Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 41 Days Left


vcczar
 Share

41 Day Poll  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. See the Data in the First Post: Who do you think wins if the election were today?

  2. 2. Which candidate is probably more religious?

  3. 3. Which candidate is more Christ-like?

  4. 4. Which of the following politicians have high integrity? Check all that apply

  5. 5. Check all the statements regarding a Supreme Court Justice that more or less overlap with your own opinion.

    • A justice should be allowed to making rulings based off Christian dogma if they so wish.
    • A justice should be able to make rulings based off their personal Christian faith.
    • A justice should be allowed to be a judicial activist for their faith (i.e. actively promoting and advocating rulings based on the tenants of the Religious Right)
    • A justice should be allowed to make rulings based on Constitutional law -- and not bias their decisions through religious faith.
    • A justice should be allowed to make rulings based on a secular mindset, since we are not officially a Christian nation (and becoming less Christian each year).
    • A justice should be allowed to make strict, originalist interpretations of law and the US Constitution.
    • A justice should be allowed to make broad interpretations of the US Constitution considering that US Constitution is often vague and the expectations of government and society change over time.
    • A justice should be allowed to use their political bias in making decisions.
    • A justice should be allowed to be a reliable vote for the president that appointed them.
    • A justice should be free to completely change their political ideology and voting patterns once they've been confirmed if they so wish.
    • A justice should be allowed to make any ruling they wish and should not be required to explain why.
    • A justice should never be compelled to resign based off age or minor mental or physical decline.
    • A justice should be required to have judicial experience, even if a party has the vote and determination to make them a justice.
    • A justice shouldn't be within the age range of 18-35, even if a party has the vote and determination to make them a justice.
    • A justice should not be foreign born.
    • A justice should not be LGBT
    • A justice should not be Muslim
      0
    • A justice must have a college-level education
    • A justice should have the entire US Constitution memorized.
    • A justice should have all the significant court cases from history memorized.
    • A justice should not be a member of a political party.
    • A justice should not be a Socialist
    • A justice should be term-limited.
    • A justice should have a retirement age.
    • A justice must be required to be of a certain age to be nominated.
    • A justice must be required to have been a federal judge in a lower court for a specific number of years to be nominated to the SC.
    • A new Chief Justice must be nominated from the Associate Justices of the SC, since that makes the most sense.
    • The Associate Justices should take turns being Chief Justice.
    • Any justice with a history of misbehavior, including during their college days, should be barred from being a SC Justice.
    • SC Justices should also be approved and/or vetoed by voters either by a straight majority or perhaps a 60%.


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, vcczar said:

Based off our responses here is how we rank as SC Justice with Rigid Traditionalist Originalists at the top and Broad Progressive Reformists at the bottom:

1. @Conservative Elector 2 (Actually no one was even close to as Rigid Traditionalist Originalist as him -- he'd be way right of Scalia, resembling something closer to a judge in a theocracy.)

2. @Reagan04 (the next most conservative judge is actually something of a swing judge -- think Justice Kennedy or Chief Justice Roberts)

3. @SilentLiberty (basically the same as Reagan04)

4. @WVProgressive (Kind of a surprise. This places him about where Merrick Garland likely would have been as a Justice. Would only very occasionally swing right.)

5. @ThePotatoWalrus (This makes even less sense. This placed him as a left-leaning judge that may occasionally swing right; however, this is almost entirely based on PotatoWalrus favoring almost all the reform statements. 

6. @Mark_W (Reliable liberal judge)

7. @PringlesN7 (Reliable liberal judge)

8. @jnewt (Reliable liberal judge)

9. @Rodja (Likely an activist liberal judge on par with RGB)

10. @Alxeu (Basically the same as Rodja)

11. @Actinguy (Likely to be left of even RGB, especially on reform)

12. @Hestia11 (same as Actinguy)

13. @MysteryKnight (Would arguably be the most progressive judge in SC history)

14. @vcczar (Out of orbit progressive judge;  Favored all reform suggestions. Wants to fundamentally change the judicial branch.)

 

Out of curiosity, did you exclude my name because I'm staunchly against partisan-based justices, and either you disagree and/or can't imagine a Supreme Court without justices chosen for partisan and ideological stance as a principal qualifier and/or are unable to rate such a viewpoint in your ranking?

 

And, almost had the entire poll answered (albeit from bottom to top) until it got to the "Christ-like," question, which, of course, is mandatory, and I cannot, in all due conscience and piety, answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Patine said:

Out of curiosity, did you exclude my name because I'm staunchly against partisan-based justices, and either you disagree and/or can't imagine a Supreme Court without justices chosen for partisan and ideological stance as a principal qualifier and/or are unable to rate such a viewpoint in your ranking?

 

And, almost had the entire poll answered (albeit from bottom to top) until it got to the "Christ-like," question, which, of course, is mandatory, and I cannot, in all due conscience and piety, answer.

I calculated this before you answered. See the time when I posted compared to when you answered. I didn't see your responses or you would have been counted. So it must have been after you posted. I'll see how you align with the others later. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Patine said:

Out of curiosity, did you exclude my name because I'm staunchly against partisan-based justices, and either you disagree and/or can't imagine a Supreme Court without justices chosen for partisan and ideological stance as a principal qualifier and/or are unable to rate such a viewpoint in your ranking?

 

And, almost had the entire poll answered (albeit from bottom to top) until it got to the "Christ-like," question, which, of course, is mandatory, and I cannot, in all due conscience and piety, answer.

OK, so yeah, I cannot calculate you without you taking in the poll. Obviously, that's why you are excluded.

In fact, henceforth, I will no longer read any of your comments on my posts that have polls unless you take them. If you have issues with a question in the polling, you can explain it below after you take the poll. One of my biggest pet peeves are people that complain about harmless, just-for-fun polls all the time, or complain about how other people respond to the poll, and then never take the polls. It's the forum version of a backseat driver. I can guarantee you probably 85% of people probably have some issue with my polls or other people's polls for whatever reason; yet, they take them. Their complaints are few. However, you quarrel with everything and seemingly everyone to a very unnecessary degree. It's getting about as tiring as hearing Trump speak on TV. 

I know I don't want to quarrel. So I'm just going to ignore your commends on posts with polls unless I see that you have taken the poll. I'll apply the same rule to other people as well if I see them also routinely complaining about the polls or poller responses without taking the poll themself. 

I don't know if this is a Canadian thing? @admin_270 only responds to his own polls it seems. At least he doesn't criticize people's responses. 

What you are doing is tantamount to showing up to a polling station, not voting yourself, and then bashing both the electoral process and the people for voting for whomever they voted for. That's a kind of trolling. It's an unwelcomed behavior. It ruins the fun of the forum. You have to partake in the fun or else become the party pooper. It's like we're playing baseball and then you're over at 3rd base complaining that your glove is made out of leather, which comes from an animal, or that it was made in America -- the greatest violators of human rights--, so you can't possibly use the glove. Then, you start accusing your fellow teammates of being in league with George W. Bush for wearing the gloves. As soon as you learn baseball is "America's Game," you are overcome with near-fainting shock, and then let us know that we should all be playing cricket instead of baseball!

My tolerance for puritans and cranks is exhausted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hestia11 said:

and who would that be? ;)

According to this https://270soft.ipbhost.com/topmembers/?filter=member_posts 

Patine, Vcczar, Actinguy, Admin, Reagan, Herbert, Potato, me, jvikings are still here

In case someone wouldn't take up his seat at the Forum Supreme Court Middle, you and MBDemSoc are the next in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Waiting....

Im working on it as we speak friend! It’s a big undertaking considering the vastness of American jurisprudence but don’t fear I am absolutely working on it.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

No, but a lot of your polls look like they'll take a significant amount of time to answer.

I’m curious how long it takes for people to take my polls. It usually takes me less than a minute to take other people’s polls, but I know they’re often very simple polls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

OK, so yeah, I cannot calculate you without you taking in the poll. Obviously, that's why you are excluded.

In fact, henceforth, I will no longer read any of your comments on my posts that have polls unless you take them. If you have issues with a question in the polling, you can explain it below after you take the poll. One of my biggest pet peeves are people that complain about harmless, just-for-fun polls all the time, or complain about how other people respond to the poll, and then never take the polls. It's the forum version of a backseat driver. I can guarantee you probably 85% of people probably have some issue with my polls or other people's polls for whatever reason; yet, they take them. Their complaints are few. However, you quarrel with everything and seemingly everyone to a very unnecessary degree. It's getting about as tiring as hearing Trump speak on TV. 

I know I don't want to quarrel. So I'm just going to ignore your commends on posts with polls unless I see that you have taken the poll. I'll apply the same rule to other people as well if I see them also routinely complaining about the polls or poller responses without taking the poll themself. 

I don't know if this is a Canadian thing? @admin_270 only responds to his own polls it seems. At least he doesn't criticize people's responses. 

What you are doing is tantamount to showing up to a polling station, not voting yourself, and then bashing both the electoral process and the people for voting for whomever they voted for. That's a kind of trolling. It's an unwelcomed behavior. It ruins the fun of the forum. You have to partake in the fun or else become the party pooper. It's like we're playing baseball and then you're over at 3rd base complaining that your glove is made out of leather, which comes from an animal, or that it was made in America -- the greatest violators of human rights--, so you can't possibly use the glove. Then, you start accusing your fellow teammates of being in league with George W. Bush for wearing the gloves. As soon as you learn baseball is "America's Game," you are overcome with near-fainting shock, and then let us know that we should all be playing cricket instead of baseball!

My tolerance for puritans and cranks is exhausted. 

But you have a question in this poll I cannot and will not answer, and I believe you were aware (or should have) that I would not. I could have answered the whole poll, EASILY, as I said, if it were not for that question. Do you even know understand what the Christ-like means? Why was that question even there? This line of inquiry is very serious, and not "ranting," and I seriously hope for an answer and, possibly, a resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...