Yes a bold statement. But I have come to the conclusion that Kerry would make and overal greater president than Bush and decided to share this :).

There are a great many reasons for this but I would like to bring up one Extremely important topic that I think alot have overlooked. The ability of the President to select supreme court justices. Within this presidency there is the possibilty for 2 or even 3 supreme court justices to be replaced. That is of TREMENDOUS importance to the American people. This would decide our future and even our kids future. I think Bush is too bias and inane to select a Justice. Think about it. Take a topic such as the 10 commandments displayed within or outside government offices. Right now I believe there are only 3 justices in favor of keeping them. If Bush were to choose 3 justices, or hell even 2, I KNOW he would pick biased judges who would make faith based decisions every day just like he does. This is wrong for even the president to do, but a crucial mistake for a supreme court justice. The votes would go from primarly against the 10 commandments, to primarily for the 10 commandments. BUSH would be interpreting the constitution! Kerry on the other hand (I believe, definitly more so than Bush) would pick, fair, logical and non bias judges. They may have a faith or religious practice but I believe he would choose justices that would not allow this to determine their interpretation of the constitution. If Kerry chose 3, I believe they would look over the case, and it would be a toss up on whether they vote for or against the 2 major 10 commandment cases and the same for any other topic. We wouldnt be screwed for the next however many years with bias judges. Which is the way it should be. There are a great deal of important issues facing the supreme court right now, and more to come.
The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of our country. Do you want your President deciding this law, or a fair vote of 9 capable individuals, the way it was intended. Please take this into great consideration when casting your vote.

both sides are partisan...neither Bush nor Kerry would even dare to pick a justice that does not hold nearly all of their beliefs. Either way your getting a judge that will be biased. The important thing is you vote for the candidate who holds most of your beliefs, that way you will get justices that believe the same way you do.

I dont belief that, I think Kerry is much more caring about the idealogy of balance and fairness then you may think. And I dont want a justice that believes the same way I do, I want a justice that will rule regardless of their, or my beliefs, and strictly interpret the constitution.

Anthony, I heard that report on the age and health of our supreme court about a month ago on NPR. No other president has ever had the possible opportunity to so change the balance in history. Personally I feel that such a long term and far reaching decision is in the wrong persons hands to begin with. Being a president doesn't give you some divine insight into the decisions and consequences of law.
The possibilities of this next term could be frightning and effect generations to come. A completely right-wing panel with an agenda and a gavel. Far too much control.

I've always considered the Supreme Court as the most powerful domestic entity, much more influential than either the Legislative or Executive branches because of its manifest, long-term effects on our laws. Electing a president is a four or eight year gamble. Appointment of the justices is a thirty-year commitment.

its good to know that not everyone is uninformed of the importance in these decisions, I have met a many who are completely ignorant of the fact that supreme court justices may even be chosen on this term

OK lets face it. The office off Supreme Court justice is as political as any other office that is held in this country. And is as any, is influenced by other political parties and bureaucratic offices as any other. All you have to do is look at the Florida based ballet counts of the last presidential election. And as for the presidential beliefs and how the effect the judicial system they are and always be bias! My major concerns have to do more with the senate and congress and the true lack of interest in the Items at hand and how they are passed. First they need to read what they pass instead of being told what to pass do too the party request. They all need to develop a concise effort toward morality; and if it benefits the people and nation that they represent instead of them self’s. Blind faith is generally a wrong method of choice and only benefits the few. Who ever is chosen for the presidential position, will be more interested in the next photo op’ and the decisions that will be more lucrative; then they will be for benefit of the people. I do agree with Tracy in the respect that the supreme justice is the highest decision maker in the land and in that should be more responsible and should more and adherent to the overall out look in the full interest of it’s people. I also agree in part with Brett, that you should choose for the candidate that will fit more to our beliefs.
But to my beliefs I feel that a candidate should set religious and political aspirations a side for the over all needs of the people. There is more then one religious belief and more then one political party and ethnic race or level of financial stature in this country. We have to stop the active descent to only to levels of culture being the pour and the wealthy. We have to stop using the name off God to gain votes. After all if there is truly a God how would he or she feel to know that the word and teachings are being used for the manipulation of the people created by his or her hand.

preach it
agree 100%

if justices are completely held by the constitution then how do amendments get passed like the 17th Amendment effectively changing who gets to elect senators from the state legistatures to the people. There are times in which an activist is needed to shake up when an issue is unfair.

Prism i agree with you on all you said but your third sentence which i move to strike. :P

Any way you look at it, nine Justices have as much power as two-thirds of both Houses and ratification by three-quarters of all the States. Given that Bush could possibly appoint FOUR new Justices, this could have a profound effect on the nation and the world for a generation.

yes, but it's the same way if Kerry gets elected...

currently the Supreme Court is 4-3-2 (liberal-conservative-tiebreaker). Of the two most likely to step down one is a conservative(Rhenquist) and the other is a liberal(Stevens). If it is only these two that step down it can be certain that Bush will appoint two conservatives (making it 3-4-2). If Kerry gets elected he will appoint two liberals making it 4-2-2. If four justices step down though it becomes 2-6-1 or 6-2-1 (assuming the candidates are as partisan as they indeed are). Either way it is bad.

The problem is that multiple justices can step down in the time period of one term...I don't know why this hasn't been prevented somewhere along the nation's history(perhaps because the party in power likes having the power to choose justices and only when a party is out of power they realize something needs to be done). Something surely needs to be done though, because it threatens the stability of the nation.

Kerry has stated that he isnt going to simply choose "liberal" judges, while Bush has pretty much flat out said hes going to choose judges who fit into his point of view. So in my eyes, Kerry could be lying, but I would rather take the chance. That and "liberal" judges tend to be a bit more open minded and have more of a tendency to sway to a "conservative" point of view when the situation fits. While such has proved untrue for "conservative" judges. (quotes are because I dont like labels, people make up their own minds and rarely strictly fit into molds now adays)

no it's not that Kerry or Bush will be lying...

All decisions are made through what you believe to be right and wrong. Conservative and liberal is just a label to help show how you BELIEVE most of the time. Conservatives view themselves as right: freedom economically, restictions on social issues. Liberals believe in social freedoms and restrictions on the capitalistic approach. These two views are very different and in the normalized sence complete opposites. If put in the position to put judges onto the supreme court, either side will put up justices that believe the way they do, simply because they feel the other way is wrong. To conservatives, liberal politics is just a failed form of socialism; to liberals, conservative politics is a world where big business steps on people and people's rights. For most circumstances the label will show what side they would rather err to make for their ideal(no such thing) world.

Also I'm tired of religion being seen as bad for all reasons, religion is where most people get their morality from. Morality is another one of those things that make up decisions. Most religions preach fairness and sympathy. This fits in with the liberal belief system. In fact the most liberalistic people I know are Christians.

no one said religion was bad, agree that religious values usually encourage strong morals.
but it is wrong to make rules and laws based on your religion in this particular country because of the diversity of beliefs and non beliefs that we have. legislating based on any religion, even christianity, will not represent this countries population as a whole

Well said Anthony. I couldn't have morals without my spirituality but is it the same as yours? No. Qualification for the office we are talking about should be based on merit and achievement and not on a particular faiths interpretation of law and constitution.

Agree completely with dreamer...noobguy your statement is almost correct...it should be (in order for me to agree anyway)...It is wrong to make rules and laws on religion based on your religion. Some of the best leaders in this country's history have been religious. And some of the greatest decisions that have been made by this country have been made based by religion. However, to prevent encroachment of religious leaders onto the 1st amendment the seperation of church and state was made...it protects the government from encroaching on people's right to believe however they want. It however does not prevent the government from having any sort of religion...remember the gov't is made of people too.
Also no matter what noone in this world is unbiased whether it comes to spirituality or whatever...you must believe something...an atheist believes there is no god no matter what, an agnostic believes he does not know and thus will never know a God. Spirituality is part of who we are. If Bush votes on something based off of his religion it is not because he is trying to satisfy his religious feelings it is because that is who he is and it is that person was elected. Kerry himself is a Christian as well, this is part of who he is as well...he however believes in a more liberal interpretation of the Bible.

I tend to disagree, first I want to make it clear that the last part of your defition of agnosticism was added later in history (in fact very recently). I am agnostic because I dont know what do believe, or even to believe atall. I simply dont know, I havent commited nor not committed. I do not necessarily believe that I will never know, one day I may commit to a faith, I have no idea. So this definition "agnostic believes he does not know and thus will never know God" is incorrect. Agnosticism is not a belief. I would define it as a catgorization of people who "do not know whether to believe or disbelieve in God or any other theological entity."
Anyways, I dont think its wrong for a politician to have a religion and have morals based on religion. I think it is entirely possible to make an unbiased decision if you stop and take the time to think about the consequences of your decision for all people, rather than those who may think like you. I hope my ideas are flowing clearly, its very late, I should probably come back and read this post in tommorow.

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency...We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained." -- George Washington in his Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States.." "...Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency" From President George Washington's Inaugural Address, April 30th, 1789, addressed to both Houses of Congress. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." From President George Washington's Farewell Address : I found these quotes to be interesting do they have a place in this discussions. Dwight.

we are no longer in the 18th century, our country has become much more diverse and the fundemantal laws must evolve with the cultures of our people.

I see where you're going with this and you likely let your thoughts flow more clearly than I did. :) (talking about noobguy's post previous to his last one)

-the definition of an agnostic is how you say it is, however the reason most people are agnostic is because of the scientific persuasion (ie there is no such thing as absolute fact we don't know until we have concrete evidence). But it is important to look into what it would take to change your mind to become a Christian or otherwise. I myself am agnostic and if God came down in all his glory there is still a chance I wouldn't believe he existed(could have been a daydream, I must have fainted, etc) The point I'm trying to make is once you're agnostic it has to take a VERY strong case in order to change your mind and if you're hardheaded that evidence will never show up. This belief of unbelief tells a lot about who you are as well and has a strong influence on what you can become. The point I was trying to make with my prior post was, don't disagree with people because of what religion they are, that is a brand of stereotyping itself, instead disagree with their personal beliefs. Bringing religion into the mess usually ends up with people flaming each other and ultimately misunderstanding. Which is not what we want.
:)

-it is not possible to have an unbiased decision, because in order to say that you are unbiased you have to do what everyone believes is right ultimately, and since everyone thinks differently and everyone believes different things, this can not happen...the entire system of right and wrong is balanced entirely on everyone's different interpretation of morality. An example...drilling in Alaska...Environmentally -> oil drilling in Alaska is terrible, it destoys the delicate permafrost that is the very backbone of the ecosystem there(plus it doesn't grow very fast) Economically -> oil drilling decreases our dependence on foreign sources allowing us to keep prices relatively low. And of course there are more factors than this but these are the main two that I personally care about. So what is the right and unbiased decision on this matter? The answer is there isn't one...it's all based on how you view the world and what is important to you of which beliefs is one. :)

the right and unbias decision is to come up with a solution that lowers the amount pollution from oil while still being able to maintain production. the unbias decision is a hard one, decisions like this tho are not what the supreme court has to deal with. There usually is alot less grey area. But I see what you mean, there may be some bias involved but I dont believe it should be personal bias. If a court were to look at the case, see what would help the population more than hurt it then make a slanted decision, thats fine. But if a judge sees and idea, looks at his religion and immediately comes up with his judgement, that is wrong.

Agree with you about agnosticism, I see what you meant now. Most agnostics will probably be so their entire lives. Being agnostic is a testimant to the way ones mind works.

This really has nothing to do with it, but I am still reletively undecided. One thing I do know about Kerry, was that listening to him on the debate, I am thinking: Oh my god, we are going to be so much farther into debt. He has all these "plans" that would supposedly decrease middle class taxes (which seems favorable on our end), and yet give us all these benefits that are controlled by the government. Where are we going to get all this money when we are already in debt caused by Bush? I don't hate either person, but I am just scared that maybe Kerry is just sweet talking us, and maybe not a lot of people have considered the consequences of what these little benefits would bring us. I think that we would get so far into debt, that we would eventually get taxed anyways. And why tax heavier on the rich? I am not rich, but hey, they practically run our economy, and they are the investors. I do know that it is an unproportional tax rate, but Kerry just doesn't make much sence to me. He also seems rather insensitive for mentioning Cheny's(Spelling) daughter like that. It was not only a little odd, but irrelevant.

Kerrys full budget plans can be read online.

Link?

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/
plans can be found on the right in the economic plans column, detailed pdfs can be downloaded at the bottom on the right under detailed plans panel

personallly, i dont believe kerrys governemental model of healthcare can work, i mean if he governmentalizes the healthcare system then it is going to have a direct effect on our standard of living, so all these people he was trying to help by giving them healthcare will have healthcare but that money is going to be taken out of what there food, shelter, utilities? it just seems an empty campaign promise to me that cant be fulfilled, i dunno it is just really bothering me

i dont think he plans to governmentalize healthcare, he wants to offer a government plan, or make it available, but it would be completely optional.

There is already a health plan instated. Americans pay for it with taxes. And the illegal aliens get it for free, where the average citizen can’t get it at all. Sorry it’s the truth. My girl friend works for social services and tells me about all the time.

^good point

I sometimes wonder if people actually ignore the facts of events in order to back there parties action. They avoid the actual fact presented do to the fact that there is no better choice or blind them self’s to the true track record of a political party in office. For example there is over whelming documentation of the corrupt and misdealing action in this administration but yet are ignored out of pride or embarrassment. Unfortunately we really don’t have a better choice. Do we elect a president that can’t seem to make up his mind, or make a stand? Or one that has a track record of lying and blaming others for his mistakes; and has been caught numerous times with his hand in the deep pockets of large conglomerates and corporations. Which is the leaser of to evils.

I still dont see changing your mind when you realize you are wrong as a weakness. I dont see why people continue to bash kerry about this.

I think Kerry has some strong points. But he does seem to change his mind depending on the poles.

oh well, cant be perfect
I've decided to write myself in as president

Are you sure you want the job? It really can't have that good a future.

lol, good call, I think i'll try and stay as far away from the spotlight as possible, what was I thinking?

Just remember -- vote early and vote often.

Under as many names as I can.

Near the beginning of this discussion you said that Kerry has a more caring ideology of fairness and balance. Balance of what? Fairness between classes? I don't know, since he says he's all for the middle class, and yet is married to the owner of such and amazingly huge corporation.

i dont see what pushing for economic policies that help out the middle class has to do with who he fell in love with in life.

i like how you avoided that queston. Nice work. Now you should try answering it. balance of what? Fairness between classes?

I made it clear the first time I stated it. I shouldnt have to twice, but: It had nothing to do with classes or anything like that. I was responding to a statement that any politician would be biased in decision making in reference to us talking about the supreme court justice appointments at the beginning of this discussion.*As I have already stated* I think that Bush would be biased and choose a Justice that believes in what bush believes and would act upon those beliefs. While I think that Kerry would attempt to choose a judge that would be more fair and not legislate their beliefs on others. I never said "Kerry is more balanced or fair". I dont think either of you read what I wrote, nor the context.

" I think Kerry is much more caring about the idealogy of balance and fairness then you may think. And I dont want a justice that believes the same way I do, I want a justice that will rule regardless of their, or my beliefs, and strictly interpret the constitution."
This was in response to the statement that all politicians are partisan.
I'm not sure where either of you read me saying anything about fairness of classes??

I wasnt avoiding the misguided question, I simply said the first thing that came to mind after reading his statement.
What about my question?

by the way, I was severly misquoted (if you were wondering about the bold text)
I was quoted as saying:
"you said that Kerry has a more caring ideology of fairness and balance"
in this statement ideology holds its second definition of:
2. a manner or the content of thinking characteristics of an individual or group or culture
so thats basically like saying Kerry is more fair and balanced

while i actually said:
"Kerry is more caring about the ideology of balance and fairness"
where ideology means:
1. a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
so i basically said Kerry cares more about the concept of balance and fairness

please read, and more importantly read the context, what people said before me and after me, even my statements after that sentence because not only did you misconstrue the quote but you also missed the topic of discussion.

attacking people based on unfair interpretations of statements and actions and partial quotations is probably the biggest problem with politics and media in this country.

Ya, i know what you said, in the right context. You said that he cares more about balance and fairness, and i dissagree. I could see where you get that in talking about appointing judges, (although im not very informed in that matter as to who each candate would choose). With that said, if you are baising your vote on only who they will appoint as judges you might want to do some more reasearch. There is alot more involved in being a president then appointing judges, even if there will be a large number of positions to be filled. You need to consider everything each candidate stands for on a wide viriaty of issues, not just one.
Also, i think you are missing the point on the religion aspect. A president, whoever it is, is always going to base his decisions on his religion unless he completly throws out what he thinks is right. A president is elected because the majority of the people in the country beleive that what he thinks is right is true to them. If what he thinks is right is based on his religious belifes, which it more then likely is, then that is what he is going to decide to do. He is not going put aside his religous belifes because his religious belifes are the baises of what he thinks is right for the country.

I disagree, not everyone basis their decisions on their own personal values, some people do realize that the country is very diverse and what works for them may not work for everyone. Some people actually have the ability to think things through and make a decision based on whats best for the people and put aside for a second their personal bias.

I dont planning on voting because of that issue alone, I have many other reasons which can be read in other discussions here, I was just pointing out an issue that is of great importance even thought alot of people tend to overlook it.

There is no such thing as a person without a bias. You say that Kerry would not necessarily choose someone who agrees with his beliefs. Well, I find it extremely hard to beleive that he would even think of choosing a Republican justice( or rather one who has been labeled as a Republican.I know you don't like labels). He, obviously, would choose a Democratic justice, who agreed with his views. Think about it. Would you put someone in a position of power under you unless you had full assurance that they would do as you would in certain situations?

Just as a little note, by my first comment I was trying to tweak the subject a tad. I didn't know that that was considered improper etiquette here.

Hawaii is right when they say that everyone has some sort of bias. What they think is right for the country (taking into account what they think is best, and what they think other people think is best) will be affected by their bais.

Furthmore this bias(I hate that word) consists of: point of view, past experiences, personality, perspective and morality.
To continue on the issue I started way half a page ago...(noob) you said that "the right and unbias decision is to come up with a solution that lowers the amount pollution from oil while still being able to maintain production."
--my question is unbiased to whom?--a jainist would say any amount of disturbance to any form of life is unacceptable and that money is never a reason to do such a thing...an environmentalist would be next to fight for the preservation of wild Alaska. The common man would care little but appreciate the cost of oil going down, oil tycoons doing the actual drilling would be for it, oil tycoons in the Middle East region would be against it. There is no such thing as an unbiased decision you will always hurt somepersons viewpoint either way. The people's viewpoint you are most wanting to preserve is actually how you stand on an issue. And for each individual this viewpoint will be different based on experiences.
--(Hawaii) It's not that one is trying to be biased in a viewpoint necessarily; what one believes dictates what he will think about issues and what he thinks is right. No president would put up someone to the Supreme Court that they think are making immoral and wrong decisions.
--Kerry as most liberals believes that a middle class is the strongest of the classes and should make a majority of the population...the rich should help the poor to get to the middle class because often there is some circumstance holding them back from achieving prosperity(education, oligarchial business, high cost of living, low wages)
--Where did all these conservative viewpoints come from all of a sudden? People must indeed be gregarious... :)

i think you guys have a hard time looking at reality and focus too much on extremes. its obviously impossible to please EVERYONE completly. and its obviously impossible to be completely and utterly imbias in every way. but come on.

"Would you put someone in a position of power under you unless you had full assurance that they would do as you would in certain situations?"

no, because what I would do is try my best to put my own feelings aside and do whats right for the majority. If I can put my beliefs aside others can too. No not completely 100% perfection of unbias reason, but for the most part I can make a decision that goes against my own beliefs for the greater good. I think maybe the reason you all dont believe this kind of thinking exists in humanity is because you dont think this way yourselves?

A good example:
Kerry is as far as I know against abortion. He believes that no life should be taken, its part of him and his faith.
Yet he is pro allowing abortion regardless of own personal belief because he knows its not his or the governments decision, and it should be left up to the mother.

Another example:
I have a friend tyler who is opposed to homosexuality. he thinks its wrong and he doesnt like to see it or be around it.
Yet he is pro allowing gay marraiges because its not his decision on how other choose to live their life. And if he were a politician he would be an anti-homosexuality politician who voted fo gay rights.

These kinds of decisions are what I'm talking about and what this is a vital characteristic that a supreme court judge needs to posses. I'm sorry that for some reason you cant see this. I would feel sorry for this country if all of our justices just went around making decisions based on their religion, the rights of Americans would seriously be at stake.

Bush: "What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts."

Kerry: "I don't believe we need a good conservative judge, and I don't believe we need a good liberal judge. I don't believe we need a good judge of that kind of definition on either side."

JFK: "I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic. "

Be careful when attacking others viewpoints...don't attack the person, attack their ideals...just a warning...I don't want I fight ensuing. :)

once again, "do what's right for the country"...this translated means--> what you think in foresight would be best for the country...what do you think the ideal nation would be...I bet it's different from mine as well as it is for most people. For example, your friend believes that being gay is morally wrong, but that gay marriage should be legal because he ultimately believes the government has no right to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do. This belief is not held by all people. Some people instead believe that sometimes the government has to step in so that chaos does not ensue(and we end up like the Romans[that's a popular argument]) and we don't infringe on others rights. Once again it is still all relative to what you believe.

You seem pro-choice and for gay marriage, otherwise these ideals wouldn't be seen as a positive. Therefore in that case you'd be biased toward that line of thinking.

Willing to go against your line of thinking is a positive generally, but just going around following what is popular isn't either. This conflict was forseen by our Forefathers (see The Federalist Papers #5) It's the classic debate of a trustee versus a delegate. Our forefather's chose to use a trustee system.

Btw: I am anti-homosexual(not militant or anything(just don't believe in it) but for civil unions with the normal rights of marriage given. I am a libertarian(for choice most of the time) but pro-life. Don't stereotype.

i never stereotyped, thats the point, I am anti homosexual as well, I dont have an opinion on that issue, i dont care, but thats beside the point. I was just using that as an example to where people can put their own beliefs aside thinking of whats better for people. I never said those choices were right. They were just examples of people putting their beliefs aside for "what they thought" was the greater good.
I see this is a circular argument, and beginning to touch some iffy topics, so I'd rather not discuss it anymore.

So, I'm thinking mostly ::noobguy is just realizing that he's lost and is wrong.

omg i'm not even going to dignify that with a response.
I'm sorry that I chose not to offend people just for a debate (for instance homosexual caedes users)
congrats for making this user name just to make that comment, are you a person with absolutely nothing to do, or another user who is to afraid to reveal who they are?
i'm thinking maybe nici needs to grow up

methinks I missed something...

Noobguy is just angry cuz nici jumped into the coversation saying that he must have realized that he lost because he said he'd rather not discuss it anymore.

it was an inane comment, and pretty silly, I stopped saying things like that to my sister when bickering in 3rd grade. And I wasnt angry, I just think it was cowardly of nici to come up with this infoless screen name just to post the one comment. Probably because he/she knew how absurd it was to begin with. Its just a debate...
I made it clear why I wanted to stop dicussing, to not offend anyone. Also it seems like Brett is the only one worth debating in this topic at times anyways. Others attempt to argue, or send personal attacks (over a political debate?), which I think is somwhat immature and out of place here. Anyways the election is only a couple days away, things will be settled soon (assuming we are capable of counting votes :p)

I'm sorry this discussion got a little haywire, and it was really great getting responses to my views. And, noob, thanks for answering my questions(sort of).

no problem, I admire civilized debating but it bothers me a lil when things get out of hand. sorry