PDA

View Full Version : 82% of McCain voters believe the Justices Should use Constitutional Rules .



megimoo
09-06-2008, 09:34 AM
60% of Voters Say Supreme Court Should Base Rulings on Constitution

82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree.

During his acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, John McCain told the audience, “We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench.” Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice. The number who agree with McCain is up from 55% in August.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

In terms of how the Supreme Court currently makes decisions, just 42% of voters think the justices rule from what is in the Constitution. Thirty-percent (30%) say they are guided by a sense of fairness and justice. Democrats are more likely than Republicans and unaffiliated voters to believe the justices base rulings on the Constitution.

The survey also found that 65% of voters think the Supreme Court justices have their own political agendas. That number has changed little over the past month. Just 18% believe the judges remain impartial when making decisions.

Nearly all voters believe the selection of Supreme Court justices by the president is important. The majority (63%) believe it is very important. Just 8% think the selection process by the president is not important.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_ratings/supreme_court_update

wulfpaw
09-07-2008, 04:25 AM
Heh, saying the supreme court should go exclusively by the constitution is like saying you should exclusively use your legs for walking; It's a no-brainer. Now, some can walk on their hands, but they never seem to get very far. What galls me is them cherry-picking foreign law to support their leftist views. How'd they like the same treatment in reverse? I mean, there are some interesting laws elsewhere to support a hard right turn to the law, as well.

PoliCon
09-07-2008, 10:05 AM
SCOTUS and federal court appointments were the deciding issue for me in the last 2 elections. It will be the deciding issue for me in this election too.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-08-2008, 07:46 PM
SCOTUS and federal court appointments were the deciding issue for me in the last 2 elections. It will be the deciding issue for me in this election too.


And if we win it should finally pay off with a Constitutionally based Supreme Court for the first time in decades.

PoliCon
09-08-2008, 10:01 PM
And if we win it should finally pay off with a Constitutionally based Supreme Court for the first time in decades.
wouldn't that be just WONDERFUL!!

justsayin
09-08-2008, 11:18 PM
I think it’s somewhat terrifying that almost one third of the Americans polled were willing to say that they should not use Constitutional Rules.

Eyelids
09-08-2008, 11:57 PM
I think it’s somewhat terrifying that almost one third of the Americans polled were willing to say that they should not use Constitutional Rules.

That document is how old now?

justsayin
09-09-2008, 03:52 AM
That document is how old now?

WTF is your point? There is a process that can be used to keep the Constitution up to date. If something needs to change, amend it. If you can't find the support to amend it, it probably shouldn't be part of the supreme law of the land.

I assume that you are only for ignoring the parts of the Constitution that you find disagreeable, or can we just disregard any part of it because it’s old.

I pity you if you feel that the Supreme Court should make rulings that have broad reaching effects on the whole country based on something as fleeting and baseless as a “sense of fairness and justice”. That can mean literally anything.

PoliCon
09-09-2008, 09:42 AM
That document is how old now?

That's the point. The document is TIMELESS.

SaintLouieWoman
09-09-2008, 10:23 AM
That's the point. The document is TIMELESS.

Don't waste your breath, he'll never understand. I've never heard such an inane comment as "That document is how old now?" :rolleyes:

Goldwater
09-09-2008, 12:16 PM
That's the point. The document is TIMELESS.

The document is dead.

Eyelids
09-09-2008, 02:21 PM
The document is dead.

Exactly.

Look it has some great ideas and it's one of the most important documents in history, but we cant still be living in 1788. The world has changed a lot since then and the process for amending the constitution is nearly impossible with the effort usually being wasted on trivial things like gay marriage.

NonConformist
09-09-2008, 02:22 PM
Only 60%!?!?!? We are truly f*cked!

That explains the 5/4 split, its a national trend as well

:(

NonConformist
09-09-2008, 02:23 PM
Looks like 2 villages are missing idiots! :rolleyes:

Goldwater
09-09-2008, 02:26 PM
Exactly.

Look it has some great ideas and it's one of the most important documents in history, but we cant still be living in 1788. The world has changed a lot since then and the process for amending the constitution is nearly impossible with the effort usually being wasted on trivial things like gay marriage.

No, the document is useful if proper channels are used to update it the main problem has been just about every president and congress since Theodore.

Eyelids
09-09-2008, 02:50 PM
No, the document is useful if proper channels are used to update it the main problem has been just about every president and congress since Theodore.

Its hard to keep a document that spans 3 centuries user-friendly.

NonConformist
09-09-2008, 04:38 PM
Actually its stupid simple as long as you comprehend English. Its people w AGNEDAS who keep trying to re interpret it

lacarnut
09-09-2008, 05:26 PM
Don't waste your breath, he'll never understand. I've never heard such an inane comment as "That document is how old now?" :rolleyes:

True, he is an idiot just like the other 40% that want to cherry pick bits and pieces that they do not agree with.

Goldwater
09-10-2008, 07:33 AM
Its hard to keep a document that spans 3 centuries user-friendly.

Maybe thats because users didn't interact with it for a long time.

SaintLouieWoman
09-10-2008, 09:13 AM
Its hard to keep a document that spans 3 centuries user-friendly.
I guess you really think the Magna Carta was useless. It's really "old". :rolleyes:

megimoo
09-10-2008, 09:22 AM
The document is dead.
JUst like the bible, right bud ?:mad:

PoliCon
09-10-2008, 09:30 AM
The document is dead.Oh the lefties have it on life support - but it's not yet dead.

PoliCon
09-10-2008, 09:32 AM
Exactly.

Look it has some great ideas and it's one of the most important documents in history, but we cant still be living in 1788. The world has changed a lot since then and the process for amending the constitution is nearly impossible with the effort usually being wasted on trivial things like gay marriage. If it needs to be changed - the amendment process is there and just easy enough to happen should the majority be in favor of the change. QUITE different from the way that the left changes it by judicial fiat for every little minority that comes along and offeres to sell the left their votes.

Goldwater
09-10-2008, 10:52 AM
JUst like the bible, right bud ?:mad:

Don't project your anger regarding religion onto me please.

jediab
09-12-2008, 11:20 PM
Exactly.

Look it has some great ideas and it's one of the most important documents in history, but we cant still be living in 1788. The world has changed a lot since then and the process for amending the constitution is nearly impossible with the effort usually being wasted on trivial things like gay marriage.

If you don't think that it has any value, then you shouldn't scream and bitch when the rights you deny because "the document is too old", are violated.