Thanks, Rev!

I actually went as Darth Vadar this Halloween.

What? This is about you voting for judges, and yet it was the LEFT-leaning judges who supported the restoration of rights for Hamdi and the RIGHT-leaning judges who dissented.

If you weren't full of doggy-doo, and your litmus test for the candidates is solely based on judges, and you really were against what the government was doing, then you should be voting for Obama.



And yet, even though you claim that your sole reason for voting is to protect those rights, you voted for the president who undermined those very same Constitutional rights for US citizens. And you support a candidate who would appoint judges who would likely vote for upholding those suspensions of rights.

50/50

Obama or McKinney

Probably McKinney (Green Party). If Obama were a white man with the same empty talking points/mainstream positions, I wouldn't even be considering voting for him.

Or maybe I'll vote for McCain just to fudge the whole thing up. It's not like one person is going to be able to alter the collective human trajectory anyway.

Perhaps you should go read Hamdi again. I agree with the Scalia/Stevens dissent and Scalia is generally thought of as the right-wing bogeyman. They went all out in pointing out habeas corpus had never been suspended and that the executive therefore had no authority to detain.

The majority opinion sought a middle ground and was bipartisan.

Only Thomas suggested the Executive's power in the area of detention under his war powers was plenary.

No judge fully agrees with my positions on the Constitution. I simply think a McCain candidate would tend to agree with me more often than an Obama candidate would.

I'm sure that Obama's views and any judges he would appoint would disagree with me on Lopez, Morrison, Printz, Kelo, Keller, Raich, Seminole Tribe, Florida Prepaid, Hans, Wicker, etc. We might run into common grounds on some criminal procedure issues, but there are sacrifices in every voting decesion.

Isn't Thomas your favorite justice, the guy you wish would run for president? THE most activist judge, the most ardent defender and supporter of Bush's policies? And on important BASIC Constitutional rights, like indefinite detention of US citizens, access to courts, torture, and habeas corpus, the fact is that judges who sided with the administration have been right-leaning.

The simple fact is that it has nothing to do with any of this anyway, which is why your reasoning doesn't really add up, like your rather contradictory views of the CA gay marriage case vs the DC gun law case. It's not really about the Constitution, but about which issue (gay rights/gun rights) is supported by Republicans.

You said you would never ever vote for a Democrat, period. Frankly, is any argument even necessary when you've already point-blank ruled out voting for Obama? That doesn't leave a whole lot of options. Barr or Paul, but you're sure not going to vote for a TRUE libertarian.

which is disappointing because I feel so alone being the only Barr supporter

I don't like Barr at all, but I admire a principled vote. So I respect your support of him, even if I don't agree with him on much. It's why I like Ron Paul.

I get tired of these partisan Republicans who pretend like they're libertarians. No true libertarian could continue to defend Bush or vote for McCain.

Kidrock is a party team loyalist, period. He said he will never vote for a Democrat. That's not a principle. It's blind partisan nonsense, and his excuses regarding the Constitution, after it has been shredded by the guy he voted for, are retrofitted bullcrap.

i disagree with Barr on trying to impreach Clinton. I thought that was just plain foolish.

Obama 318
McCain 220
(my projection).

Beeble, saying I will never vote for a Democrat does not make me a "blind party loyalist." That doesn't equate to "I will always vote Republican."

You're right Beeble, no true libertarian could vote for McCain. The only problem is McCain isn't running against Barry Goldwater or John Gault or Milton Friedman. He is running against Barack Obama. In elections we have choices, I feel McCain is closer to my libertarian leanings than Barack Obama.

Jim can throw away his vote for impeachment master Bob Barr all he likes (which is the real reason you find no quibble with him), yet I choose to vote for someone who least restrictions my principles and has somewhat of a chance to win.

Have you ever noticed how partisan you are? Have you ever not went out of your way to voice vitriol towards any Republican, except one's who bad mouth other Republicans? I suspect that is why you claim to have supported John McCain in 2000. However, if push had come to shove, we all know you would never have voted for McCain then.

beeble and i have had many "quibbles" in the past and still do.

Well, there are plenty of third-party candidates you could vote for who would supposedly be closer to your allegedly libertarian views, but you didn't vote for them, did you?



You claim not be be a party loyalist, but given the choice in voting for someone who is closer to your views but isn't a Republican, you chose the Republican. Not exactly a surprise, is it.



I don't claim to be something I'm not. I'm a Democrat but I do vote for Reps and third-party. I'm a liberal, but I can argue for my candidate on principled grounds. I don't lie to myself and others about being a libertarian or voting based on judges or whatever the hell nonsense you come up with (especially given your support of Bush the last 8 years) when, in reality, you are simply never going to vote for a Democrat by your own admission, and since you also claim that your choice is narrowed to someone who has "somewhat of a chance of winning" that means ALWAYS voting for a Republican.

What's funny is that you think "I will never vote for a Democrat" actually sounds less stupid than "I will only vote for Republicans."

And why I have no quibble with you voting for a guy who tried to impeach Clinton? I've expressed my dislike for Barr before. I simply said that I admire a principled vote. That's not something that Kidrock apparently understands.

Maybe McCain is more winnable than Barr?

why? you could have gone as yourself.

That would have been a little too scary for the kids.

I actually said implied that in my original post which he purposefully miscomprehended. Barr has no chance at winning, hence it would be a vote for Obama.

Who have you voted for that are Republicans, Beeble? Schwarzenegger? I've voted for democrats for local office where partisanship is of no import, like county coroner. Who was the last Republican you voted for for President? Senate? The House? Unless you decide to lie, my guess is nobody.

i voted Conservative in 2004.

A lot of democrats and moderates liked Pre-2001-2002 McCain...


I remember during the Bush years, conservative Democrats use to sing his praises.


Now the man is different, and has lost a lot of respect and clout.


I like the democrats mostly, but I am not a blind sheep, who follows one party or man.

Like I support Obama, but he has great faults.

The good thing is that McCain has more.

You see, KR, I'm not like you. I think about things. I like to have the facts on my side. I may be wrong sometimes but I TRY not to be a hypocrite. You, on the other hand, simply don't care. It's not about principle. It's about the party, period. Look at the difference in your reaction to the CA gay marriage court decision vs the DC gun ban decision. You argued the gay marriage ban decision up and down judicial activism actually meant something to you, only to immediately abandon everything when the DC gun decision came down, like you'd never said anything before about judicial activism. Ultimately what mattered was where your party stood on those issues.

And as I predicted, those who've consistently and tirelessly supported the Bush administration for 8 years were suddenly going to start arguing against Obama on Constitutional grounds like Bush never existed, like they hadn't supported torture or illegal wiretapping or suspension of habeas corpus or indefinite detention.

This lack of principle, honestly, irony, self-reflection are the unfortunate hallmarks of today's Republican party. You are exemplary of it.

As for Republicans I've supported/voted for, Arnold is the governor of California, not exactly a county coroner. He's also a McCain supporter for those who'd argue he's essentially a Democrat. He's a Republican. He's just not batshit fucking crazy like the Republicans you usually support.

He sold his soul to get elected. Or maybe we're finally seeing the true McCain. Either way, I don't care anymore. One has to wonder if he'll even be able to come to terms with what happened come Wednesday, provided things turn out like we think they're going to.

Can he rebuild his reputation or has he damaged it beyond repair?

Beeble, the two cases can be distinguished.

California case: Right of gay's to marry not specifically enumerated. The court found a "substantive" right inferred from the California Constitution.

Gun case: Court was grappling with an on-point law. It was specifically enumerated, the in the minds of some, ambiguous, i.e, individual or militia.