Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Summary for you, SS and Coltrane: Supreme Court replacements as a general topic: fair game. Raising it in the context of someone's current illness: not a good idea for either side, too many people will view it as extremely tacky or desperate or whatever. OTOH: if you raise it benignly as an illustration that the next President is always likely to have a hand in the next Supreme Court (for example, some Justices even now are ill), than I guess I wouldn't flinch. I'd flinch more at the idea of anyone using him in a very issue-specific context (If Kerry picks Rehnquist's replacement, we'll never see Roe overturned!).
Maybe another way to put this is, the more shrill the voice raising this is, the more I'll flinch at it as being tacky.
Chile': Far and away the country I like the most (after the U.S.) in the Americas. Its seen huge strides in the last 50 years, and I believe it will continue to make more. And yup, I don't care if they lean towards Democrats more than Republicans, they are still good people.
Hello
ETA: and, just for the sake of anyone else reading this, I reiterate that single-issue abortion voters are 2 or 3 times more likely to be pro-Life than pro-choice according to studies. That's why I'm suggesting that its way more likely that the Reps will be tacky and raise a shrill voice here. If the Dems do it, they'll both look shrill and be raising an issue that galvanizes more pro-Life votes than pro-choice. No upside to it, at least for the abortion question. All of this said, I think some pro-Life group or another is gonna jump the ropes on this one and start screaming.
|
Come now, counselor.... Just about anyone can raise this issue with tact and not look "despicable".* Here, I'll do it right here (Kerry... use this):
"We all wish Justice Rehnquist the speediest recovery, and we hope the he remains the pre-emminent jurist and guiding hand of the Supreme Court that he has been for so long, but ladies and gentleman, make no mistake. His unfirtunate illness does remind us that the Supreme Court, made up of some of the wisest minds, who have come to their wisdom partly through age, are not getting younger, and God forbid illness should befall any of them, or they decide to retire, the next president will be able to shape the Court for decades to come. Ladies and gentlemen, do not forget that the most activist righist jurists on the panel - the ones Bush admits favoring the most - are also the youngest. Should Bush get to appoint another of like mind, there could be a Scalia/Thomas dominated court. You know what that would bring. (then add some crap about how the Court needs to be evenly split and fair)."
* And don't think I didn't note the fact that in your first post you didn't merely say it would LOOK despicable - you said it would BE despicable.
