The Instigator
nels96
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Guardian27
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

I'm going to be a single issue voter in 2008

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/17/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,006 times Debate No: 574
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (6)

 

nels96

Pro

WHY I'M GOING TO BE A SINGLE ISSUE VOTER IN 2008. SHOULDN'T YOU DO THE SAME...?

Normally, I vote for a candidate in the presidential election for a host of reasons, mostly on conservative leanings. In 2008 however, after a very disappointing Bush administration (except for the war on terror, 2 justices, and tax reductions), I feel that the single most important consideration for the future of our country, is going to involve the selection of Supreme Court justices.

Given the fact that two or three of the Supremes are very old, or sickly, or both, it is possible that there will be 2, 3, or even 4 openings on the Court during the 4 or 8 years of the new administration. And those new justices are likely to sit for 30 years or more! Whether they are activists, or strict constructionists, (and the current balance is 5 to 4), will make a big difference in the direction of our country for the next three or four generations.

Since the liberals have been using the Supreme Court's activist justices instead of Congress to accomplish their objectives, it is particularly important that we focus on getting more ‘originalist' justices on the Court.

To do that, we mustn't let any Democrat become the next President. Almost any Republican candidate now running should be acceptable, providing he has the stomach and the imagination to fight hard to win, whether he is a fiscal conservative, a social conservative, or just a plain moderate.

I'm going to be a single issue voter, and that issue is going to be --- who is the candidate most likely to win, and get us more ‘strict constructionist' justices on the Court ?

It is of paramount importance that our next president be committed to nominating, and fighting for, justices who will interpret the Constitution as our Founders originally intended, not to "legislating from the bench".

Some of the things that a strong majority ‘strict constructionist' Court might do to return power to the people are:

• Clarify Article V to force Congress to call a convention for proposing amendments when 2/3 of state legislatures apply for it. (all 50 states already have; Congress is stonewalling)

• Rule that partisan Congressional redistricting is unconstitutional, specifically favoring computer-neutral redistricting.

• Disqualifying corporations, PACs, union organizations, and all other such entities from contributing to federal election financing (if you can't vote, you can't contribute).

• Reversal of the 5-4 decision in USTL v Thornton which prevents the states from term limiting their Congressional contingent.

Please consider this issue when voting for president in 2008

Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com
Guardian27

Con

Well, this is an interesting debate. While I agree that the choices for the Supreme Court are important, I don't think that it's a single issue that's important enough to choose members of congress and presidents on. I think you should expand your horizons on this.

You say that liberals are using the Supreme Court to "legislate from the bench." At the same time, you're wanting the courts to change things that the congress has the authority to do. So, isn't your argument a bit hypocritical? It sounds like you're mad because you can't have your way. So, rather than working within the system for change, it sounds like you're trying to change things by doing the same "evil" that you're denouncing.

There has to be more than a single issue in the elections next year. What good is a president and congress that gives you what you want domestically, if they have no foreign policy, no moral values, a weak national defense strategy, the list goes on and on. I think you really need to look at the big picture. Every four years, all Americans get to be politicians when we vote for president. All politicians compromise on certain things to ultimately get the most desired policies that they want. We are no different on election day. We take the good with the bad. It's okay to be passionate on issues, but not to the point that it blinds you to the rest of the issues.
Debate Round No. 1
nels96

Pro

Hi Guardian

I think it is a single issue chiefly because the next president will nominate 2 or 3 justices that will be in place for 30 years or so, and that is a profoundly
more important impact long term than any other issue I can think of.

I certainly am not hypocritically wanting the Court "to change things". I want the Court to hew to the Constitution, not to see things that are not there.

Yes, I'm mad because I can't have it 'my way'. I want conservative justices who
won't change the Constitution without using the amendatory process. If that's 'my way', so be it.

Sure there are more issues out there, but most of them will coincidentally fall my way if I get the president who will nominate strict constructionist justices.

It is bad enough that every 2 years we reelect 98% of the House (and 90% of 1/3 of the Senate) even tho' Congress has record breaking low opinion polls. Obviously, our current system of elections is no way to run the country.

The least we can do is try to keep the Supreme Court 'honest'!
Guardian27

Con

Nels96, I admire your passion. For the most part, I'm a conservative as well.

However....

I'm a proud father of two. My son is now three years old. That means that he'll begin school under the next president and congress. I want to make sure that he gets everything that he needs for the best education he can get. I want to make sure that he's safe in his neighborhood. I want to make sure that my kids have the best chance at life as can be provided. When I vote next year, I'm not only voting for myself, but for my kids and their future as well.

It's great to look at the big picture and think about the next 30 years. I just believe that there's more to this election than insuring correct constitutional interpretation. 20 years from now, what good is a court that can interpret the law, if the countries economy has been run into the ground, our education system is in shambles, and we're experiencing numerous terrorist attacks because of bad foreign policy. I think the picture you're looking at is a little too big.

I may not always agree with the rulings by the Supreme Court, but I do have respect for the people that sit on that bench. To suggest that the justices do anything BUT interpret the constitution to the best of their understanding is a little insulting. They have been lawyers and judges longer than I've been alive. To say that you or anyone else without a law degree can decide what the founders of the constitution meant better than they can, blows my mind. You need to just admit that you want judges to hand down rulings that are in line with YOUR interpretation of the law.
Debate Round No. 2
nels96

Pro

Hi Guardian

Yes, I guessed that you were conservative. That's why it surprises me that you are on the ‘Con' side of this debate, as you can see from the following rejoinders:

Remember what I said in Round 2, that in voting my ‘single issue' I would coincidentally
get all my other secondary issues as a bonus, since I expect all the leading ‘conservative'
candidates would give us the security and schooling you want for your kids...and the future Court decisions more likely to benefit them as they are growing up.

My "picture is too big" ? What do you think of the picture your kids will see when they are in their 20's and 30's, after the Court has been skewed to repeated 5/4, 6/3, 7/2 decisions
in a liberal direction ?

My ‘single issue' is based on the need to have real conservative administrations, supported by conservative Court decisions. Not the professional Republican politicians who imitate the spendthrift liberals in order to assure their own reelections, and who protect outfits like the NEA who oppose charter schools. I want a Court which says if you can't vote, you can't contribute to political campaigns. (Money should not be speech!) No corporations, no PACs, no unions, etc.

As far as respect for those lofty eminences on the Court, I can only go so far. For example,
most of the statements I hear from Thomas and Scalia during TV interviews (and their published judicial findings) raise my regard for them and their thinking, whereas several statements from Breyer and O'Connor have appalled me. So much for their law degrees and experience. Even geniuses can be wrong! They are only human.

Yes, I admit that I want justices to hand down decisions which are in line with my interpretation of the law. Don't you ? Isn't that what representative democracy is all about ?

Regards,
Nelson Lee Walker, Saratoga, CA
http://tenurecorrupts.com... http://foavc.org...
http://youtube.com...
Guardian27

Con

Guardian27 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LoudounConservative 9 years ago
LoudounConservative
Money most definitely is speech. I can see cutting corporations out of the money game but individuals should have every right to pool their resources to the benefit of the campaign of their choice (as in a PAC or union).
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by oboeman 9 years ago
oboeman
nels96Guardian27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Guardian27 9 years ago
Guardian27
nels96Guardian27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
nels96Guardian27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
nels96Guardian27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by goodlittlesquid 9 years ago
goodlittlesquid
nels96Guardian27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
nels96Guardian27Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03