PDA

View Full Version : Obama Says He Wants to Debate Civil Liberties With Romney LOL!!!!!



Dolphins9954
10-09-2012, 09:08 PM
During last night's campaign speech at the Ritz-Carlton in Los Angeles, President Obama said (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/10/08/remarks-president-campaign-event-0):
So on every issue domestically weíve got differences, and I havenít evenówe havenít talked about the fact that my opponent feels comfortable with Washington making decisions about womenís health care that women, Michelle tells me, are perfectly capable of making themselves. (Laughter and applause.)
We havenít talked about what's at stake with respect to the Supreme Court. We havenít talked about what's at stake with respect to civil liberties. And obviously there's a lot at stake internationally. And an opponent who calls me ending the war in Iraq "tragic," or suggests that somehow we should stay longer in Afghanistan has a very different world view, different perspective.
Let's put aside for a minute that Obama rejected (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/obama-backs-aides-stance-on-morning-after-pill.html?_r=0) the FDA's science-based recommendation to allow girls under the age of 17 over-the-counter access to emergency contraception; that a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice saved Obamacare; and that Obama's "different world view" manifests in funding (http://www.salon.com/2012/09/26/mexican_drug_war_victims_us_is_responsible/) (and directing) a Mexican drug war that's claimed 60,000 lives, bombing an incalculable number (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/what-we-dont-know-about-drones) of Muslim civilians, and lying (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/us-officials-knew-libya-attack-was-terrorism-within-24-hours-sources-confirm/) about a terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
Let's instead just focus on this: "We havenít talked about what's at stake with respect to civil liberties."
"If Obama wants to discuss civil liberties, he should be held accountable for the obliteration of the First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments occurring under his watch, if not under his direction,"writes Jesselyn Radack (http://www.whistleblower.org/blog/42-2012/2293-adding-civil-liberties-to-the-debate), National Security & Human Rights Director for the Government Accountability Project. If Radack were moderating, Obama would have to answer for his secret kill list, expanded surveillance, his assassination of American citizens, secret laws created by the PATRIOT Act, and his war on both whistleblowers and journalists.
He should also be asked to answer for at least a few of the following:



Why does Obama's Justice Department continue to raid medical marijuana dispensaries (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/obama-marijuana-raids-rolling-stone_n_1451744.html), and to ignore the will of voters in states where medical marijuana is legal?
Why has he condemned police brutality during the Arab Spring and the Iranian uprising, but failed to condemn a single act of police brutatlity in the United States, particularly the murder of Kelly Thomas (http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/29/homeless-man-dies-after-being) or the torture of Nick Christie (http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/23/lee-county-deputies-tied-suspect-to-a-ch)?
Why does he allow the Department of Defense to distribute (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/cops-military-gear/)military grade weapons and equipment to local police departments?
Why has he done nothing to reunite the roughly 5,100 children ripped from their deported parents (http://reason.com/blog/2012/02/15/the-most-vile-and-inhumane-immigration-s) and placed in American foster care?
Why has he done nothing to curtail the frequent humiliations and abuses (http://reason.com/tags/tsa)Americans are subjected to by the Transportation Security Administration?
Why has he allowed his Justice Department to defend (http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/12/will-the-obama-administration-defend-dea) the right of DEA agents to shackle young children at gunpoint?
Why did he give himself--and by extension, future presidents--the leeway necessary to indefinitely detain Americans?
When he reduced the sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack, why did he reduce it from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/opinion/30thu3.html), and not just 1-to-1?
Why has he commuted only one (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/08/11585227-president-obama-stingy-on-pardons-says-clemency-expert?lite) federal drug sentence in nearly four years?
Why has he permitted his FDA to conduct armed raids (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/omkara/2011/dec/20/fda-escalates-war-against-amish-dairy-farmers/) on Amish farms that sell raw milk?
Why did his party eliminate (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/democrats-retreat-civil-liberties-2012-platform) nearly all mentions of civil liberties from its 2012 platform, and in the process, soften the party's long-stated opposition to torture?
Why has privileged the regulatory powers of the EPA over the due process rights of American citizens (http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/15/the-epa-vs-the-constitution)?



http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/09/obama-says-he-wants-to-debate-civil-libe



Kudos to Obama for wanting a debate about civil liberties. Too bad he sucks at it and so does Romney. One thing both parties totally agree on.....They hate our freedoms.

Spesh
10-09-2012, 09:23 PM
Sad thing is Obama would probably win that debate. By a large margin.

As angry as people are at Obama's job with civil liberties, i cant recall Republicans objecting there is to much, only that there isnt enough. You know, except for money or healthcare. Then its big government take over.

Dolphins9954
10-09-2012, 09:28 PM
Sad thing is Obama would probably win that debate. By a large margin.

As angry as people are at Obama's job with civil liberties, i cant recall Republicans objecting there is to much, only that there isnt enough. You know, except for money or healthcare. Then its big government take over.

How???

Besides the now pro-gay marriage rhetoric from Obama. How are they any different??

Patriot Act, NDAA, Warrantless Wiretaps and Searches, Killing Americans without due process, Drug War, Gitmo, Torture/Rendition and going after whistleblowers. I don't see how you can say Obama will win this debate by a long shot. The fact is Obama is just as much a threat to our civil liberties as Bush/Romney no matter how many happy gay people there are.

Valandui
10-09-2012, 09:36 PM
They should invite Ron Paul to moderate.

TheWalrus
10-09-2012, 09:41 PM
How???

Besides the now pro-gay marriage rhetoric from Obama. How are they any different??

Patriot Act, NDAA, Warrantless Wiretaps and Searches, Killing Americans without due process, Drug War, Gitmo, Torture/Rendition and going after whistleblowers. I don't see how you can say Obama will win this debate by a long shot. The fact is Obama is just as much a threat to our civil liberties as Bush/Romney no matter how many happy gay people there are.

Is there any civil liberty issue where you prefer Romney's position to Obama's? Not making an accusation in the form of a question. Legitimately curious.

Spesh
10-09-2012, 09:43 PM
How???

Besides the now pro-gay marriage rhetoric from Obama. How are they any different??

Patriot Act, NDAA, Warrantless Wiretaps and Searches, Killing Americans without due process, Drug War, Gitmo, Torture/Rendition and going after whistleblowers. I don't see how you can say Obama will win this debate by a long shot. The fact is Obama is just as much a threat to our civil liberties as Bush/Romney no matter how many happy gay people there are.

What could Romney argue with?

If both candidates are exactly the same but one candidate wants to increase drone strikes and regulate marriage and abortions, doesnt that mean the candidate who uses drone strikes less and is against regulating marriage and abortions wins?

Theres very little Romney could say other then try and convince people increasing all the things you listed is necessary.

Dolphins9954
10-09-2012, 10:06 PM
Is there any civil liberty issue where you prefer Romney's position to Obama's? Not making an accusation in the form of a question. Legitimately curious.

None. He's no different or worse than Obama. A civil liberties debate with Obama and Romney is one where we all lose. Both these guys believe government trumps liberty on every turn.

Dolphins9954
10-09-2012, 10:12 PM
What could Romney argue with?

If both candidates are exactly the same but one candidate wants to increase drone strikes and regulate marriage and abortions, doesnt that mean the candidate who uses drone strikes less and is against regulating marriage and abortions wins?

Theres very little Romney could say other then try and convince people increasing all the things you listed is necessary.


It's like having a debate about which one is better.....Hanging or Firing Squad. Obama or Romney have no problem trappling our liberties. It'a a sad state of affairs when these 2 represent our best hope for freedoms.

TheWalrus
10-09-2012, 10:28 PM
It's like having a debate about which one is better.....Hanging or Firing Squad. Obama or Romney have no problem trappling our liberties. It'a a sad state of affairs when these 2 represent our best hope for freedoms.

That's not the analogy I would choose, since both hanging and fire squad produce exactly the same results.

I think your points on this issue are generally well considered -- neither of them are good on civil liberties -- but at least in the case of abortion rights and marriage rights I don't think it can be argued that Obama's and Romney's positions are the same. Perhaps you consider these issues to be of relatively low importance but I think Spesh's basic point is valid here.

Dogbone34
10-09-2012, 11:03 PM
Presidents have bosses too

It's not like they want to sell you out

rob19
10-10-2012, 02:05 AM
None. He's no different or worse than Obama. A civil liberties debate with Obama and Romney is one where we all lose. Both these guys believe government trumps liberty on every turn.

Spesh & The Walrus are right I believe, I think Romney's slightly worse, & I think you could make the argument that Republicans have historically been slightly worse about personal liberties than the Democrats. To you, gay marriage & birth control issues may not be important, but there's probably a few gay people & women that this election will affect greatly.

Personally I think it's probably a good move by Obama to debate him on gay marriage. I think a majority of the country at this point is probably sympathetic to gay marriage & recognizes having it be illegal is an archaic and dying stance. I don't think Obama's going to break his back trying to use his influence to help legalize gay marriage, rather leave that up to the states, but at least he won't be the guy up there repeating the phrase "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman", over and over. People do care about social issues as well.

I understand your point though, both candidates are fundamentally pretty bad in terms of civil liberties, with the most frightening example of which coming in the form of joint support of the infamous NDAA. I think any libertarian would blow both of them out of the water in this regard, & I'd give my left nut to be able to see Gary Johnson participate in the civil liberties debate. At least to me Gary would blow them out of the water, I'm very curious as to how the whole nation would react though. Libertarians are generally in favor of legalizing Drugs, Gambling, & Prostitution (which I am as well), but I don't know if the majority of America is ready for that kind of freedom just yet; I think most Americans are still inoculated with the notion that a Drug-War is in our interests. Nonetheless It's an idea I'd at least like to see permeate the lexicon of American thought.

Valandui
10-10-2012, 08:03 AM
That's not the analogy I would choose, since both hanging and fire squad produce exactly the same results.

I think your points on this issue are generally well considered -- neither of them are good on civil liberties -- but at least in the case of abortion rights and marriage rights I don't think it can be argued that Obama's and Romney's positions are the same. Perhaps you consider these issues to be of relatively low importance but I think Spesh's basic point is valid here.
Ahh, but they were when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts. Of course, he's genuinely changed his mind on all of those positions now and I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's running for President as a Republican.

Valandui
10-10-2012, 08:12 AM
Spesh & The Walrus are right I believe, I think Romney's slightly worse, & I think you could make the argument that Republicans have historically been slightly worse about personal liberties than the Democrats. To you, gay marriage & birth control issues may not be important, but there's probably a few gay people & women that this election will affect greatly.

Personally I think it's probably a good move by Obama to debate him on gay marriage. I think a majority of the country at this point is probably sympathetic to gay marriage & recognizes having it be illegal is an archaic and dying stance. I don't think Obama's going to break his back trying to use his influence to help legalize gay marriage, rather leave that up to the states, but at least he won't be the guy up there repeating the phrase "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman", over and over. People do care about social issues as well.

I understand your point though, both candidates are fundamentally pretty bad in terms of civil liberties, with the most frightening example of which coming in the form of joint support of the infamous NDAA. I think any libertarian would blow both of them out of the water in this regard, & I'd give my left nut to be able to see Gary Johnson participate in the civil liberties debate. At least to me Gary would blow them out of the water, I'm very curious as to how the whole nation would react though. Libertarians are generally in favor of legalizing Drugs, Gambling, & Prostitution (which I am as well), but I don't know if the majority of America is ready for that kind of freedom just yet; I think most Americans are still inoculated with the notion that a Drug-War is in our interests. Nonetheless It's an idea I'd at least like to see permeate the lexicon of American thought.
But even then, Obama will do nothing to make gay marriage happen and Romney will do nothing to stop abortion. There is no way either one of them would give up their campaign boogeyman issues.

Dolphins9954
10-10-2012, 09:33 AM
That's not the analogy I would choose, since both hanging and fire squad produce exactly the same results.

I think your points on this issue are generally well considered -- neither of them are good on civil liberties -- but at least in the case of abortion rights and marriage rights I don't think it can be argued that Obama's and Romney's positions are the same. Perhaps you consider these issues to be of relatively low importance but I think Spesh's basic point is valid here.


When it comes to civil liberties all you're doing is voting for which form of big brother you want ruling your life. Granted Obama plays the rhetoric fiddle to gay marriage after being against forever. (conveniently right before the election). But the fact is neither candidate or party has a leg to stand on when it comes to civil liberties. The democrats will sign and even extend the patriot act. Obama specifically requested the indefinite detention of Americans provisions in NDAA. And continues to fight and appeal all court cases challenging that treasonous law. Voted for warrantless wiretaps and even immunity to tele-com companies that help spy on us for the government. Signed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which makes it a fedearl crime to protest anywhere near the president and congress. Believes he has the authority to kill Americans without due process or oversight. You can go on and on with Obama's attacks on civil liberties and Romney is no different. He's supported all big government interventions into our freedoms too. In the end we have no choice in the matter regardless of the classic wedge issues that the candidates use but never do anything about.

Dolphins9954
10-10-2012, 09:37 AM
But even then, Obama will do nothing to make gay marriage happen and Romney will do nothing to stop abortion. There is no way either one of them would give up their campaign boogeyman issues.

Exactly. The classic wedge issues designed to fool people into thinking there is a difference between them. Meanwhile both parties agree every time to take away our liberties with things like NDAA, Patriot Act, Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 and the Drug War.

Dolphins9954
10-10-2012, 09:49 AM
http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/10/Obama2Band2BCongress2BAntiAmerican-1.jpg

Spesh
10-10-2012, 10:55 AM
When it comes to civil liberties all you're doing is voting for which form of big brother you want ruling your life. Granted Obama plays the rhetoric fiddle to gay marriage after being against forever. (conveniently right before the election). But the fact is neither candidate or party has a leg to stand on when it comes to civil liberties. The democrats will sign and even extend the patriot act. Obama specifically requested the indefinite detention of Americans provisions in NDAA. And continues to fight and appeal all court cases challenging that treasonous law. Voted for warrantless wiretaps and even immunity to tele-com companies that help spy on us for the government. Signed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which makes it a fedearl crime to protest anywhere near the president and congress. Believes he has the authority to kill Americans without due process or oversight. You can go on and on with Obama's attacks on civil liberties and Romney is no different. He's supported all big government interventions into our freedoms too. In the end we have no choice in the matter regardless of the classic wedge issues that the candidates use but never do anything about.

I dont think anyone in here has disagreed with that.

But, as you stated, both candidates are for that. So doesnt that just serve to highlight things like the abolishment of "Dont ask, dont tell"? Being against the defunding of Planned Parenthood? Being able to watch porn in our homes? Etc, etc, etc, on various "little" issues.

We're not talking about the election, we're talking about a debate setting. If one candidate is 90% restrictive, wouldnt he beat the candidate that is 95% restrictive? All things being equal in their debate performance, id say he would. As i stated earlier, what exactly would Romneys defense be? "All those regulations on how you live your life are part of American Exceptionalism!!!"....?

TheWalrus
10-10-2012, 01:34 PM
Ahh, but they were when Romney was Governor of Massachusetts. Of course, he's genuinely changed his mind on all of those positions now and I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he's running for President as a Republican.

Okay. So you're saying Romney is a liar whose positions have changed for the worse. No disagreement here.


When it comes to civil liberties all you're doing is voting for which form of big brother you want ruling your life.

That seems unnecessarily grandiose. In the book 1984 everyone has a TV in their house with a camera on it that watches them constantly. The abuses of civil liberties in this country troubles me greatly but I think it's important to keep some perspective on these matters and recognize just how truly free this country is. That's not an excuse not to agitate, and to fight every abuse. But still, let's keep our brains inside our heads.


Granted Obama plays the rhetoric fiddle to gay marriage after being against forever. (conveniently right before the election). But the fact is neither candidate or party has a leg to stand on when it comes to civil liberties. The democrats will sign and even extend the patriot act. Obama specifically requested the indefinite detention of Americans provisions in NDAA. And continues to fight and appeal all court cases challenging that treasonous law. Voted for warrantless wiretaps and even immunity to tele-com companies that help spy on us for the government. Signed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, which makes it a fedearl crime to protest anywhere near the president and congress. Believes he has the authority to kill Americans without due process or oversight. You can go on and on with Obama's attacks on civil liberties and Romney is no different. He's supported all big government interventions into our freedoms too. In the end we have no choice in the matter regardless of the classic wedge issues that the candidates use but never do anything about.

So you recognize that Obama's positions are at least somewhat (or marginally, or however you want to phrase it) better, but just don't believe there will be any follow through. Is that a fair summary?

If so, why trust the libertarian party or any party candidate? What reason do you have to believe they would do any different? Or is it simply a vote registered in protest of the status quo and for a certain ideology?

Dolphins9954
10-10-2012, 05:23 PM
I dont think anyone in here has disagreed with that.

But, as you stated, both candidates are for that. So doesnt that just serve to highlight things like the abolishment of "Dont ask, dont tell"? Being against the defunding of Planned Parenthood? Being able to watch porn in our homes? Etc, etc, etc, on various "little" issues.

We're not talking about the election, we're talking about a debate setting. If one candidate is 90% restrictive, wouldnt he beat the candidate that is 95% restrictive? All things being equal in their debate performance, id say he would. As i stated earlier, what exactly would Romneys defense be? "All those regulations on how you live your life are part of American Exceptionalism!!!"....?

Obama would win by default not because he and the democrats are champions of civil liberties. It's really about which candidate is least tyrannical. In the end though voting for Obama or Romney results in liberties lost and total disregard for the constitution.

Dolphins9954
10-10-2012, 05:36 PM
Okay. So you're saying Romney is a liar whose positions have changed for the worse. No disagreement here.



That seems unnecessarily grandiose. In the book 1984 everyone has a TV in their house with a camera on it that watches them constantly. The abuses of civil liberties in this country troubles me greatly but I think it's important to keep some perspective on these matters and recognize just how truly free this country is. That's not an excuse not to agitate, and to fight every abuse. But still, let's keep our brains inside our heads.



So you recognize that Obama's positions are at least somewhat (or marginally, or however you want to phrase it) better, but just don't believe there will be any follow through. Is that a fair summary?

If so, why trust the libertarian party or any party candidate? What reason do you have to believe they would do any different? Or is it simply a vote registered in protest of the status quo and for a certain ideology?

Voting records and actions usually means a ton. That's why I would never vote for Obama or Romney. My vote is going to Johnson this year. IMO both these candidates won't hesitate to take our freedoms away and will have no regard for the constitution at all. That's the fact. Now we could agrue tactics and who's less tyrannical but at the end of the day we have less freedoms and more government no matter who wins. A better analogy would be with or without lube because make no mistake we're taking it in the a$$ when it comes to liberties in this country. With Romney it's expected but with Obama shouldn't you expect more from a constitutional lawyer???

Valandui
10-10-2012, 06:42 PM
Okay. So you're saying Romney is a liar whose positions have changed for the worse. No disagreement here.



That seems unnecessarily grandiose. In the book 1984 everyone has a TV in their house with a camera on it that watches them constantly. The abuses of civil liberties in this country troubles me greatly but I think it's important to keep some perspective on these matters and recognize just how truly free this country is. That's not an excuse not to agitate, and to fight every abuse. But still, let's keep our brains inside our heads.



So you recognize that Obama's positions are at least somewhat (or marginally, or however you want to phrase it) better, but just don't believe there will be any follow through. Is that a fair summary?

If so, why trust the libertarian party or any party candidate? What reason do you have to believe they would do any different? Or is it simply a vote registered in protest of the status quo and for a certain ideology?
I'm saying he's a liar who's positions haven't changed at all.

TheWalrus
10-10-2012, 08:05 PM
Voting records and actions usually means a ton. That's why I would never vote for Obama or Romney. My vote is going to Johnson this year. IMO both these candidates won't hesitate to take our freedoms away and will have no regard for the constitution at all. That's the fact. Now we could agrue tactics and who's less tyrannical but at the end of the day we have less freedoms and more government no matter who wins. A better analogy would be with or without lube because make no mistake we're taking it in the a$$ when it comes to liberties in this country. With Romney it's expected but with Obama shouldn't you expect more from a constitutional lawyer???

Well, then you're actually a good person to ask about this. Johnson has stated he would only appoint originalists to the Supreme Court. However, most originalists agree that an explicit right to privacy -- which I assume you believe in, as a champion of civil liberties -- does not exist within the Constitution. Where do you stand on this?

Dolphins9954
10-10-2012, 08:13 PM
Well, then you're actually a good person to ask about this. Johnson has stated he would only appoint originalists to the Supreme Court. However, most originalists agree that an explicit right to privacy -- which I assume you believe in, as a champion of civil liberties -- does not exist within the Constitution. Where do you stand on this?

I think the 4th amendment gives us some form of privacy. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". I do know he's against things like the patriot act and warrantless searches because they do violate our 4th amendment rights.

TheWalrus
10-10-2012, 08:33 PM
I think the 4th amendment gives us some form of privacy. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". I do know he's against things like the patriot act and warrantless searches because they do violate our 4th amendment rights.

You might think that, but it's not legal doctrine. Only by inference can one make the leap that the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments taken as a whole guarantee a right to privacy. Originalists or texualists or whatever the prevailing term is believe that since the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy, none exists. Without the inference that those amendments refer to a general "zone" of privacy, there is no legal basis to uphold abortion rights, nor is there basis to overturn a ban on contraceptives for married couples (as Griswold v. Connecticut did), or to overturn a ban on sodomy as in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas (over the dissents of Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas -- the three originalists on the court at that time).

Were Johnson to be elected (which obviously isn't going to happen, but since you're voting for him is a reasonable way of looking at it), more originalists would pack the court, enough perhaps to overturn some of these decisions. Perhaps even over his own policy preferences, if I'm reading his Wikipedia page correctly. But that's why judicial theory matters. Romney posses a similar preference for justices, and they're both, for my money, on the wrong side of it.

Dolphins9954
10-10-2012, 08:40 PM
You might think that, but it's not legal doctrine. Only by inference can one make the leap that the first, third, fourth and fifth amendments taken as a whole guarantee a right to privacy. Originalists or texualists or whatever the prevailing term is believe that since the Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy, none exists. Without the inference that those amendments refer to a general "zone" of privacy, there is no legal basis to uphold abortion rights, nor is there basis to overturn a ban on contraceptives for married couples (as Griswold v. Connecticut did), or to overturn a ban on sodomy as in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas (over the dissents of Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas -- the three originalists on the court at that time).

Were Johnson to be elected (which obviously isn't going to happen, but since you're voting for him is a reasonable way of looking at it), more originalists would pack the court, enough perhaps to overturn some of these decisions. Perhaps even over his own policy preferences, if I'm reading his Wikipedia page correctly. But that's why judicial theory matters. Romney posses a similar preference for justices, and they're both, for my money, on the wrong side of it.


You really think Johnson and Romney would nominate the same justices?

TheWalrus
10-10-2012, 09:29 PM
You really think Johnson and Romney would nominate the same justices?

Gary Johnson: “I would appoint Supreme Court justices based on their commitment to interpreting the constitution on the basis of original intent,” he explains. “That needs to be the fundamental criterion for a Supreme Court justice. Though I would not ask them their opinion on Roe v. Wade [the 1973 Supreme Court ruling which declared abortion a constitutional right], it is my understanding that, based on that criterion, that Supreme Court justices would in fact overturn it,” thereby rendering abortion a subject for each individual state to legislate on."

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/exclusive-libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-i-hope-be-presidential-election-spoiler

Romney, as usual, is vague on this issue, but here's what his Web site says: "There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history." And also, "The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles."

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution

The same exact judges? Probably not. But it's the same judicial philosophy: originalism/textualism. Neither contain an express right to privacy. Only a living constitutionalist (ie liberal) judge believes in such "emanations".

Dolphins9954
10-11-2012, 09:37 AM
Gary Johnson: “I would appoint Supreme Court justices based on their commitment to interpreting the constitution on the basis of original intent,” he explains. “That needs to be the fundamental criterion for a Supreme Court justice. Though I would not ask them their opinion on Roe v. Wade [the 1973 Supreme Court ruling which declared abortion a constitutional right], it is my understanding that, based on that criterion, that Supreme Court justices would in fact overturn it,” thereby rendering abortion a subject for each individual state to legislate on."

http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/exclusive-libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-i-hope-be-presidential-election-spoiler

Romney, as usual, is vague on this issue, but here's what his Web site says: "There were occasions when the Supreme Court declined to enforce the restrictions on power the Framers had so carefully enumerated. At other points, the Court created entirely new constitutional rights out of “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution, abandoning serious analysis of the Constitution’s text, structure, and history." And also, "The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles."

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution

The same exact judges? Probably not. But it's the same judicial philosophy: originalism/textualism. Neither contain an express right to privacy. Only a living constitutionalist (ie liberal) judge believes in such "emanations".

Johnson is pro-choice. I'm pretty sure without a doubt that a candidate who's positions on civil liberties, which are the total polar opposite of Romney's, would nominate totally different justices. Hell even the ACLU is a fan.....

GOVERNOR GARY JOHNSON TOPS OBAMA, PAUL ON ACLU CONSTITUTIONAL REPORT CARD

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/governor-gary-johnson-tops-obama-paul-on-aclu-constitutional-report-card

TheWalrus
10-11-2012, 12:50 PM
Johnson is pro-choice. I'm pretty sure without a doubt that a candidate who's positions on civil liberties, which are the total polar opposite of Romney's, would nominate totally different justices. Hell even the ACLU is a fan.....

GOVERNOR GARY JOHNSON TOPS OBAMA, PAUL ON ACLU CONSTITUTIONAL REPORT CARD

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/governor-gary-johnson-tops-obama-paul-on-aclu-constitutional-report-card

Johnson is personally pro-choice, and his policies reflect a libertarian viewpoint, but his philosophy regarding judges would -- even by his own estimation -- eventually ensure that Roe, and many other decisions based on an inferred "privacy" guarantee, would be overturned.

I think that's what you're sort of ignoring here, the implications of having a Supreme Court full of Constitutional originalists of the kind Johnson says he would nominate. Here's the country's most prominent originalist on the subject:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxJap8x1j-g&feature=fvwrel

Originalism is not compatible with a generalized belief in the right to privacy. Now, they're more likely to broadly define the right to bear arms, which is something I agree with. But privacy to me is the bigger issue. If that wall is breached, then all of your worst bogey men might truly become reality.

Dolphins9954
10-11-2012, 06:01 PM
Johnson is personally pro-choice, and his policies reflect a libertarian viewpoint, but his philosophy regarding judges would -- even by his own estimation -- eventually ensure that Roe, and many other decisions based on an inferred "privacy" guarantee, would be overturned.

I think that's what you're sort of ignoring here, the implications of having a Supreme Court full of Constitutional originalists of the kind Johnson says he would nominate. Here's the country's most prominent originalist on the subject:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxJap8x1j-g&feature=fvwrel

Originalism is not compatible with a generalized belief in the right to privacy. Now, they're more likely to broadly define the right to bear arms, which is something I agree with. But privacy to me is the bigger issue. If that wall is breached, then all of your worst bogey men might truly become reality.


Hasn't that wall already been breached with things like the patriot act, warrantless searches, TSA and the drug war? You say "liberals" believe in privacy but yet Obama is a living and prime example of that not being the case. Obama/Bush/Romney don't give 2 sh!ts about our privacy and have no problem trappling on it. For me I would rather take my chances on civil liberties and privacy with a candidate that actually values them and doesn't support policies and laws that infringe on those rights. Fact is Obama has proven to be just as bad as Bush or even worse like the ACLU has stated.

The ACLU on Obama and core liberties

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/liberties_3/

TheWalrus
10-11-2012, 06:24 PM
Hasn't that wall already been breached with things like the patriot act, warrantless searches, TSA and the drug war? You say "liberals" believe in privacy but yet Obama is a living and prime example of that not being the case. Obama/Bush/Romney don't give 2 sh!ts about our privacy and have no problem trappling on it. For me I would rather take my chances on civil liberties and privacy with a candidate that actually values them and doesn't support policies and laws that infringe on those rights. Fact is Obama has proven to be just as bad as Bush or even worse like the ACLU has stated.

The ACLU on Obama and core liberties

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/07/liberties_3/

I'm not trying to convince you to vote for Obama. It just seems inconsistent to me that you would vote for Gary Johnson when the kind of judges he would appoint wouldn't uphold the right to privacy.

It's a key issue with libertarianism generally, in my view. Gary Johnson can feel very strongly on a personal level about these issues, but his philosophy on government would by it's very nature prevent him from imposing himself on the system and his judicial philosophy would ensure that the right to privacy didn't exist in the Supreme Court. Perhaps he would be dismayed by the results, but he's a small government guy. What's he going to do about it? You can only "protect" civil liberties as President if you have an expansive enough view of the role of the federal government to regulate those areas.

It reminds me of the situation James Buchanan faced in the 1850s. He felt succession was deeply wrong, yet he decided he had no legal standing to prevent it. As a result, he did nothing, with very nearly calamitous results.