Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Never before has the Supreme Court been so perfectly divided politically and ideologically. There are four consistent liberal voices on the court (Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer), four consistent conservative voices on the court (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito), and one voice squarely in the middle depending on the nature of the case (Justice Anthony Kennedy). And with the next two vacancies expected to be from the liberal side of that divide, this election will either allow or avert a dramatic shift to the right for the court.
With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has become the key swing vote on the court, often being the sole vote to determine the outcome of a case. During the 2006/2007 term, there were 24 cases that ended with the justices split 5-4; Kennedy was in the majority on all 24 of them. In the following term, which just ended, this breakdown wasn't quite so stark. Eleven decisions were 5-4, with Kennedy in the majority on seven of them. According to Jeffrey Toobin's recent book on the Supreme Court, The Nine, the two larger factions on the court work diligently to convince Kennedy to join their side on important cases, slanting the reasoning of their arguments to appeal as strongly as possible to his ideological positions.
The three youngest members of the court are all on the conservative side: Alito (58), Roberts (53) and Thomas (60). The fourth, Scalia, is 72, but by all accounts he is in good health and relishes his job; he will likely serve on the court for another decade or more. The two oldest justices, on the other hand, are on the liberal side. Stevens is 88 years old and Ginsburg is 75, with a history of health problems, including cancer. And a third, Souter, is relatively young (68) and in good health, but is well-known to despise living in Washington. Based on those factors, many court observers believe both Stevens and Ginsburg, and quite possibly Souter as well, will retire in the next few years, leaving the next president to nominate their successors.
With the court so evenly divided, a single change in the lineup of justices could cause a significant ideological shift that could result in the overturning of many longstanding precedents. The most obvious and politically explosive: Roe v. Wade. That 1973 ruling, which secured abortion rights for American women, is hanging by a thread. Most Americans likely do not know how close that ruling has come to being overturned; in 1992, there were five votes to overturn the ruling until O'Connor and Souter convinced Kennedy to change his vote. On the current court there are four clear votes to overturn Roe on the conservative side of the court; replace Stevens or Ginsburg with an anti-abortion justice and that precedent is almost certain to be overturned. Indeed, several states and localities have attempted to pass laws declaring a fetus to be a human being from the time of conception, in order to provide a test case that could be used to overturn Roe, if and when that shift takes place.
But it's not just abortion rights that are in danger. The current court has not yet had a significant case involving separation of church and state, but many key rulings involving school prayer, Bible distribution in schools and other establishment clause issues that were issued by earlier courts were narrow 5-4 rulings that could easily be overturned if there were five consistent conservative votes on the court. It should also be noted that perhaps this term's most controversial ruling in Boumediene, the case involving habeas corpus rights (the right to challenge their detention in court) for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, was a 5-4 ruling; take out Stevens or Ginsburg and replace them with a conservative justice and that ruling may be overturned as well. So what kind of justices is McCain likely to nominate?
A few weeks ago, McCain gave a series of speeches on his views on judicial matters. In a speech at Wake Forest University, he used all of the standard conservative buzzwords and catch phrases, like "judicial activism" and "strict constructionist." He promised to appoint justices in the mold of the two most recent appointees to the court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom are firmly in the conservative camp on the court. The truth is that, despite his reputation as a moderate who isn't afraid to stand up to the religious right, McCain has voted for even the most extreme right-wing nominees for the court, including Robert Bork, the Reagan nominee who was rejected by the Senate.
McCain's support of Bork, easily the most extremist nominee to the court in modern times, may bear a closer look. Bork's long track record of legal scholarship included a great many positions that were startlingly anachronistic. For example, in an article in the Indiana Law Journal, Bork had argued that the First Amendment applies only to political speech, not to any other form of speech:
"Constitutional protection should be accorded only to speech that is explicitly political. There is no basis for judicial intervention to protect any other form of expression, be it scientific, literary, or that variety of expression we call obscene or pornographic."
As far as I can tell, Bork is utterly alone in taking this position. It is consistent, however, with his zeal for censorship in virtually all areas. Bork has called openly for government censorship of a wide range of ideas, arguing for the prohibition of virtually anything that offends the sensibilities of a majority of the public. "No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless," Bork declared. "Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral." Despite these obvious authoritarian tendencies, McCain spoke on the floor of the Senate in defense of Bork's nomination in 1987, saying that he was voting for Bork "without any hesitation":
I believe that what the Senate should appropriately examine in a nominee are: Integrity and character, legal competence, and philosophy and judicial temperament. I believe Robert Bork is well qualified in all four respects ... Judge Bork's honesty, integrity, and diligence are above reproach ... [he] demonstrates that he is not some intellectual "loose cannon on deck," or a quixotic maverick jurist , but is a thoughtful, reasonable, jurist ... [he] is hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in synch with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench...
Bork's previous writings showed that to be false. He argued then and continues to argue that the government has the legitimate authority to imprison even married couples who purchase contraception, something perfectly in line with his Catholic faith but obviously opposed by anyone who supports a meaningful concept of liberty. That McCain voted for him without hesitation is not reassuring.
I have long argued that the real difference between the two major parties lies primarily in the constituencies that they are forced to appease in order to stay in office. On judicial matters, the constituency that Republicans, including - perhaps especially - McCain, have to please is the religious right. No issue is more important to the conservative Christian base than control of the courts. The James Dobsons of the world are not stupid; they're politically savvy enough to know that they are one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade and that McCain could appoint the justice who tips the balance.
And they also know that they hold leverage over McCain because he needs their support in November to have any chance of winning the election. McCain knows that as well, which is why he has actively courted the support of prominent religious right pastors and sought to quell the fears from the base that he is too moderate. That is why he has adopted all those code phrases and buzzwords mentioned above, to send a signal to them that he's on their side on judicial matters. That's also why he announced in January that Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., considered one of the most conservative Christian legislators in the country, would be his chief adviser on potential judicial nominees.
Let me also say this: there are other rulings where having a conservative majority may be a good thing. A conservative majority would have ruled the other way in Kelo (I know kehrsam disagrees, but I still think that was one of the worst rulings in history). Depending on the type of conservatives appointed, Raich might have turned out differently as well (the court's conservatives split on that case, with Scalia in the majority and Rehnquist and Thomas in the minority; this was before Alito and Roberts joined the court, so no way of knowing how they would have voted). But there's a whole range of issues where having a conservative majority on the court scares the hell out of me and I see no reason to believe that McCain would appoint anyone different.
Politics
Comments
"No activity that society thinks immoral is victimless," Bork declared. "Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral."
The concept of "shared" morality - the mark of the theocon.
Posted by: Chris Bell | July 14, 2008 9:59 AM
And yet, some members of the antiwar left are threatening to support Nader because they think that Obama is waffling on withdrawal from Iraq. Obviously, they learned nothing from the 2000 election which has resulted in the appointment of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court. I have argued on other blogs that Supreme Court decisions will have an affect on this country long after the Iraq war has faded into history and members of the antiwar left have dissented and pooh poohed the importance of Supreme Court decisions. As they say, there is no ox like the orthodox.
Posted by: SLC | July 14, 2008 10:09 AM
Re Robert Bork
I hate to do this because my disdain for Mr. Bork probably exceeds that of Mr. Brayton but in all fairness, many of his most extreme writings have come after his rejection by the Senate and may reflect anger and hurt feelings about how thinks that the liberals therein treated him.
Posted by: SLC | July 14, 2008 10:13 AM
That's true enough, SLC, but that mainly establishes what an incredibly thin skin he has. Had he made it to the Court unmolested, wouldn't we have seen a similar reaction the first time one of his decisions was criticized? We must judge him by what he has said and written.
Posted by: Mr. Upright | July 14, 2008 10:47 AM
Sweet Reason, this makes me miss 'Wild Bill' William O. Douglas. Now THERE was a Supreme Court Justice.
Posted by: Dragonfire | July 14, 2008 10:47 AM
"many of his most extreme writings have come after his rejection by the Senate and may reflect anger and hurt feelings about how thinks that the liberals therein treated him."
If true, would that not make him even less qualified to hold such a position of power? Bullet dodged.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 14, 2008 10:51 AM
What do you have to back up the account? In several instances I have read the exact opposite - that he is frustrated by the job since the court never goes far enough in his mind.
Posted by: yoshi | July 14, 2008 10:53 AM
Every time I read about Bork, he seems more insane.
I think it's immoral that people are arrested for drug possession. I think it's immoral to prevent people from accepting pay for consensual sex acts. I think it's immoral to prevent people from accepting money in exchange for their organs. And I think it's immoral to prevent a twenty-year-old, who may well be married and a war veteran, from drinking alcohol. These things go on every day, and I know they do. I am being harmed.
Posted by: nicole | July 14, 2008 11:00 AM
Bork's quotes are out of context. They are made after the late 90s, i.e. after he has been through his bitter confirmation battle and has grown old. Preconfirmation Bork was a quite different person. It is impossible to know what his opinions would have evolved into if he had not been through this bitter confirmation battle and was confirmed.
It is misleading to argue that on the current court there are four clear votes to overturn Roe. It is unpredictable how would Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito vote in a case where Roe v. Wade is under frontal attack. They may of course vote to overturn it. But to claim that their votes are CLEAR is simply misinformation.
Posted by: vassilp | July 14, 2008 11:14 AM
nicole, Obviously you don't get to declare what "socitey" considers immoral, Bork does.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 14, 2008 11:20 AM
I thought Obama put it well, SLC, when asked if a third party candidate (like Nader) would hurt him. He said that it is incumbent on each candidate make his case well enough so that voters vote for him.
The representation that progressives are fleeing Obama because of Iraq is misinformed, in my experience. Obviously I haven't seen the exact same postings you have, but I've been pretty involved on the blogs myself, and the consistent message I have heard (and endorsed) is that Obama lost our support when he told us he would filibuster telecom immunity and then voted for the bill. He lied, overturned the rule of law, and violated the constitution all in a day. What on god's green earth would he have to do to lose your support?
The misrepresentation of why people are re-thinking Obama is a common tool for Obama sychophants, as is the trivialization of his offenses, the idea he is simply an imperfect candidate and we have thin skin, and the threat that McCain would be infinitely worse.
The threat game is the one played most often, Supreme court justices are simply a part of the equation - violations of freedoms of speech and habeaus, torture, secret prisons, all these things are guaranteed to continue or worsen in a McCain administration. It is always implied, and sometimes declared, that Obama would be different, but I see no justification for this. Obama has not been a crusader on any of these issues. The Democratic leadership has enabled all of these offenses, and worse, and Obama's latest switch has put him squarely in their camp. So the idea that Obama is some agent of change, tell it to the marines.
The calculus that declares that only the two consecrated delegates can be voted for without throwing away your vote has gotten us in this mess. It has taken the horror of Bush to awaken the ire of the American people - but as long as we elect Democrats there will be no change (we can all agree on that by now, yes?). Perhaps the fact that people are still willing to vote for Obama after his stance on FISA (an unthinkable breach of public trust) shows that things haven't gotten bad enough for the public to want real change. Maybe a vote for McCain will hasten the destruction to a point where people will break out of the two party mode (see "Shock Doctrine").
I'm not advocating this - I'm simply pointing out that these "what-if" machinations can go on endlessly. Vote your conscience and let the chips fall where they may.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 12:02 PM
In my wacko town, some on the left see 7 Scalia, Thomas types on the court as good, because, progressive causes will then be smothered in the crib, which will lead to a great and glorious people's revolutionary uprising against capitalism and imperialism. Then we'll have free medical care, and a people's government committed to jobs for all and economic and social justice!
Posted by: soboco | July 14, 2008 12:24 PM
SLC wrote:
All of the quotes I offered from him came from before he was rejected for the court. It's true that he has gotten even more extreme since that rejection, but he was plenty extreme before that.
vassilp wrote:
See my response to SLC above. I could have quoted from the two batshit insane books he wrote after his rejection, but I didn't. I only cited some of the batshit insane things that led to his rejection.
Ah, nonsense. Both argued against Roe as younger attorneys in various capacities. And if you don't think they were asked directly by Bush or an underling whether they would overturn Roe, you're fooling yourself (just like anyone who thinks candidates aren't asked if they'd vote to uphold that ruling by a Democratic president is fooling themselves). Yes I know, both sides will deny that and say they have no "litmus test" for office, but only the absurdly naive believe them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 14, 2008 12:43 PM
Yoshi wrote:
I've heard such speculation but I don't buy it. No doubt Scalia is often frustrated by the fact that he can't get enough of his fellow justices to follow the One True Path, but I think that is precisely what motivates him to stick around. I think Scalia's ego matches his powerful intellect in size and he really does view himself as on a crusade for all that is right and good. On top of that, I think he just plain enjoys the give and take with those he disagrees with on the court. I really believe they're going to have to take Scalia off the court in a gurney. He's a lifer.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 14, 2008 12:47 PM
Re Phaedrus
1. The folks in Florida and New Hampshire who voted for Nader in 2000 because they considered Gore insufficiently different from Bush are responsible for the presence of Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. Voters in a competitive state who vote for Nader in 2008 on the premise that Obama and McCain are tweedle dum and tweedle dee will be equally responsible for more such scumbags on the Supreme Court.
2. By all means, if Mr. Phaedrus lives in Utah, vote for Nader with a clear conscience as no Democrat will carry that state. Equally, if Mr. Phaedrus lives in Maryland, vote for Nader with a clear conscience as Obama will carry that state regardless. If however, Mr. Phaedrus lives in Virginia or New Hampshire or Iowa, a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. It's called cutting off ones' nose to spite ones face.
3. The notion that McCain and Obama are equally bad and that therefore neither is worthy of Mr. Phaedrus' vote is a pile of fucking crap. The same argument was made in 2000 relative to Bush and Gore and look how that turned out! Anyway one want's to put it, Obama is, at worst, clearly the lesser of the two evils. By the way, I am far from being an Obamabot. I voted for Edwards in the Virginia primary and have a number of reservation about Senator Obama, particularly relative to his Middle East positions and some of his Israel bashing advisers. However, the Democratic voters have spoken and we are faced with the choice we are given. Nader is not an option in a competitive state. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (but I don't want to consider that)
4. I agree with Mr. Phaedrus relative to Senator Obamas' vote on the FISA authorization bill. However, if his vote turns out to make the difference between winning and losing in November, I will forgive him.
Posted by: SLC | July 14, 2008 1:19 PM
SC nominations are the one overriding issue for me in this election. I think it's already tilted too far to the right.
Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2008 1:30 PM
May I paraphrase SLC?
I will vote to support the overturning of the rule of law because the other guy will overturn more laws.
I will vote to support the desecration of the constitution because the other guy will cancel even more liberties.
I will vote for one of the two candidates that the establishment has handed us because I want to WIN!
This is right out of Orwell. In order to protect the constitution we need to break it (a little), in order to protect our rights we need to give some of them up.
Let me ask you, would you vote for Hitler if he were opposed by Pol Pot? (I'm NOT calling Obama Hitler, I'm just trying to see how far your reasoning goes)
You don't feel adherence to the rule of law and the constitution are necessary for your candidate, is there any issue(s) that would keep you from voting for Obama (if you could convince yourself McCain were worse)? If McCain advocating arresting war protestors, but Obama would only arrest half of them - does he get your vote? You see my point.
I believe that rule of law, based on the constitution, are necessary to keeping and making America great. I can get over Obama's lie, but a candidate that throws those aside loses my vote. I'll find someone else who supports what I believe. You call that "throwing away my vote", I call it having basic principles and voting for my children's future.
BTW, it's only fucks like you, who insist on voting for Obama even after he's betrayed America, that have enabled the Democrats we currently have.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 1:48 PM
Why does everyone call Scalia, Thomas, Bork and cohorts as "conservative" or "strict constructionists"? Where is the conservative idea that government power is not to be trusted and held in check? AFAICT strict constructionist is a nonsense word. No one really knows what was on the minds of the founding fathers, but as far as it can be seen, this group hardly follows the Federalist Papers. They are authoritarians and corporatists [anti-labor] on almost every issue. Call them what they are - semi-cryptofascists.
And by historical standards, the "liberals" hardly measure up to William O Douglas or Thurgood Marshall. They're really just middle-of-the-road.
Posted by: natural cynic | July 14, 2008 1:57 PM
I'm sorry, but all this business about "a vote for x third party is a vote for McCain" is such crap and I'm sick of it already--in July! It only makes sense to think that way if you believe Obama has some kind of preexisting right to your vote, which he does not. If you want to hold your nose, I don't particularly care, but don't act like it's so noble. It just means we have to deal with more of the same the next time around.
Also, SLC, you may not be an Obamabot, but you are a Democrat. Are independent voters who vote for a third party in a competitive state also voting for McCain? Such an idea would be absurd. I might prefer Obama as president compared with McCain, but there's no way I would actually cast my vote for him.
Posted by: nicole | July 14, 2008 2:08 PM
nicole said:
That's my feeling as well, but I have to admit that I take a bit of comfort in knowing that I vote as a Texas resident, meaning that my third party vote will never count. It's easier to vote your conscience when you know full well that doing so won't matter.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 2:15 PM
Re Phaedrus
1. Mr. Phaedrus is seriously in error in claiming that the Democratic establishment is responsible for the victory of Senator Obama. Most of the Democratic establishment supported Senator Clinton. Senator Obama won because he was able to mobilize grass roots support, not because of establishment support. To some extent, the same was true of Senator McCain who the Republican establishment did not get behind until the elimination of former governor Romney and the apparent rise of former governor Huckabee.
2. Mr. Phaedrus has got to be kidding us in comparing the choice between Senator Obama and Senator McCain to a fictitious choice between Pol Pot and Hitler. This is not only stupid but insulting to both senators, who are, in fact basically honorable men as politicians go.
3. It was stupid and ignorant fucktards in Florida and New Hampshire, like Mr. Phaedrus, who sent Dubya to the White House. I only hope that Mr. Phaedrus and his scumbag ilk live in non-competitive states.
4. Mr. Phaedrus asks a good question as to what would cause me to vote for Senator McCain. The answer is that if it became clear that Senator Obama was in favor of forcing the Government of Israel to go out of business, as Mr. Nader is, I would have no hesitancy in supporting Senator McCain.
Posted by: SLC | July 14, 2008 2:17 PM
I have to wonder if when somebody cuts Mr. SLC off in traffic, he shouts "Fuck you, sir."
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 2:25 PM
I can't believe people are even having this discussion in 2008. Hasn't this country been hurt enough by selfish short sighted idealists who rail against the two party system?
Of course if you were inclined to vote for McCain, rail away, go ahead vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul... in fact I think I'm going to go write a check for both of them.
Posted by: Ben | July 14, 2008 2:44 PM
And to relate this to a frequent topic at SciBlogs: Would it be too much to suggest we might even have to worry about Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard? Wasn't Scalia in the dissenting minority on the latter case?
The recent small victory at Dover might be completely negated if two religious right favored justices replaced Stevens and Ginsburg.
Posted by: Wes | July 14, 2008 2:53 PM
I made it clear I was not comparing the current candidates to Hitler and Pol Pot. Your deliberate mis-characterization is insulting, and it avoids answering the question.
Let's be clear, it was the 50% of Americans that voted for Dubya (and the supreme court) that sent him to the white house.
You mis-state my question again. I'm not asking what it would take to make you vote for McCain, I'm asking if there is any issue that would make you vote for neither.
Let's use your example - suppose Obama supports for deporting all Israelis. McCain would leave them in place but give all administrative control of Israeli lands to the Palestinians - would you vote for either or find another candidate?
The idea that the status of a foreign country trumps the well being of your America (I'm assuming you're American, please correct me if I'm wrong) shows that you really have your priorities out of whack.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 2:56 PM
Phaedrus: Obama opposes evil inconsistently. McCain, and the rest of the Republican Party, support the same evil consistently. The choice is still clear.
The Republicans won by uniting; the Democrats, and progressives in general, lost by remaining divided out of sheer spite. No, Obama is not "entitled" to our vote; but the only way to make any improvements in this country is to gather together and vote for Obama this year. Ralph Nader -- who has accepted sizable donations from Republicans and whose ballot petitions have been rejected in some states due to outright fraud -- is, quite simply, not a serious option; and neither is any other minor-party wacko. Those are the facts on the ground; if you can't live with them, then stop pretending to care about your country.
Does the phrase "partial victory" ring ANY bells with you?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 3:25 PM
Re Gretchen
1. I would point out to Ms. Gretchen that Mr. Phaedrus called me a fuck in a comment previous to that comment.
Re Phaedrus
1. The answer to Mr. Phaedrus' question is yes; given his hypothetical, I would vote for neither.
2. Mr. Phaedrus is sadly misinformed. The shitheads in Florida and New Hampshire who voted for Nader instead of Gore because then Vice President Gore wasn't pure enough for them elected Dubya. Mr. Phaedrus can prevaricate all he wants to, it won't change the facts. And as a matter of fact, Dubya didn't get anywhere near 50% of the popular vote in 2000. In fact, Gore got some 1/2 million votes more then Dubya did so don't blame the plurality, they voted for the better man.
I suggest that Mr. Ben has it right. This is a conversation that is totally frivolous, given what happened in 2000 and the resulting mess that President Obama will be asked to rectify.
Posted by: SLC | July 14, 2008 3:31 PM
Since when is refusing to support the destruction of our constitution "mere spite"?
"but the only way to make any improvements in this country is to gather together and vote for Obama this year"
Quit being so short sighted. Nibbling away at the constitution so we can WIN this year is a long term road to disaster. By supporting Obama you are simply enabling the dismantling of our constitution at a slower pace - this is acceptable to you?
Do not let your lust to WIN overwhelm your sense of duty to your country and the constitution. Understand that your vote for Obama indicates that you support him (through what ever rationalization process you desire) and his policies, that you've made your peace with them. I fail to grok people who find the desecration of the constitution acceptable on the grounds that McCain would REALLY desecrate them.
No one dares answer the question - where does it stop? If McCain would arrest people who speak out against the war, but Obama would only arrest those who spoke directly against soldiers - would you vote for him?
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 3:35 PM
Nibbling away at the constitution so we can WIN this year is a long term road to disaster.
In case you haven't noticed, the Republicans have been the most ardent and effective nibblers. Do you not agree that we would all be safer if they were removed from power?
By supporting Obama you are simply enabling the dismantling of our constitution at a slower pace - this is acceptable to you?
Actually, if he gets elected, then he, and the rest of the liberals who support him, will have a better chance of STOPPING the process altogether. You got a problem with that?
I fail to grok people who find the desecration of the constitution acceptable on the grounds that McCain would REALLY desecrate them.
I guess you also fail to grok the concept of accepting short-term sacrifice for long-term, multi-step gains.
No one dares answer the question - where does it stop?
Yes, we have answered that question: it stops when we make common cause with the rest of the electorate, and unite to vote out the worst offenders. (It certainly didn't stop when you voted for Nader, did it? When are you so-called "progressives" going to learn from your past failures? It's not like you don't have enough material to study.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 3:44 PM
Thank you, SLC, for that answer.
So, you would withhold your vote if the issue were something important - like support for Israel - but not for something as trivial as maintaining the rule of law or upholding the constitution.
Hmmmmmmm. I'm numb. What kind of patriot would watch the ruin of his own country - vote FOR it even - while holding the well being of a foreign country sacrosanct. I must confess I do not understand you at all.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 3:45 PM
Oh, and what's so horrible about wanting to win an election? Since when was it a sin to want to see people with values similar to ours in power?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 3:46 PM
Understand that your vote for Obama indicates that you support him (through what ever rationalization process you desire) and his policies, that you've made your peace with them.
That's utter horeshit. Voting for Obama is merely the first step toward getting ourselves a government where we can all debate the issues as adults, and question our leaders' ideas without having our patriotism questioned or our statements misrepresented by pond-scum like Karl Rove. If you don't consider that important, then what can you possibily have to offer your country?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 3:51 PM
The sin is wanting to vote for the winner so badly that you vote for someone who doesn't share your values.
Posted by: nicole | July 14, 2008 4:05 PM
Raging Bee,
"in case you haven't noticed, the Republicans have been the most ardent and effective nibblers. Do you not agree that we would all be safer if they were removed from power?"
By this rationalization the Iraq war is a huge success - you agree that anything was better than Saddam, right?
"Actually, if he gets elected, then he, and the rest of the liberals who support him, will have a better chance of STOPPING the process altogether. You got a problem with that?"
Hmmm. Explain that. You are asking me to support the dismantling part of the constitution on the chance that it will be re-mantled (and MORE!) when Obama is in office? Who's been hitting the bong a little hard, here?
"I guess you also fail to grok the concept of accepting short-term sacrifice for long-term, multi-step gains."
Walk me through this process, Bee. I want to see how many of your steps are imaginary, projections, and just plain goofy before I trade away my constitutional rights.
"Yes, we have answered that question: it stops when we make common cause with the rest of the electorate, and unite to vote out the worst offenders."
What a lark. Let me give you a more convincing narrative. People hold our nose and vote in Obama. The next president, whoever he is, is going to look like shit forced to make hard decisions navigating around the minefield left over the last 8 years (and longer). Four years from now, people HATE Obama and turn Republican. And what do we have to show for it? Any progressive reforms? Nope, we have the illegal Bush policies (now codified as mainstream by an Obama Administration) and a whole group of Republican war criminals, not in jail (because Impeachment is off the table, etc.) but running in opposition, saying "if only you'd stuck with us we would have won in Iraq and Iran". The Dem candidates are forced even MORE to the right, and so continuous the death spiral to facism.
I'm not against voting for an imperfect candidate - but this is where voting away your constitutional rights leads.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 4:08 PM
SLC,
I know; I was just amused by your genteel method of insulting someone.
Raging Bee,
Out of curiosity, what would constitute a deal-breaker for you in terms of supporting Obama- or indeed, any Democratic presidential candidate? What percentage of your values must he or she share in order to get your vote? Or is there a single issue on which you could differ which would negate your support for them entirely?
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 4:09 PM
I'm voting for Obama, both because he shares MORE of my values than the Republicans, and because he has the best chance of actually getting something decent done. So I don't think you need to worry about me voting for someone who doesn't share my values.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 4:09 PM
Gretchen: this election is all about character. The deal-breaker would be if the Democrats nominated someone more ignorant, more vacuous, more uncaring, and more morally-retarded than the post-Reagan Republican Party -- and even the worst of this year's Democratic contenders haven't sunk that low. There are policy issues as well, but those are only symptoms of deep defects in the character of the current policymakers. The Republicans are evil and anti-democratic, nothing they say can be trusted, and there is nothing more importrant at stake than punishing them for their malfeasance, and removing their character-defects from Washington.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 4:16 PM
The next president, whoever he is, is going to look like shit forced to make hard decisions navigating around the minefield left over the last 8 years (and longer). Four years from now, people HATE Obama and turn Republican. And what do we have to show for it?
So what alternative course of action do YOU propose? And what do you expect to have to show for it?
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 14, 2008 4:28 PM
Phaedrus - I certainly support your right to use your vote in support of whatever principles you hold dear. However, SLC and Raging Bee appear to be advocating performing an action (voting) with due consideration of the consequences of that action. The direct consequences and effects of a vote for any third-party candidate approach zero - since those candidates have zero chance of winning. Only a vote for Obama or McCain has a real chance of affecting the results of the election.
Politics is the art of the possible. Your arguments are for disengaging from what is possible, what is reality, in favor of what you WISH reality to be. As such, your supposed moral superiority is the same as that of any other academic, unwilling to get his hands dirty by dealing with the real world.
As I said, I support your right to vote as you choose - but stop claiming superiority over those who might actually have an effect on the results.
Posted by: BobApril | July 14, 2008 4:34 PM
SLC -
The shitheads in Florida and New Hampshire who voted for Nader instead of Gore because then Vice President Gore wasn't pure enough for them elected Dubya.
All right, I was in Michigan where it didn't matter, but I voted for Nader and wouldn't have regretted doing so if I happen to have lived on NH or FL. I have since come to change my opinion about Nader, but I can assure you that my vote for Nader was not a vote for bush. Had I not had the option of voting for Nader, I would have done the same thing I had done all my life; abstained.
And it had nothing to do with "purity" or other non-sense. I will not vote for someone that I do not wish to see in office and the last thing I wanted to see (excepting bush in office) was Gore as president.
Bee -
Yes, we have answered that question: it stops when we make common cause with the rest of the electorate, and unite to vote out the worst offenders.
No it doesn't. The "worse" offenders got voted out in '93, yet where did we end up in 2000? It has never ended anything, instead we just continue to swing back and forth.
It's not like you don't have enough material to study.
Certainly enough to know that just trying to get the worse out of office is never going to change things. Enough to know that when we get them out, they will be back in a few years, because you fucking republicratic fundies are too caught up in your fucking party politics to recognize this and actually change it.
This is nothing less than putting what's good for your party above whats good for America.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 14, 2008 4:54 PM
I would seriously disagree with this. One direct consequence of my not voting for Obama will be his winning by one less vote, which is the most I can personally do to affect what he will consider his mandate. Another consequence will be to add a vote to the ranks of the third parties, thus doing the little, tiny bit I can to help people break out of the two-party mindset. I consider my vote much more valuably spent even doing that little bit to go against the entitlement felt by the two major parties.
Also, so much of this discussion presupposes that of Obama and McCain there is some kind of easy choice. I don't see it. They both propose terrible policies, use terrible rhetoric, and have goals extremely divergent from my own.
Posted by: nicole | July 14, 2008 4:59 PM
Why the hell can't America have preferential voting, so we can stop this bullshit about people who voted for Nader "electing" Bush? And perhaps even stop having presidents who interpret their election as a mandate of unqualified approval, as opposed to "Really scary, but not as scary as the other guy"?
Posted by: Gretchen | July 14, 2008 5:05 PM
I take your point, Bob, but let me throw it back to you - what difference does your vote make to either of the two major candidates? When has a major election ever been decided by a single vote? It's a heard mentality, isn't it, and as long as people keep telling themselves they only have two choices, they will only have two choices.
But more importantly, I think there are issues worth not supporting. I'm just so amazed that people would rather support any sort of destructive rubbish rather than "throw their vote away" on a different candidate.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 5:09 PM
"heard" should be "herd"...
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 5:11 PM
Re Phaedrus
In case Mr. Phasdrus has forgotten, the margin between Dubya and Gore in 2000 in Florida was about 200 votes when the Supreme Court ordered the counting stopped. In fact, it could well be argued that, given the outsize vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Dubya was elected by the confusion of some 1000 elderly voters relative to the butterfly ballot therein.
Re Duwayne
I realize that the Braytons tend to be Libertarians and vote Libertarian but is Mr. Duwayne Brayton seriously contending that Al Gore was not significantly better then Dubya? Does Mr. Duwayne Brayton seriously contend that Supreme Court appointments by a President Al Gore would have been as bad as Roberts and Alito?
Posted by: SLC | July 14, 2008 7:15 PM
"In case Mr. Phasdrus has forgotten, the margin between Dubya and Gore in 2000 in Florida was about 200 votes when the Supreme Court ordered the counting stopped. In fact, it could well be argued that, given the outsize vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Dubya was elected by the confusion of some 1000 elderly voters relative to the butterfly ballot therein."
Missing the point, SLC. Bob has said that I waste my vote if I vote my conscience and not for one of his approved candidates. I pointed out that, by that logic, any votes for any candidate that doesn't win are wasted, and any vote above the needed amount for the winner are wasted. And so, all of the people in Florida who voted for anyone but Bush wasted their vote.
His idea that only a D or R can win is self fulfilling. If he, and people like him, would stop acting this way it would stop being true.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 7:51 PM
Re: Phaedrus, and the ensuing argument.
Those who are criticizing Nader voters for electing Bush are right in the collective sense, but that doesn't translate into direction for an individual. It was the number of Nader voters (assuming--a reasonably iffy assumption--that they would have gotten off their duffs and gone to the polls to actually cast a Gore vote if Nader hadn't been in it) that caused the Bush victory (or at least one of the major factors).
However, that does not provide direction for any particular person. If all the Nader voters had voted Gore, then it would have been perfectly safe for Citizen X to vote Nader. Likewise, given that all the Nader voters actually voted Nader, there would have been no reason for Citizen X not to vote Nader. As Public Choice theory has taught us, individual rationality does not necessarily equal collective rationality,>/b> but that doesn't mean any particular individual ought to behave differently.
And since no person's vote can change the outcome, no individual ought to vote based on that goal. All your vote really does is express your desire to participate and your candidate preference, so anyone who doesn't vote their preference is wasting their vote by chasing a goal they can't achieve.
(And before you say, yeah, but what if everybody did that, look at the logic of the argument again--it does not matter what everybody else does; what everybody else does cannot affect the utility of your vote.)
That said, I don't quite get Phaedrus's point. He's going to vote for whom because Obama hasn't defended the Constitution--a Green Party candidate who sees no limits on government's regulatory power? I really don't think defense of the Constitution is the correct statement of the issue, but that, once again, the Democratic candidate isn't left-wing enough to satisfy the left wing. For my part, that's about all I find palatable about the Democrats.
Posted by: James Hanley | July 14, 2008 7:56 PM
Not sure who I shall vote for this November.
And you misstate. Obamas fault was not the he failed to defend the constitution. He actual voted for a bill that would violate the constitution. If he tried to block it and failed, we'd be having a different conversation. But he actual defended his actions for security reasons. I had hoped we were all finished with blowhards who justify their misdeeds by scaring us... but apparently it is ok if you have a D after your name.
I'm tired to death of people trying to frame this as a quest for purity by some crazed lefties. I vote for my democratic senator, though we have differences of opinion. This isn't about left/right, progressive/conservative or Republican/Democrat. It is about our civil liberties that form the bedrock of America, and if we are willing to give them away, what is left to us?
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 8:23 PM
Re Phaedrus
Earlier on, Mr. Phaedrus posed the scenario that if Obama loses, things will become so bad under a President McCain that a Democrat more to Mr. Phaedrus' liking will be nominated in 2012. What is the guarantee of such an outcome? In fact, it is also possible that someone even more objectionable to Mr. Phaedra then Senator Obama could be nominated. The most likely such candidate would be Mark Warner, if he wins the Senate seat in Virginia this November. I don't know his opinion of the FISA bill but he is generally considered more centrist then is Senator Obama, as befits someone from a Southern state.
Posted by: SLC | July 14, 2008 8:59 PM
Re Phaedra
Incidentally, if Mayor Bloomberg of New York City had chosen to run as an independent, I might well have seriously considered voting for him.
Posted by: SLC | July 14, 2008 9:01 PM
You make good points, SLC. The future is uncertain. And the year 2012 may come and the candidates may be even more unpalatable. But if they will agree to a support the constitution and rule of law, at a minimum, I would be able to hold my nose and vote. I think that is a reasonable threshold for any American to have.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 14, 2008 10:43 PM
Re Phaedrus
Mr. Phaesrus, been there, done that. In 1968, I refused to vote for Hubert Humphrey because of his involvement in the Vietnam War, a stance not unlike that which Mr. Phaedrus is contemplating. A sufficient number of my fellow Californians did likewise to give the state to Nixon and resulted in his election. In 1972, the Democratic nominee was George McGovern, who would probably have qualified as a Phaedrus wet dream. The result was a landslide for Nixon. The upshot of this sordid tale is that one should be careful about what one wishes for, as he/she may get it.
Posted by: SLC | July 15, 2008 8:00 AM
I agree w/ Ben. If you don't want 4/8 more years of "fun", you're insane to throw away another election.
Posted by: tincture | July 15, 2008 8:35 AM
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
- Voltaire
Phaedrus - you may want to think about what Voltaire meant by this. :)
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 15, 2008 9:00 AM
*sigh*
Do you even read the thread?
I've dealt with your childish representations before, tincture and Gingeraker.
One of the strong points of the left, I thought, was that we used our brains and hearts to develop policies - not knee jerk reactions and straw men. You guys are like fox news of the left, just keep spouting talking points with your fingers in your ears while you vote away your civil rights. The fucking thing about it is your going to vote away my civil rights as well.
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 15, 2008 10:35 AM
One direct consequence of my not voting for Obama will be his winning by one less vote, which is the most I can personally do to affect what he will consider his mandate.
Yeah, right -- President Obama's gonna look at the vote totals, realize to his horror that you didn't vote for him, and suddenly decide he has less mandate than he originally thought he had? And then in response to your refusal to vote, he's gonna read your mind and change...what? His budget proposal? His first SOTU address? What change should we look for as proof that your non-statement was heard?
And no, that's not "the most you can personally do." You could get politically active in any campaign, at any level, affecting your local area, and make yourself heard by action and results, rather than by inaction, lack of results, and brain-dead irresponsibility.
Also, so much of this discussion presupposes that of Obama and McCain there is some kind of easy choice. I don't see it. They both propose terrible policies, use terrible rhetoric, and have goals extremely divergent from my own.
Really? I must have been asleep when a Democratic Predident invaded the wrong country, botched two wars, squandered a budget surplus, gummed up every bill he signed with signing statements, invented the "enemy combattant" designation to evade international law, told everyone to waste more money to fight the terrists, whipped up a lot of base insanity over Elian, Shiavo, evolution, gay marriage, Monica, Muslims, flag-burning, etc... Refresh my memory -- which Democrat did all that again?
And which of Obama's goals are "extremely divergent from your own?"
If you "don't see" the difference between Democrats and Republicans, then you are blind, stupid, uncaring, uneducable by choice, and not worth trying to pursuade. Either that, or you're a Republican trying to manipulate the opposition, just like they manipulate Nader, Ron Paul, Hillary's most bitter supporters, and possibly Barr as well. Get off your lazy ass and do some research already.
...what difference does your vote make to either of the two major candidates?
I find it truly pathetic that the only way to justify voting for a minor party, is by pretending the vote doesn't count so we're not really responsible for the consequences of our actions. If the vote doesn't count, then what's the point of voting at all?
The truth is, our votes DO count, and pretnding they don't is childish, nihilistic, and pathologically irresponsible. I WANT my vote to count, and I want it to count in a way that I can predict in advance. Voting for a loser like Nader, than praying that others vote the right way to get the right result, is not my style.
It's a heard mentality, isn't it, and as long as people keep telling themselves they only have two choices, they will only have two choices.
It's spelled "herd," not "heard," and no, acknowledging objective reality is not "herd mentality" (funny, I hear the same nonsense from denialists of all sorts); it's what responsible grownups do when they want to get something decent done in the real world. All you're doing here is pretending the lameness of your precious third-party asshats is all our fault, 'cause we don't believe hard enough. Sorry, this is reality, not "Peter Pan." (And if you think that voting for someone like Nader or Paul is "principled," then you obviously haven't bothered to study your candidates -- they're even less principled than McSame.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 15, 2008 11:05 AM
Earlier on, Mr. Phaedrus posed the scenario that if Obama loses, things will become so bad under a President McCain that a Democrat more to Mr. Phaedrus' liking will be nominated in 2012. What is the guarantee of such an outcome?
A lot of dimwitted, self-serving extremists tried this in other countries back in the last century; the most obvious case in point being the German Communist Party, who supported the Nazis hoping that their extremism would provoke a revolution, which the Commies would then hope to win. Given the result of that sort of destructive politics, I find it amazing that anyone would be so morally bankrupt as to advocate it today.
Posted by: RAging Bee | July 15, 2008 11:12 AM
Phaedrus: I asked you earlier to describe a specific alternative to supporting Obama, and what specific results we could expect from it; and you gave us none. Therefore, you have no case, no policy, no vision, no alternative; so shut up anready and stop pretending you're better or more principled than us.
One of the strong points of the left, I thought, was that we used our brains and hearts to develop policies...
Yeah, and then you made asses of yourselves to the point where none of your policies got any support. And you wonder why no one respects "the left?"
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 15, 2008 11:17 AM
Re Raging Bee
Apparently, Mr. Phaedrus has never heard of George McGovern.
Posted by: SLC | July 15, 2008 12:27 PM
I don't have an answer for that, Bee. I haven't decided what I'll do come November, yet. Maybe Wesley Clark?
You say a lot of wrong things, Bee. You put words in my mouth and build straw men that don't represent my positions just so you can make fun of them and knock them down.
Go read Glenn Greenwalds latest if you think Dems and Repubs are so different.
I immediately corrected the "herd" thing, in the next post. Do you really want to discuss ideas or are you just an Obamanut troll looking to deride someone.
Comes down to this. You think the world will end if McCain is elected. You think Obama will be a pretty good (if not great president). So you can overlook what you see as a few flaws in Obama.
I think McCain will be a horrible president, but people are starting to wake up to the Repub shenanigans and won't give him the benefit of the doubt like they did Bush, so I think he'll be kept in check. I think Obama would be a pretty good president in some ways - but a complete disaster in others. I think he'll really help social services and bring a sense of hope and purpose back to America. But the tragedy is that that hope and purpose will be a lie, since he will do nothing to change the actual course of our nation. He has already shown his disrespect for our constitution, and hasn't said a word about calling the people responsible for this mess to account. We'll have Watergate all over again, where pardons and free-passes abound. And, like now, we'll have these same actors, or people who have learned from them, not becoming the pariahs they should be, but waiting in the wings to take back power, and this time for good.
Now, I am willing to be educated - I have not been an astute or even a particularly informed student of politics (don't know much about McGovern). But you'll have to do better than "Obama is better than McCain" to convince me to vote for any candidate that so willingly whittles away at my constitutional rights.
The floor is yours, Bee
Posted by: Phaedrus | July 15, 2008 5:58 PM
I've not been following this argument (err...conversation) and I'm frankly to lazy to go reread all of it but I'll interject my thoughts nevertheless.
McCain won't make a good president. Thats really all I have to say about that.
I was initially pretty charmed by Obama but after FISA...his new brand of politics apparently dismissing the Constitution for political gain.
Voting for a Dem or Repub because they win is akin to a public official lying to the public because the other side will too.
Posted by: Kp | July 15, 2008 6:12 PM
Yes I read it and no you didn't deal w/ anything. Claiming that abstaining out of spite doesn't equal voting for McCain doesn't make it true.
Posted by: tincture | July 15, 2008 8:47 PM
Re Phaedra
Mr. Phaedra knows little about George McGovern. I would suggest that before posting more drivel on this blog that he do so research on the 1972 election. Senator McGovern was just the type of candidate that Mr. Phaedra would drool over. He lost by 20 points. The fact is that the American voting public leans to the right and always has. Even the most liberal Democratic presidents have been at best modestly progressive, e.g. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson, or centrists, e.g. Carter and Clinton. Someone seen as far to the left like McGovern has no chance.
Posted by: SLC | July 15, 2008 8:58 PM
Do you really want to discuss ideas or are you just an Obamanut troll looking to deride someone.
I have a pretty simple idea: unite against a common enemy. You oppose that idea and have no better alternative to offer. What else is there to discuss? Why is this simple political strategy suddenly so alien and evil to your understanding?
...people are starting to wake up to the Repub shenanigans and won't give him the benefit of the doubt like they did Bush, so I think he'll be kept in check.
We thought the same thing about Bush Jr. back in 2000. We were wrong. I, for one, have no desire to repeat that mistake all over again. Besides, if the American people can keep McSame in check, why can't we keep Obama in check? I'm really amazed that you're so terrified of Obama, but think McCain and Rove will, by machinations you fail to describe, be magically rendered more harmless then they were in the last eight years. The extreme left have always made that mistake vis a vis the extreme right, ever since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and even before. They always get proven disasterously wrong, and they never learn from the mistake.
But the tragedy is that that hope and purpose will be a lie, since he will do nothing to change the actual course of our nation. He has already shown his disrespect for our constitution, and hasn't said a word about calling the people responsible for this mess to account.
How do you know what he'll do? And how do you know how successful he'll be? Just because a candidate doesn't say something while running, doesn't mean he won't do anything about it afterword. How much did FDR say on the trail about his desire to crush the Nazis?
Again, how do you know this? This is one reason lefties like you have nothing to offer: you have nothing but negativity, no faith in anyone, nothing positive to offer -- and then you wonder why the happy-talking optimist on the Republican side always leaves you in the dust. This is exactly the same mistake the "left" made in 1980: they mocked Reagan's simple optimism, but didn't understand it, and were caught completely by surprise when huge numbers of voters were attracted to it.
Now, I am willing to be educated...
Then work on your attention span and read some damn newspapers already. Or the Economist. Or Mother Jones. Or any decent set of blogs, ferfucksake. It doesn't take a lot to see the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Hello? War in Iraq? Record national debt? Warnings about terrorist attacks ignored? Does ANY of this mean ANYTHING to you?
And no, I'm not an Obamanaut. I'm a Reagan Democrat who would have had no problem with a Republican of the Reagan/Bush Sr. mold in the White House. Even many Republicans understand how low their party has sunk, so you really have no excuse to pretend you don't see any difference.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 15, 2008 9:33 PM
Do you really want to discuss ideas or are you just an Obamanut troll looking to deride someone.
I have a pretty simple idea: unite against a common enemy. You oppose that idea and have no better alternative to offer. What else is there to discuss? Why is this simple political strategy suddenly so alien and evil to your understanding?
...people are starting to wake up to the Repub shenanigans and won't give him the benefit of the doubt like they did Bush, so I think he'll be kept in check.
We thought the same thing about Bush Jr. back in 2000. We were wrong. I, for one, have no desire to repeat that mistake all over again. Besides, if the American people can keep McSame in check, why can't we keep Obama in check? I'm really amazed that you're so terrified of Obama, but think McCain and Rove will, by machinations you fail to describe, be magically rendered more harmless then they were in the last eight years. The extreme left have always made that mistake vis a vis the extreme right, ever since the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and even before. They always get proven disasterously wrong, and they never learn from the mistake.
But the tragedy is that that hope and purpose will be a lie, since he will do nothing to change the actual course of our nation. He has already shown his disrespect for our constitution, and hasn't said a word about calling the people responsible for this mess to account.
How do you know what he'll do? And how do you know how successful he'll be? Just because a candidate doesn't say something while running, doesn't mean he won't do anything about it afterword. How much did FDR say on the trail about his desire to crush the Nazis?
We'll have Watergate all over again, where pardons and free-passes abound. And, like now, we'll have these same actors, or people who have learned from them, not becoming the pariahs they should be, but waiting in the wings to take back power, and this time for good.
Again, how do you know this? This is one reason lefties like you have nothing to offer: you have nothing but negativity, no faith in anyone, nothing positive to offer -- and then you wonder why the happy-talking optimist on the Republican side always leaves you in the dust. This is exactly the same mistake the "left" made in 1980: they mocked Reagan's simple optimism, but didn't understand it, and were caught completely by surprise when huge numbers of voters were attracted to it.
Now, I am willing to be educated...
Then work on your attention span and read some damn newspapers already. Or the Economi