Rehnquist Has Thyroid Cancer, could this effect your vote?

[Piper Plexed]

The Abortion issue tends to be delineated by each citizens belief structure or faith.

Because Roe-V-Wade can only be overturned by the Supreme Court many Americans have a Vested interest in the social/political make up of the court. As we all know, it is the job of a sitting President to nominate Justices in the event of a vacancy on the court, because of this (in my unfortunate opinion ) a candidates personal beliefs or faith becomes an issue for the electorate to consider when voting.

It seems that the "Supreme Court Make up/Abortion Issue" has been the elephant in the room this election.

Now knowing that Rehnquist (conservative) has thyroid cancer does this cause you to reconsider your election choice? Does this serve as a reminder that our court is not all that young?

The way I see it, considering the elderly make up of the court, we just may have a whole new face on the court in 5 years.

Me being a socially liberal Tri-State "Security Mom" it does make me pause and reconsider my intended Presidential Choice , What say you?

story

[ST88]

Now knowing that Rehnquist (conservative) has thyroid cancer does this cause you to reconsider your election choice? Does this serve as a reminder that our court is not all that young?

There is a strong possibility that the next president will get to appoint two or three new justices. In addition to Rehnquist's illness (which the court says he will recover from and be back by November), there are justices Stevens and O'Connor, who had previously stated their intentions to retire. Ginsburg has also dropped hints about retiring shortly. I believe they are all at least 60 years old (except for Thomas), but I don't know if this is typical or not.

I have heard and read many commentaries by SCOTUS watchers (like Nina Totenberg), that this court is the most divided in recent memory. The decisions are either lopsided on matters of law or else 5-4 on matters of policy. So any change in the court is a potential change for the bounds of policymakers.

The court has previously indicated that they take public opinion into account when deciding on matters of law as they apply to policy, such as striking down the Miranda rights exception.

Roe v. Wade is probably not in jeopardy in the near future. But if Bush wins and appoints three justices, I would be very concerned that the Republican right is dictating his choices and that the nation would lurch toward evangelical theocracy. Think Pat Robertson as the Faith-Based Initiatives liaison.

I shudder to think that people are basing their votes strictly on security. I really don't think that Kerry could screw up the security of this country any worse than Bush has already. For example, the argument that we are keeping the terrorists in Iraq (& not here) is outrageous. Terrorists will gravitate to where terror works the best. Does anyone seriously think that even a stable Iraq will spell the end of terrorism everywhere?

This administration has shown a complete lack of foresight, and a perpetual misrepresentation of the situation (just about every other situation also). I have this creepy feeling that 15 years from now, we will start getting these reports of just how incompetent and anti-intellectual this administration has been with every aspect of government, and the question of "How did we get in this mess?" will be asked too late.

No, it does not change my vote. I will vote for Kerry, and I intended to do so since Wesley Clark dropped out of the race.

I just re-read the above, and I guess most of it is off-topic. But this is mostly an emotional issue over the direction in which America should be headed. The makeup of the Supreme Court is probably the best exemplar of this question, and will largely determine the answer.

[Piper Plexed]

I shudder to think that people are basing their votes strictly on security. I really don't think that Kerry could screw up the security of this country any worse than Bush has already. For example, the argument that we are keeping the terrorists in Iraq (& not here) is outrageous. Terrorists will gravitate to where terror works the best. Does anyone seriously think that even a stable Iraq will spell the end of terrorism everywhere?

This administration has shown a complete lack of foresight, and a perpetual misrepresentation of the situation (just about every other situation also). I have this creepy feeling that 15 years from now, we will start getting these reports of just how incompetent and anti-intellectual this administration has been with every aspect of government, and the question of "How did we get in this mess?" will be asked too late.

No need to shudder he he.. that wouldn't be the only reason...but I must say that it has outweighed many domestic issues I have. I must reconcile that if myself and family cease to exist well then hmmm domestic issues become moot point don't they For me every election is a battle of the priorities and as usual one finds themselves deciding which evil they trust most with what they hold as a higher priority. Please note that I was within 1 mile of the first trade center attack and 5 miles of the second. It is difficult not to acknowledge the effects of these events when one goes to the booth. Quite frankly I am sick to my stomach with the possibility of either candidate being in office and I wish I shared your confidence in Kerry cause well my choice would be a heck of a lot easier then. No I certainly do not delude myself into the belief that a stable Iraq wins the war, it would win a battle in the war though. The real question is after Iraq will we pursue offense or defense and frankly it appears that Kerry intends to win Iraq and take that same old defense that has lead to the death of friends and many neighbors, just not acceptable. OK my off topic response rant is over, sorry.

OK Back to Pipers version of Sophie's Choice, Life or Liberty.

I must wonder who, that sits the other side of me on this dilemma i.e. an anti war Christian feels equally as torn. Where are the people that whole heartedly feel that everything is wrong about Bush except his social positions and is freaking out with the possibility of Kerry having so much power over our Supremes. Could this sway your vote.

[Jose]

Well, it turns out that it won't sway my vote. Roe v Wade is one of the reasons. Whether it is likely that a Bush-appointed Court would overturn it isn't clear, but they'd be a lot more likely to than a Kerry-appointed Court.

And that's not the only Row v Wade controversy. The one in Montana concerns trout fishing...should you wear deep-waders, and wade, or should you use a rowboat? Bush's environmental policies make this moot. By opening thousands of acres to mining and logging, the trout streams will be trashed anyway. It's kinda like ANWR--why bother protecting it for the Caribou, when our energy policy (use as much oil as possible) will wipe them out through global warming? Clear Skies? Ha! Let's eliminate the anti-pollution controls so we can get back to the good old days when there was even more pollution, so my respiratory problems will get even worse.

Then, there are the inspections of food-processing plants. Bush put back the poke-and-sniff methods, with occasional tests by USDA, overruling Clinton's modern tests for E. coli H7:O157. Let's make meat as unsafe as possible!

This isn't entirely off-topic. When legal issues concerning these problems make it to SCOTUS, do we want justices who actually believe in science and public health and the good of the people, or do we want neo-cons in justices' clothing?

Really off-topic, but since it's been brought up: I agree with ST88 that Kerry can't screw up Iraq any worse than Bush already has. In fact, he can't screw up anything any worse. What he has going for him is that he thinks. This seems to be why Bush supporters don't like him. I don't mean that Bush supporters don't think, but that Kerry thinks long and hard, weighing pros and cons, and doesn't automatically come to a standard, predicatable conclusion. "Moral certainty" acts as blinders, that often blind us to the truth "on the ground." This is a nuanced world--moreso after the Iraq invasion--and we need nuanced thinking about it.

Piper--I hear what you're saying about being so close the WTC (both times? yikes!). One of my good friends was in the ER only a few blocks away, and they braced themselves for the flood of injured...who never came. The trouble is, during their talks at the change of guard, Clinton told Bush to get bin Laden, and told him where he was. We knew that Iraq wasn't involved, too. We also knew that the entire world was on our side after 9/11. I want a president who knows that international cooperation is essential in a global-economy world. I want a president who knows that it's important to get the facts right, think about them, and involve as many allies as possible to ensure the right outcome. Going off half-cocked, in the wrong direction, isn't a good sign of "protecting us from terrorists," especially when you keep flip-flopping on what the reason is. And then losing 677 tons of high explosives?

But back to the point at hand: the track records of the two men allow us to predict that Bush will appoint to the Court idealogues who share his views (as he has with "neutral" scientific commissions, for example). Kerry will think about who to appoint, and try to find people who can do the most good. I don't expect him to appoint flaming left-wingers, because that would be counter-productive in the long run, and Congress wouldn't approve 'em anyway.

And, as Time Magazine says this week, we need someone to heal the divisions this campaign has caused. We know that Bush "the uniter" won't do so. He's had a chance, and proved that he goes the other way. With Bush, it will just get worse. We haven't seen what Kerry would do in the same position, but he's smart enough to recognize that he can't govern without it.

[Piper Plexed]

Jose, Well I venture to guess that your friends were either at St. Vincent's (A Hosp. I know all too well) or at the triage set up at the Staten Island Ferry, am I correct? That was tragic and heart breaking to watch, all the Angels of mercy left with no one to tend to.

Well I might add that I have appreciated all the input on the thread, It helps to keep perspective though I still remain somewhat undecided All I can say is boy this has been the most stressful roller coaster ride of an election I have ever lived through. I suspect I am one of many torn at the heart Tri Stater's. The election has been really strange this year, my community is predominantly Dem though I have seen no Kerry lawn signs and just one Bush. Watch out, I suspect that old faithful Democratic state of NJ may become a swing state this year. I also suspect that there are many people that will struggle with this till the moment they pull the lever in the booth.

Gee I wish the other side would speak up, I would love to hear their point of view.

[Jose]

I also suspect that there are many people that will struggle with this till the moment they pull the lever in the booth.

Hm. I find it extremely obvious.

I've never seen any reason to vote for Bush, and every reason to vote for anyone else. It's too bad that the proof-of-fabrication stories that NPR has had about the Bush campaign's anti-Kerry statements (starting with Cheney and Miller at the convention) never made it into any other media, because they paint a fairly sorry picture of our "morality" president. I guess that's the "liberal media" for you...