<

I really don't give a damn what you meant. You don't have any authority to tell me what is my business and what isn't. Who in the hell do you think you are? For one thing, I was in the conversation a lot longer than you and for a second Carol is my wife and the last time I checked, you were not married to Rabbi-Sol. You had no business making up the bullshit about Carol. Again, be a man. Back it up or shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:53 PM

Gentleman:

It is a wopnderful thing to see chivalry rise up, but in this case, I think we are all in the same end of the lists, and our sharpened lances should be reserved for those more in need of puncturing. Join me in a mug of mead and a brief rest until the tourney actually calls on us.


A

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 04:06 PM

As my horse is watered and my armour polished in anticipation of the next round I shall gladly join you in a mug.

If you will look closer you will see that my Lance, as sharp as it may be, is Nerf.

I am simply replying to friend Mick's hardy humorous bluster in kind.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Scanner
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 05:42 PM

No Jack. Mick is not married to Rabbi Sol. I am. Mick has met me in person and can attest to the fact that I am quite a "formidable" person.
                                                   FAY

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:56 PM

Posters on Mudcat are actually married to one another? Good lord, and I always thought most of the posters here were the byproduct of Little Hawks imagination.

The fact that some of you may be real is a sobering thought....

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:03 PM

You underestimate Little Hawk's imagination, Charley. If he can come up with a couple of characters like JtS and me, he can certainly find a way to get us hitched.

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:04 PM

Nice to meet you Fay.

I may be able to get a couple of "Obama" buttons for you and Sol. Shall I send them along if I do?

Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:34 PM

Formidable??? Have you seen Chongo when he gets his hand on a Thompson?


Kreeg--Ahhh!



A