Free Republic Opinion Poll on Deciding Factor for Supreme Court Nominees

Free Republic Opinion Poll ^ | July 13, 2005 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

With O'Connor's retirement, Rehnquist's possible retirement this summer, and hints of the possibility that Ginsburg and Stevens may be retiring within his term, President Bush has an historic opportunity to reshape the court. This is the opportunity that we've all been fighting for. Most of us are counting on the president filling these vacancies with solid conservatives who respect and abide by the Constitution and we will be sadly disappointed if the president appoints squishy moderates.

Sadly disappointed? Did I say, sadly disappointed? Hell, we'll be up in arms!

But that's just my opinion. Before we go much further in this discussion, I'd like to get yours. Please answer the following FR poll question, then come back and post your opinion.

Assuming a potential supreme court nominee is qualified in all other respects, which of the following concerns should be the deciding factor:

Acceptable to minority party
Maintain balance of court
Must be moderate
Must be mainstream
Gender/race/ethnicity
Friendship/loyalty
Pro life/marriage
Must be originalist
Other
Pass

[processing please hold]

I refuse to believe that LEfties would get away with undermining the security of the nation by misusing the Patriot Act.

They are hammering Karl Rove now, calling for his execution as a traitor. There's no way I want the Hildabeast to be given carte blanche with spying, she's already good enough when she has to sneak around doing it on the sly. She would be using it against the conservatives in this country.

Since the mosque are the central point for radical islam hatred against the US, they need to be looked at. I don't recall any Christian church preaching over throwing the government and killing all Americans.

Now, how do we work on that quandary?

[LibertarianInExile]

No, no, I'm not bagging on YOU, if you're simply withholding your vote until you have better formulated an opinion. I'm bagging on the folks who do vote, and vote "Pass."

There is no point to voting "Pass." "None of the above," that makes sense. "All of the above," that makes sense. These things mean something. Polls are about finding out opinions, freeper polls particularly so. If your opinion is "pass," it's saying that you either have an opinion and don't care to answer--in which case you shouldn't bother with the poll, since "pass" doesn't tell us what that opinion is--or you don't have an opinion at all--in which case you shouldn't bother with the poll, because the object of the poll is to gauge opinions.

It's like calling up Domino's and telling them you're not hungry. Or wandering into a car lot then informing the salesman you don't drive.

[processing please hold]

No, no, I'm not bagging on YOU, if you're simply withholding your vote until you have better formulated an opinion. I'm bagging on the folks who do vote, and vote "Pass."

I understand. It's a waste of time and effort for someone to go to the trouble of voting, then vote pass. It doesn't make sense.

I voted Originalist. :-)

[k2blader]

The Constitution doesn't specifically address abortion.

However, do you honestly think the founders believed the murder of unborn and newly born babies was a constitutionally protected right?

[k2blader]

I thought this thread would generate more interest than it has. I was just looking at the results page and wondering if those who voted anything besides "originalist" (or possibly "pro-life/marriage") actually consider themselves conservative.

[conservative blonde]

I voted pro-life/marriage also. These are the important questions which will be coming before the SC in the next few years. Labels are not enough to define a potential SC justice. Conservatives should see the SC not as a policy making branch of the government but as a law interpreting branch who possibly can reverse policy by reversing activist SC precedents, ie.Roe v Wade. The SC was designed for interpretation not legislation.

[inquest]

Fortunately we have the Patriot Act which does go a long way to prevent terror

You have no idea how far it goes or doesn't go. All you have to go on are the statements the administration puts out, and there's no way to independently verify them.

[eleni121]

I read the news don't you? Just a few of the success stories are that the US has dismantled terrorist cells, disrupted weapons procurement plots and shut down terrorist-affiliated charities.

Given that the ACLoonies despise the PA, I have no choice but to respect it and wish it maintained and expanded. And given the recent 7-7 terror attacks in the UK, we need to mantain it indefinitely.

[inquest]

Just a few of the success stories are that the US has dismantled terrorist cells, disrupted weapons procurement plots and shut down terrorist-affiliated charities.

Again, according to the government. Their operations are conducted secretly, so their information can not be independently verified.

Given that the ACLoonies despise the PA, I have no choice but to respect it and wish it maintained and expanded.

So in other words you let your enemies define your views for you. Hope you enjoy being played like a fiddle.

[Mr. Mojo]

What knucklehead votes PASS in a free poll like this? It's like people who call 976 poll numbers and proudly state "no opinion" or "unsure." And yet nearly 30 have done so thus far.

Knucklehead count is now up to 84.

And then there's the wuss count -- those who voted "must be acceptable to minority party." 15 of them, so far.

The RINO count stands at 86 -- a combo of those who voted "must maintain balance of court" and "must be moderate."

[eleni121]

"The government" - which government is yours? I'm afraid you do not understand the nature of Islam and the need for secrecy in undermining their operations.

As for the proof of the effectiveness of the PA - it's in the pudding. No attacks here so far after 9-11. The PA allows us to use its security measures to detain Muslims bent on terror and prevent more horror.

As for problems of "secrecy' - what are you - a useful fool? Of course these operations should be in secret. Given the manic ferocity of the left wing media - I can just imagine how effective the WOT would be if agents were to publicly announce their next focus of operations...get real.

[inquest]

I'm afraid you do not understand the nature of Islam and the need for secrecy in undermining their operations.

I'm afraid you can't read. I never said there was no need for secrecy.

As for the proof of the effectiveness of the PA - it's in the pudding. No attacks here so far after 9-11.

No major attacks, at least. We still had the snipers and the LAX shootings. But the fact is, between 1995 and 2001 there were no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil either, so your "proof" is meaningless. There's also the fact that since 9/11, our agencies would have been keeping a sharper eye out anyway, with or without the Patriot Act (remember, they were making arrests very shortly after 9/11). Also the war in Afghanistan took its toll on al-Qaeda, at least if you believe the administration.

[eleni121]

But the fact is, between 1995 and 2001 there were no major terrorist attacks on U.S. soil either, so your "proof" is meaningless

---

In fact it was during this time that Al Qaeda was building its base in Afghanistan and Iraq and making its connections with radical Muslims around the world and given the level of ridiculousness in Washington at the time this was an easy thing to do. The fact that there were no attacks on US soil does not mean that the Patriot Act is unecesary, merely that its necesssity was not yet perceived.

It's obvious to me that our law enforcement authorities need a tool that can effectively root out terror, a tool at least as effective as those tools used to go after organized crime.

It appears you have an ideological dispute with this administration - spit it out and stop with the nonsense about the Patriot Act already --- you sound about as whiny as our college librarian.

[colorado tanker]

Does the constitution have anything to say about abortions?

Nope. Only on Planet Penumbra where Harry Blackmun lived.

Under the Constitution abortion is a matter for states to regulate or not, as the elected representatives of the people decide.

[Burlem]

yes I know., but thanks

[inquest]

The fact that there were no attacks on US soil does not mean that the Patriot Act is unecesary, merely that its necesssity was not yet perceived.

And the fact that there were no attacks since then doesn't mean that it is necessary.

It's obvious to me that our law enforcement authorities need a tool that can effectively root out terror

You're saying that it lacked effective tools prior to the passage of the PA? What are you basing this on? The fact that AQ was making connections in Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11? What would the PA have done to stop that?

you sound about as whiny as our college librarian.

Not at all, I'm just showing you how illogical your points are. But it is typical of a lot of Bush partisans to respond to any inconvenient facts and logic with accusations of whining.

[Alexander Rubin]

I voted originalist. So did most people by the looks of it.

[myself6]

Hey, How do I move the poll results to the bottom of the sidebar? I would like to place them below my subscriptions...


BTW, I voted ORIGINALIST

[eleni121]

Your whole premise is based on anti Bush and anti PA based on some supposed "attack" on our liberties all the while ignoring the real attacks coming from an enemy within.

You have not made the slightest inquiry into the PA's effeveness yet you dismiss its value as a way to fight terrorists in this country.

Al Quada would love to have someone like you on its board of tactics.

[processing please hold]

However, do you honestly think the founders believed the murder of unborn and newly born babies was a constitutionally protected right?

That's my point.

Gay marriage supporters cannot scream, 'civil rights violation.' Nowhere in our constitution or 'Bill of Rights' does it give them that option, just as in their rights to have an abortion.

The SC screwed up in abortions, I hope they don't make the same mistake in gay marriage.