Well, Obama’s not a bigot for one. But it says a lot about you that you think Romney’s better.
I think that the correlation between “I can’t stand Romney’s voice” and “I can’t stand Romney even when he isn’t talking” is almost certainly extremely high, for the simple reason that if you don’t like someone, there’s a tendency to exaggerate their annoying characteristics.
Another example: Obama has a tendency either to speak in run-on sentences or begin lots of sentences with the word “and,” depending on how you want to look at it. I bet that people who don’t like Obama are far more likely to find this grating.
Just for giggles, exactly what policy of Romney’s do you prefer to Obama’s?
'Cause as far as I can tell, Romney will do things exactly the same as Obama, or hasn’t established a clear position on anything different, much less a clear detailed position.
Nor a good rightist.
That is the burden of thinking; it mitigates against blind partisanship.
But I don’t hate Obama, not the least bit.
At this point it’s a lot easier to pick policies of Romney’s that I would prefer to Romney’s.
I believe Romney will appoint federal judges who believe that the role of the judiciary is to decide the application of law to facts, much more than it is the creation of new, substantive law. I believe Obama will — as he has – select judges who favor the “living, breathing Constitution” model and see the role of the judiciary as a tool of social change.
I believe Romney’s support for Israel would be more straightforward and clear-cut than Obama’s has been.
Since I don’t agree with the concept of penalizing success, I don’t favor Obama’s plan of increasing taxes in the wealthy.
Bricker, can you give us an example of something Obama judges have done that don’t comport to your understanding of the Constitution? If this is happening, it might be a valid reason to vote for Romney (assuming we ignore all the reasons not to).
I can’t find fault with Obama’s support for Israel.
I don’t believe a 2% increase in the highest tax rate can be honestly labeled “penalizing success.” I think that’s a ridiculous thing to say. You can’t mean that; those words don’t mean what you think they mean in the context of a small tax increase (especially in light of a federal deficit problem). You really prefer a person like Romney who would reje ct a deficit reduction plan that included a 10 to 1 ratio of spending cuts to tax hikes?
And what’s the deal with how Romney blinks? Isn’t it the most annoying blink you’ve ever seen? You can tell he hates the masses and is blinking to escape looking at them for precious microseconds.
What would you think of letting all the tax cuts expire, so we’re all back to Clinton’s rates?
You prefer textualists or orignalists like Scalia or Thomas? See, I see that in the same light as zero-tolerance rules. They work good in theory and bad in practice. Each situation should be viewed on it’s merits within the framework of law. Law shouldn’t be used like the proverbial hammer in search of a nail, IMHO.
But that’s a digression. I don’t think Romney cares whether the judge will employ a textual reading or not, as long as they vote the way the GOP wants (conservatively).
As far as Israel is concerned, the only thing Obama hasn’t done is supported a strike against Iran. However, just because we’re allies, doesn’t mean we have to agree with them in every circumstance. I’m sure Obama know how geopolitically important Israel is.
The rich are enjoying extremely low tax rates at present. Lower than the last 50 or 60 years. We are running huge deficits. The path back to prosperity can’t happen through cuts alone. Seems like a no brainer to use money that’s otherwise sitting idle to close some of the gap. Although, any extra taxes, to my disappointment, most likely won’t go to closing the deficit, but to refunding departments that have had their budgets slashed over the last 5 years.
Exactly why is a thread on Romney’s condescension the place to debate bricker’s political philosophy?
Only so much you can say re: Romney’s condescension and most of it is subjective anyway, but you’re right. Not the place.
Because he is (1) the GOP nominee and (2) not a crazy odious ideologue. Gingrich or Paul or Santorum would not be polling so high.
Sure. Sotomayor dissented in Berghuis v. Thompkins. She also dissented from the majority holding in the Obamacare case that held the mandate to be a tax; she would have Commerce-Claused it.
Reason enough not to elect businessmen-CEO types to political positions, because when a politician says “jump” the other side always yawns and asks "why should I? " and “what’s in it for me?”
The position taken in that dissent was not unreasonable. Certainly not an example of advocating a “living breathing constitution.”. Lots of prior cases say that a waiver of a constitutional right must be explicit.
I think Romney’s condescension is more boss-like than parent-like. Like the way you talk to the help or your executive assistant.
And yet the invocation of the right to an attorney – the other key right that’s the cornerstone of Miranda – must be explicitly claimed.
To claim that the Constitution itself requires police to obtain an unequivocal waiver of the right to remain silent after explicitly informing the suspect he has that right is a dramatic change from current case law, and definitely falls into “living, breathing (changing) Constitution.”
If your help’s first language is Spanish, or if your executive assistant was in the developmental track at school.
Wait…wasn’t your own position also that the Commerce Clause jurisprudence required Obamacare to be upheld?