18 ms·

They have an effect, but not enough of one to justify the level of collective hysteria we experience every four years.

staunch 14y ago
They appoint Supreme Court Justices. Those appointments decide our constitutional rights for decades or centuries. For that reason alone, it's worth all the fuss.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  I'm going to respectfully disagree. I disagree about the gravity, but I don't feel I can make that argument satisfactorily with the time I have now. But even aside from that, the relationship between my vote for a presidential candidate and the eventual appointee is very indirect--in my case, the presidents I have voted for have always chosen vastly worse Justices than the candidates I voted against. I think you'd have to somehow agree fervently with one of the major party's ideals, but also take the broadest reading, in order to really be satisfied with their appointments. I personally think there's a lot of value in combining a progressive legislature with a conservative judicial branch.
  - _pius 14y ago
    I want to respectfully disagree, but I'm afraid there's no truly respectful way to call your statement what it is: naïve and dangerous. Based on the current composition of the Supreme Court, replacing a single judge could have dramatic, fairly immediate, and nearly irreversible real-world consequences to the citizens of this country. Whether you agree with those consequences or not, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the stakes aren't high.
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      This is probably why talking politics is frowned upon here. I appreciate your perspective, and I especially appreciate your civility, but I don't think we can go further in this venue.
- spifbv 14y ago
  In a perverse way, maybe the only good thing George W. Bush did as President was to show people how important it is to not elect a really bad candidate for President.

They appoint Supreme Court Justices. Those appointments decide our constitutional rights for decades or centuries. For that reason alone, it's worth all the fuss.

fusiongyro 14y ago
I'm going to respectfully disagree. I disagree about the gravity, but I don't feel I can make that argument satisfactorily with the time I have now. But even aside from that, the relationship between my vote for a presidential candidate and the eventual appointee is very indirect--in my case, the presidents I have voted for have always chosen vastly worse Justices than the candidates I voted against. I think you'd have to somehow agree fervently with one of the major party's ideals, but also take the broadest reading, in order to really be satisfied with their appointments. I personally think there's a lot of value in combining a progressive legislature with a conservative judicial branch.
- _pius 14y ago
  I want to respectfully disagree, but I'm afraid there's no truly respectful way to call your statement what it is: naïve and dangerous. Based on the current composition of the Supreme Court, replacing a single judge could have dramatic, fairly immediate, and nearly irreversible real-world consequences to the citizens of this country. Whether you agree with those consequences or not, you'd be hard-pressed to argue that the stakes aren't high.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    This is probably why talking politics is frowned upon here. I appreciate your perspective, and I especially appreciate your civility, but I don't think we can go further in this venue.
spifbv 14y ago
In a perverse way, maybe the only good thing George W. Bush did as President was to show people how important it is to not elect a really bad candidate for President.