Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Who else is NOT voting  (Read 3104 times)

jgomez

  • Guest
Who else is NOT voting
« on: October 20, 2004, 06:08:06 PM »
 >:(

superiorlobe

  • Guest
Re: Who else is NOT voting
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2004, 06:12:15 PM »
I didn't register in time.  Live in MA, so it doesn't matter anyway.  Probably would have voted for Nader.

jacy85

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 6859
    • View Profile
Re: Who else is NOT voting
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2004, 06:37:23 PM »
If you're not voting because you don't like Bush or Kerry, the is something further to think about.

Very likely, whoever is elected will get to appoint someone to the Supreme Court, and this judge could very likely be the deciding factor in many issues which will have lasting effects for who knows how long.

I should know more about what exactly is at stake here, but the big one that I'm concerned with is the constitutional right of women to choose.  However you feel on this, or on other issues that have been decided with a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court, consider voting for the person who will likely choose a justice in your favor, if you vote for no other reason.

There's more than the next 4 years at stake whenever a SCJ retires.

TDPookie1

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 8078
  • the sugar cane is back!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - PookieEsq2B
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Who else is NOT voting
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2004, 06:58:09 PM »
i agree with jacy!  and i will offer this, since mancuso was a jerk:  :-*
i am officially the biggest nerd of LSD!  ::gleaming with pride, as i shine my yoda trophy::

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=TDPookie1

accepted at yale.  how the hell did i pull this one off?

absy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Re: Who else is NOT voting
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2004, 07:11:32 PM »
This hasn't come up as much because of the longevity of the current court, but there's reason enough to let this be the deciding factor in every election.  The nomination of a SCJ has much more lasting effects than a term at the presidency.

texas1

  • Guest
Re: Who else is NOT voting
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2004, 07:18:10 PM »
I'm not voting...I live in TX and unless things go real screwy on Super Tuesday, my vote won't matter as Bush will probably carry this state pretty easily...

In fact I would like to see the whole voting scheme changed to simply a popular vote, so that my vote would count as much as someone's in Ohio, Florida, or another "battleground state".

With the system the way it is...neither Bush nor Kerry spent much time in TX campaigning, or much money on advertising here (not necessarily a bad thing). They take my state for granted and move on to states where the decision will be tighter.

Plus Colorado is trying to vote in a change that will split their electoral college votes according to the state's popular vote - which I believe is a good thing - but only if all states do so...otherwise again their votes mean more than mine.

I'm pretty sure I understand the origins of the electoral college, but in the information age, I'm not sure that we need to elect representatives to choose a president...

done rambling...

absy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Re: Who else is NOT voting
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2004, 07:40:40 PM »
I disagree with jacy... if Bush is reelected I predict that not one of the SCJs will retire.

I disagree vehemently.  Rehnquist is 80 and Stevens is at least 83.  O'Connor is nearing 77, and Ginsburg has a heart condition.  Between now and 2009, there will be at least one replacement.

TDPookie1

  • Global Moderator
  • LSD Obsessed
  • ****
  • Posts: 8078
  • the sugar cane is back!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - PookieEsq2B
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Who else is NOT voting
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2004, 07:44:13 PM »
i agree with absy.  even if none of the members retire (which seems unlikely based on age), one or more of them could die at that age.  ::knocks on wood::
i am officially the biggest nerd of LSD!  ::gleaming with pride, as i shine my yoda trophy::

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=TDPookie1

accepted at yale.  how the hell did i pull this one off?

superiorlobe

  • Guest
Re: Who else is NOT voting
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2004, 07:51:58 PM »
I disagree with jacy... if Bush is reelected I predict that not one of the SCJs will retire.

I disagree vehemently.  Rehnquist is 80 and Stevens is at least 83.  O'Connor is nearing 77, and Ginsburg has a heart condition.  Between now and 2009, there will be at least one replacement.

In this age of modern medicine 80 is not that old.  I predict that Rehnquist and O'Conner both remain on the court another 8-10 years.  Thomas will be on the court until about 2030.

superiorlobe

  • Guest
Re: Who else is NOT voting
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2004, 08:24:03 PM »
We'll see.

But even if someone does retire (or die) it won't be easy for Bush to get a new SCJ who will satisfy the requirements for your doomsday scenario... whatever that is. No matter what, Roe v. Wade's here to stay.


I agree with this.  I really doubt that Roe v. Wade will ever be overturned.  And even if it is abortion will necessarily be illegal.  The decision will just revert back to the states.