News What's Wrong with Democratic activists?

[Rev Prez]

Why would they offer de novo hearings to murderers but not an innocent like Terri Schiavo? I have but one simple explanation. Political considerations trump any insincere concern for Terri's life, and to that end the Democrats have made a terrible miscalculation. They assumed that the White House and Congressional Republicans would take a hit over intervening in Schiavo's case. They http://www.pollingreport.com/congjob.htm . The smarter ones were swift enough to stay silent.

Americans believed by a nearly sixty point margin that George Bush's Supreme Court nominees would make abortion http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm , but they put him back in office with an even larger conservative margin in the Senate. Exactly what made the Democrats think that a showdown on "end of life" issues would break their way?

Rev Prez

 

[kat]

How many more must die before Kofi quits?

The second searing irony for me is that the American neoconservative right has occupied the moral high ground in critique of Annan, outflanking the left, which sits on indefensible territory in his support. But if prevention of genocide and protection of the vulnerable are not core priorities on the left, then what is? If anyone's values have been betrayed, it is those of us on the left who believe most deeply in the organisation's ideals. I am mystified by the reluctance of the left both in the US and the UK (the Guardian 's coverage, for example) to criticize Annan's leadership. The bodies burn today in Darfur - and the women are raped - amid the sound of silence from Annan. How many genocides, the prevention of which is the UN's very raison d'être, will we endure before the left is moved to criticize Annan? Shouldn't we be hearing the left screaming bloody murder about the UN's failure to protect vulnerable Africans? Has it lost its compass so badly that it purports to excuse the rape of Congolese women by UN peacekeepers under Annan's watch? Is stealing money intended for widows and orphans in Iraq merely a forgivable bureaucratic snafu?

I've been wondering where the "Real" left is myself...
I think they've been usurped by the fanatical self interest groups...

 

[faust9]

Did you see this?

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Republican leaders in Congress are doing?"

.
		Approve 	Disap-
prove 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
3/17-21/05   39      44      17 		
	2/04 	41 	42 	17 		
	1/03 	48 	37 	15 		
	6/02 	50 	34 	16 		
	5/02 	49 	34 	17

How can you present this as valid data? There is a one+ year gap in the reporting. What were the polling numbers last month?

Your second link CLEARLY shows your assertion to be wrong, wrong, wrong... Here, read this: http://www.pollingreport.com/news.htm

"If you were in Terri Schiavo's place, what would you want your guardian to do? Would you have your guardian remove the feeding tube or keep the feeding tube inserted?"
						

.
		Remove 	Keep 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	3/29-30/05 	61 	24 	15 		
	3/1-2/05 	74 	15 	11 		
	10/28-29/03 	74 	16 	10

"Do you agree or disagree with the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube?"
						

.
		Agree 	Disagree 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	3/29-30/05 	42 	38 	20

Well, read the polls yourself. Most of the respondents sided with the husband.

So, what is wrong with the Dems? You havn't given any substance relating to your thread title; moreover, you've presented weakly researched data that actually counters your claim in one instance and useless in another. Your third point is a strawman as well because you've presented an assertion that a margin of the country believes abortion would be made illegal under Bush you've not presented data showing how many Americans support the idea of making abortion illegal.

[edit] You might want to take some time and read through one of the Terri Schiavo threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=67115
Why start a new thread about a subject when the old one is onle 10 links down?

 

[cronxeh]

We don't live in a true democracy, faust, so citing polls and what 1000+ people thought is not relevant. We elect representatives, and then hope those representatives are as intelligent as they are sneaky, and when it comes to making the right decisions for those who put them in power - we hope they make the right call.

Sometimes, and read this as all the time, people don't know what is best for them. But some people know when they see a good leader who understands what's best - and there are a lot in Congress who don't know what they are doing

 

[faust9]

We don't live in a true democracy, faust, so citing polls and what 1000+ people thought is not relevant. We elect representatives, and then hope those representatives are as intelligent as they are sneaky, and when it comes to making the right decisions for those who put them in power - we hope they make the right call.

Sometimes, and read this as all the time, people don't know what is best for them. But some people know when they see a good leader who understands what's best - and there are a lot in Congress who don't know what they are doing

Oh, I realize this; however, when one presents data (polling of 1000 people can be made statistically valid BTW) one should take the time to ensure said data supports one's claim. The good reverend did not do that.

 

[cronxeh]

I'm not sure he is a reverend.. But in any case - I guess it depends who are those 1000 people - if they represent all the groups and minorities in all the proportions and with all religions and with all classes included - then I guess its a micro version of the entire populus. I somehow doubt that's what those statistics represent

 

[faust9]

I'm not sure he is a reverend.. But in any case - I guess it depends who are those 1000 people - if they represent all the groups and minorities in all the proportions and with all religions and with all classes included - then I guess its a micro version of the entire populus. I somehow doubt that's what those statistics represent

I know, he preaches to the quire like one though. Forgive my little quip. I'm not going to argue statistics though. You can look into this yourself and see that 1000+ opinion polls are mostly valid if good opinion polling strategies are used.

 

[russ_watters]

Why would they offer de novo hearings to murderers but not an innocent like Terri Schiavo?

How would Terri Schiavo have gone about requesting such a thing and on what legal grounds could it be done?

 

[BobG]

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way each of the following has handled the case involving Terri Schiavo? How about [see below]?"

________________________Approve Disapprove Unsure
The media_________________43_____46________11
George W. Bush____________31_____52________17
Democrats in Congress_______28____42________30
The Republicans in Congress__ 26____47________27

Wow, looks like a clean sweep to me. Maybe people should have minded their own business and let the family and courts decide it.

I think there are some debatable issues in regards to cases similar to Terri Schiavo's. Namely, with divorce rate around 50%, should the spouse automatically be given legal authority to make life or death decisions for their spouse. In Colorado, it's a consensus of closely related family members - I wonder just how well that works in situations like Schiavo's. In any event, someone eventually has to be given authority to make a decision.

In Schiavo's case, the fact that it had gone through so many different judges is enough to convince me that the right choice was made in this case.

 

[Rev Prez]

  FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. March 29-30, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
						

.

"Do you agree or disagree with the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube?"
						



.
		Agree 	Disagree 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	3/29-30/05 	42 	38 	20 

"If it were up to you, who would you put in control of Terri Schiavo's care as her legal guardian: her spouse or her parents?"
						

.
		Spouse 	Parents 	Neither
(vol.) 	Unsure 	
		% 	% 	% 	% 	
	3/29-30/05 	46 	43 	4 	8 	
						

.
"Do you believe Terri Schiavo told her husband she would not want to be kept alive under these types of circumstances?"
						

.
		Yes 	No 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	3/29-30/05 	43 	25 	32 		
						

.

"Do you think the actions Republicans took in the Terri Schiavo case will help them or hurt them in the next election?"
						

.
		Help 	Hurt 	Neither
(vol.) 	Unsure 	
		% 	% 	% 	% 	
	3/29-30/05 	16 	37 	25 	22

Furthermore

"If you were in Terri Schiavo's place, what would you want your guardian to do? Would you have your guardian remove the feeding tube or keep the feeding tube inserted?"
						

.
		Remove 	Keep 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	3/29-30/05 	61 	24 	15 		
	3/1-2/05 	74 	15 	11 		
	10/28-29/03 	74 	16 	10

After one month, the number of people who said they would give up authority to end their lives to others dropped 13 points. There's been little shift whatsoever in the job approval ratings of the President or Congressional Republicans in the matter, but the Schiavo case has definitely generated momentum for the pro-life case.

Rev Prez

 

[faust9]

  FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. March 29-30, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
						

.

"Do you agree or disagree with the decision to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube?"
						



.
		Agree 	Disagree 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	3/29-30/05 	42 	38 	20 

"If it were up to you, who would you put in control of Terri Schiavo's care as her legal guardian: her spouse or her parents?"
						

.
		Spouse 	Parents 	Neither
(vol.) 	Unsure 	
		% 	% 	% 	% 	
	3/29-30/05 	46 	43 	4 	8 	
						

.
"Do you believe Terri Schiavo told her husband she would not want to be kept alive under these types of circumstances?"
						

.
		Yes 	No 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	3/29-30/05 	43 	25 	32 		
						

.

"Do you think the actions Republicans took in the Terri Schiavo case will help them or hurt them in the next election?"
						

.
		Help 	Hurt 	Neither
(vol.) 	Unsure 	
		% 	% 	% 	% 	
	3/29-30/05 	16 	37 	25 	22

Furthermore

"If you were in Terri Schiavo's place, what would you want your guardian to do? Would you have your guardian remove the feeding tube or keep the feeding tube inserted?"
						

.
		Remove 	Keep 	Unsure 		
		% 	% 	% 		
	3/29-30/05 	61 	24 	15 		
	3/1-2/05 	74 	15 	11 		
	10/28-29/03 	74 	16 	10

After one month, the number of people who said they would give up authority to end their lives to others dropped 13 points.

Rev Prez

So what, 61>>24 last time I checked. Now, what is the margin of error for that poll? It's probably pretty high because its a new question with little historical data to allow for proper respondent weighting.

As for the approval shift, the data you presented was out of date--thus useless. You cannot look at data from 2/04 and compare that to 3/05 and say "See no change!" What were the numbers last month? Additionally, last I looked El Presidente's numbers have been on a slow decling since 1/20/05.

So Rev, what is wrong with Dem activists?

 

[2CentsWorth]

Americans believed by a nearly sixty point margin that George Bush's Supreme Court nominees would make abortion http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm , but they put him back in office with an even larger conservative margin in the Senate. Exactly what made the Democrats think that a showdown on "end of life" issues would break their way?

First, what percent of Americans are pro-choice? Are the Americans who believe Bush would nominate Supreme Court Justices to make abortion illegal also in favor of Bush nominating Supreme Court Justices who will make abortion illegal? Did all those who put Bush back in office do so because of right-to-life issues?

Those who know Bush is Messianic supposedly "get it." Those who know Bush isn't Messianic are the ones who really "get it," and the more out-of-touch Bush has been, the more people "get it" that he's not Messianic and is out-of-touch, including the Christian right.

 

[2CentsWorth]

...There's been little shift whatsoever in the job approval ratings of the President or Congressional Republicans in the matter.

 

[Rev Prez]

Did all those who put Bush back in office do so because of right-to-life issues?

That's the point. Bush was put in office despite the fact that a majority of Americans favor upholding Roe v. Wade. The difference is we have a better understanding of the correlating structure underlying American opinion on the abortion issue than where it concerns the end of life. It's difficult to rally around the pro-choice banner when most Americans are open to restrictions on abortion; a dynamic similar to what we see in the (limited) Schiavo polling.

Rev Prez

 

[faust9]

That's the point. Bush was put in office despite the fact that a majority of Americans favor upholding Roe v. Wade. The difference is we have a better understanding of the correlating structure underlying American opinion on the abortion issue than where it concerns the end of life. It's difficult to rally around the pro-choice banner when most Americans are open to restrictions on abortion; a dynamic similar to what we see in the (limited) Schiavo polling.

Rev Prez

So, now that the data has been show to not support your stance it suddenly becomes "limited" thus somehow minimizing its importance?

I'm sorry, but the data you've supplied thus far does not really support many of the ideas you've put forth. Which leads me to my next question:

"What do you find troublesome with Democratic Activism?" Thus far, you have bantered about Terri Schiavo, and abortion but as of yet you have not addressed activism itself(though that is the title of the thread). I see activism as alive and well these days personally. I saw ppl outside of a hospice trying to influence a democracy to suit their will over the will of the woman in question. I saw that form of activism get a bill signed into law. I saw a good man slandered by the likes of Karl Rove in 2000 using a Push-Poll in South Carolina. A little bit of activism there got Bush on the GOP ticket now didn't it?

So, what is wrong with activism to the point of dedicating a thread to said topic? Do you have anything in particular to discuss, or just more "Terri Schiavo was murdered and we let baby killers live" banter?

 

[faust9]

Ahhh! I found the perfect example of Democratic activism. Here's how it works, you become a political heavy weight. You set up a PAC. You then have your PAC pay your family members for political fundraising... Now that's some activism for ya. But, who would do something that brazen? I don't know ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/06/p...&en=f4d1a399b234e303&ei=5094&partner=homepage ) but I'm sure the GOP does.

 

[kat]

Ahhh! I found the perfect example of Democratic activism. Here's how it works, you become a political heavy weight.

For a sec I thought you were going to really show democratic activism...mebbe a link to something in regards to Berger...now that's some excellent Dem activism for ya.




Zogby poll details release...just FYI:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=982
Do you agree or disagree…?
Agree
Disagree
Not sure

It is proper for the federal government to intervene when basic civil rights are being denied?
74
19
8

The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities?
57
33
10

Michael Schiavo should turn guardianship of Terri over to her parents, considering he has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her?
56
35
9

The law should provide exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as the guardian for his or her incapacitated spouse?
46
39
15

It is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge’s order?
44
43
13

The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?
42
48
10

Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person’s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube?
38
54
8

Hearsay be allowed as evidence in the case of determining if a feeding tube should be removed?
31
57
12


Likely voters in the survey are closely divided on a number of other issues, including whether it is proper for the federal government to intervene in a case similar to Schiavo’s. When asked if it is proper for federal officials to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge, respondents were deadlocked, with 44% favoring such intervention, and 43% opposed.

The survey did find overwhelming consensus, however, when the question turned to government intervention in cases where basic civil rights were being denied. Three-quarters (74%) of likely voters say that it is proper for the federal government to intervene in such a case; just one-in-five (19%) disagree.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a Republican, but that's a horribly right-biased poll, kat. Most of the questions are simultaneously self-evident and meaningless.

 

[loseyourname]

Change "disabled" in that poll to "persistently vegetative" or "without higher brain function" and I wonder how the results would differ.

 

[faust9]

For a sec I thought you were going to really show democratic activism...mebbe a link to something in regards to Berger...now that's some excellent Dem activism for ya.




Zogby poll details release...just FYI:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=982
Do you agree or disagree…?
Agree
Disagree
Not sure

It is proper for the federal government to intervene when basic civil rights are being denied?
74
19
8

The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to minorities?
57
33
10

Michael Schiavo should turn guardianship of Terri over to her parents, considering he has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her?
56
35
9

The law should provide exceptions to the right of a spouse to act as the guardian for his or her incapacitated spouse?
46
39
15

It is proper for the federal government to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge’s order?
44
43
13

The representative branch of governments should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny basic rights to the disabled?
42
48
10

Elected officials should intervene to protect a disabled person’s right to live if there is conflicting testimony concerning removing a feeding tube?
38
54
8

Hearsay be allowed as evidence in the case of determining if a feeding tube should be removed?
31
57
12


Likely voters in the survey are closely divided on a number of other issues, including whether it is proper for the federal government to intervene in a case similar to Schiavo’s. When asked if it is proper for federal officials to intervene when disabled people are denied food and water by a state court judge, respondents were deadlocked, with 44% favoring such intervention, and 43% opposed.

The survey did find overwhelming consensus, however, when the question turned to government intervention in cases where basic civil rights were being denied. Three-quarters (74%) of likely voters say that it is proper for the federal government to intervene in such a case; just one-in-five (19%) disagree.

I agree, the federal government should intervein when basic civil rights are being trampeled upon. The right to vote, the right to a fair and equal education, the right to not be interned, the right to sit at a counter and enjoy a piece of pie, the right to not be fired for being 'old' all should be protected. For the most part, Zogby's poll questions extend well beyond the Schiavo case, so much so as to make it irrelevant to that case. The only questions which link it to the Schiavo case are the third and last ones. The rest are no-brainers.

Should the law make exceptions? Yes--I wouldn't want my drug addict wife of two days who I met in Vegas a day and a half before making a decision like that(that's my hypothetical wife BTW my real life wife is great).

Should the government step into hepl disabled people? Yes! Withholding food and water was used to help control retarded people at one point in time. Is that right--no. Should it be allowed--no. Does it apply to this case--no.

It's funny though that the public doesn't support intervention in cases where there is a disagreement though don't you think? I guess people said "You know they were together for 6 years. Mr Schiavo probably had this discussion with her. The 19 judges probably got it right in this case."

Also, note that the public also felt it was appropriate that the sworn statements of people other than the husband attesting to TERRI'S wishes be allowed as evidence...

Should someone be presumed to want to live? Probably; however, in this case the overwhelming evidence was that Terri didn't want to be in that condition. If Joe or Jane Doe drop in the street tomorrow with no written instructens then their wish to live should be presumed (Texas allows for doctors to remove these people from life support with or without the next of kin's concurrence). If I keeled over tomorrow without a living will and my wife said "We discussed this and he wouldn't want to be in that condition." then my wifes word should be good enough. We're married and have been long enough for her to make these decisions.

All in all your poll doesn't show anything except what you want it to. The questions were worded in such a way as to bolster your beliefs because initially they all appear to say Terri should have been allowed to live. The fact is though that most people who felt Terri had the right to die would have answered the questions as Zogby reports. That doesn't mean the questions support keeping the feeding tube though. Quite the contrary, if you read most scientiffic polls where the questiuon "Does Terri Schiavo have the right to die" or something along those lines you'd see most people said YES.

 

[faust9]

I'm a Republican, but that's a horribly right-biased poll, kat. Most of the questions are simultaneously self-evident and meaningless.

OMG that is a gem of a response "self-evident and meaningless" Priceless.

 

[kat]

All in all your poll doesn't show anything except what you want it to. The questions were worded in such a way as to bolster your beliefs because initially they all appear to say Terri should have been allowed to live. The fact is though that most people who felt Terri had the right to die would have answered the questions as Zogby reports. That doesn't mean the questions support keeping the feeding tube though. Quite the contrary, if you read most scientiffic polls where the questiuon "Does Terri Schiavo have the right to die" or something along those lines you'd see most people said YES.

1. It's not my poll. It was posted as in FYI.
2. To "bolster" my beliefs? Lol. Actually they appear to be worded to get a good reading on how popular and supported the issues that the "right" were claiming to be the issues...really were.
3. I thought this thread was about other issues then what you apparently do...
The questions and results that struck me the most really had little to do with Terri but...the differing in results in regards to the wording of 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th questions which really had little to do with Terri's particular situation, struck me as very interesting.

The hearing that Terri was supposed to be kept alive to attend was held today, wasn't it? Anyone catch it on cspan? Terri is body is long cold, turned to ashes and about to be scattered...but I think the impetuous behind the different political approaches are yet to be played out and neither of the parties "activism" had anything to do with a particular concern for 1 young lady name Terri Schiavo.

 

[faust9]

1. It's not my poll. It was posted as in FYI.
2. To "bolster" my beliefs? Lol. Actually they appear to be worded to get a good reading on how popular and supported the issues that the "right" were claiming to be the issues...really were.
3. I thought this thread was about other issues then what you apparently do...
The questions and results that struck me the most really had little to do with Terri but...the differing in results in regards to the wording of 1st, 2nd, 5th and 6th questions which really had little to do with Terri's particular situation, struck me as very interesting.

The hearing that Terri was supposed to be kept alive to attend was held today, wasn't it? Anyone catch it on cspan? Terri is body is long cold, turned to ashes and about to be scattered...but I think the impetuous behind the different political approaches are yet to be played out and neither of the parties "activism" had anything to do with a particular concern for 1 young lady name Terri Schiavo.

If I attributed the poll to you then I do appologize. IMO nothing in that poll had anything to do with the real facts of the case. As you said the questions were worded to energize a select few activists into saying "see we were right!"

I thought this thread was about activism; however, most of it seems to be about Terri Schiavo (She already has a couple of threads). I'm willing to discuss "democratic activism" but I don't see this the poll you presented as such (though I did get a larf from it when I read it).

 

[ray b]

"democratic activism" is progressive
NEO-CON reactions are regressive

abortion should be incouraged up to age 30
much like under roman law the child is the property of the parents
and no government should ever try to interfear with parents rights

btw how do the neo-con's desire to have less government square with their desire to over reglulate sex IE anti-gay marrage, anti-sex ed anti birthcontrol, anti porn, in addition to the antiabortion movement btw they arenot prolife and should drop that LIE as they are really just anti sex not PRO anything

BTW2 please explain just where the neo-cons and the taliban really differ on sex drugs and rock&roll and government control thru laws on puplic morals
as I see none at all

I favor less government esp in sex laws drug laws, and want NO censorship of anything
inc tits on tv

 

[faust9]

"democratic activism" is progressive
NEO-CON reactions are regressive

abortion should be incouraged up to age 30
much like under roman law the child is the property of the parents
and no government should ever try to interfear with parents rights

btw how do the neo-con's desire to have less government square with their desire to over reglulate sex IE anti-gay marrage, anti-sex ed anti birthcontrol, anti porn, in addition to the antiabortion movement btw they arenot prolife and should drop that LIE as they are really just anti sex not PRO anything

BTW2 please explain just where the neo-cons and the taliban really differ on sex drugs and rock&roll and government control thru laws on puplic morals
as I see none at all

I favor less government esp in sex laws drug laws, and want NO censorship of anything
inc tits on tv

The less government ideal is one of the historical conservative ideals conveninetly forgotten by the neo-cons. Neo means to transcend and less government is one of the things the neo's have moved beyond. The neo's prefer to regulate moralism and social values at the expense of less government. Neo's prefer to cut taxes at the expense of fiscal responsability. Neo activism is centered around religion as I see it. Neo's want prayer in school, co-teaching(if not the complete abolishment) of intelligent design or creationism.

 

[SOS2008]

Percentage of Americans who want to ban abortion:

Abortion Statistics – United States
Americans’ views concerning abortion:
61% say abortion should be legal, only in a few circumstances (42%), or illegal in all circumstances (18%). Gallup Poll, May 2003

Per several sources including MSNBC: Gallup poll showing Bush with his lowest approval rating of his presidency - And American response to government intervention in the Schiavo case...

Many wary of GOP's moral agenda
Poll: Public disliked Schiavo intervention
By Susan Page
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The controversy over Terri Schiavo has raised concerns among many Americans about the moral agenda of the Republican Party and the political power of conservative Christians, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds.

In the survey, most Americans disapprove of the efforts by President Bush and Congress to draw federal courts into the dispute over treatment of the brain-damaged Florida woman. She died last week.

Some old stereotypes about the two parties have been reversed:
•By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are “trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans” on moral values.
•By 53%-40%, they say Democrats, who sharply expanded government since the Depression, aren't trying to interfere on moral issues.

Still, Americans by 53%-34% say they disapprove of Bush's handling of the Schiavo case. Congress' rating on Schiavo is worse: 76% disapprove, 20% approve.

 

[faust9]

Hey here's some more info on GOP "Democratic Activism" http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3122593

Essentially, A GOP aid drafted a memo to politicise the Schiavo ordeal--not becuase he actually cared but for political expediance and gain.

Activism is alive and well, but unfortunately it is not always done for altruistic reasons.

This holds true for noe-libs as well mind you. The liber ultra left have some real kooks amongst themselves(PETA).

 

[SOS2008]

...neo-libs...The liber ultra left have some real kooks amongst themselves(PETA).

Not that I disagree with the other points you've been making, but we now refer to these people as neo-hippies.

 

[loseyourname]

Percentage of Americans who want to ban abortion:

Those percentages add up to 121. How do you interpret that?

 

[SOS2008]

Those percentages add up to 121. How do you interpret that?

I don't think it's supposed to add up to 100% - some overlap, i.e., 42% believe it should be legal, but only under certain circumstances, etc. (I did a copy and paste - ?).

 

[Rev Prez]

So, now that the data has been show to not support your stance it suddenly becomes "limited" thus somehow minimizing its importance?

The data supports my stance despite by limited. We have abortion polling, we have the 2004 election results, and we have Schiavo polling that shows a nation divided over whether Schiavo should've been starved to death and a 13 point drop in the space of a month of respondents indicating they would elect to die in a similar fashion. Remember, my argument is that the Democratic activists miscalculated based on polling that did not account for a different framing of the issue. The Zogby poll confirms this. To borrow from the Social Security reform opponents, the more Americans know about the Schiavo case, the less they like the liberal position.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Change "disabled" in that poll to "persistently vegetative" or "without higher brain function" and I wonder how the results would differ.

Sure, so long as you ask whether or not the courts should grant a second opinion--which would have required granting Schiavo a de novo review of the merits. In any case, the Democratic activists miscalculuated. They've received no bumps in the poll, Bush and Congressional Republicans did not suffer as a result, and the American faithful can now look at the Republican Party as defenders of innocent life. That leaves the Democrats in the same situation they faced in 2004, with an insufficient cache of secularists, union leaders and minorities as their core constituency. So much for making inroads with the evangelicals.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

Per several sources including MSNBC: Gallup poll showing Bush with his lowest approval rating of his presidency - And American response to government intervention in the Schiavo case...

Many wary of GOP's moral agenda
Poll: Public disliked Schiavo intervention
By Susan Page
USA TODAY

While the results of that poll are fairly clear, that piece of THAT ARTICLE is little better than the poll that kat posted - its just horribly left-biased (or, perhaps, just ignorant - the two sometimes look alike ). Specifically:

Some old stereotypes about the two parties have been reversed:

• By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are "trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans" on moral values.

• By 53%-40%, they say Democrats, who sharply expanded government since the Depression, aren't trying to interfere on moral issues.

Come again? See, this is why I dislike journalists - if they just report facts (most of the rest of the article is just facts), they do ok, but if they try to extend and find meaning behind those facts, their ignorance shows through. The GOP has always been the party most legislating morality. Does she think drug legalization used to be a GOP position? Strong, morality-based foreign policy a Democratic position? Abortion...?

No, what is meant by "limited government" is mostly a social/economic thing: low taxes, low minimum wage, few social programs, etc. That has not changed.

I don't think it's supposed to add up to 100% - some overlap, i.e., 42% believe it should be legal, but only under certain circumstances, etc. (I did a copy and paste - ?).

Do you have a link? That would help clarify...

 

[Smurf]

Abortion Statistics – United States
Americans’ views concerning abortion:
61% say abortion should be legal, only in a few circumstances (42%), or illegal in all circumstances (18%). Gallup Poll, May 2003

How do these numbers work? Is the 42% inside the 61%? Is the total 121%?
Regardless, What kind of moron would want to legalize abortion in all circumstances anyways. I think the 61% on that poll needs to go back to school before they're allowed to vote. Even the pro-lifes are better than that.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, so long as you ask whether or not the courts should grant a second opinion...

A second opinion for whom?

-Terri's doctors gave opinions at the beginning of her hospitalization.

-Michael Schaivo was Terri's guardian and he got all the opinions he wanted (and he got several more).

-The courts got several opinions and those opinions concurred with the opinions Schaivo's doctors gave. Thats only slightly relevant, since the cases were more about custody, though.

-Terri's parents got several opinions and some of them disagreed with Terri's doctors', Michael's doctors' and the courts' doctors. They also got all the opinions they needed to make up their minds. Unfortunately for them, they did not have the power to make decisions in this case.

...Bush and Congressional Republicans did not suffer as a result...

"Suffer" is a subjective term, but numbers are numbers:

Bush: .. favorable..unfavorable
2005 APR 1-2 .. 54 45
2005 Feb 25-27 56 42

Tom Delay:
2005 APR 1-2 27 31
2005 Feb 4-6 29 24

Bill Frist:
2005 APR 1-2 26 24
2003 Jan 3-5 36 11

So, three key players for the GOP and all of them took hits on this issue (noteable, Frist's last polling data was from 2003).

 

[BobG]

Why would they offer de novo hearings to murderers but not an innocent like Terri Schiavo? I have but one simple explanation. Political considerations trump any insincere concern for Terri's life, and to that end the Democrats have made a terrible miscalculation. They assumed that the White House and Congressional Republicans would take a hit over intervening in Schiavo's case. They http://www.pollingreport.com/congjob.htm . The smarter ones were swift enough to stay silent.

Americans believed by a nearly sixty point margin that George Bush's Supreme Court nominees would make abortion http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm , but they put him back in office with an even larger conservative margin in the Senate. Exactly what made the Democrats think that a showdown on "end of life" issues would break their way?

Rev Prez

Probably because of the transparency of the Republican effort. The issue wasn't Schiavo and, almost surprisingly, few Americans seemed to believe it was. Either that or the Republicans just chose a bad case as their rally flag.

The issue was judicial activism. The Republicans hoped the emotional issues in the Schiavo case would cast judges in a bad light. It would make the upcoming round of judicial nominations a little easier if Bush were solving a problem instead of just nominating the judges he felt were best (nothing wrong with the latter, but it doesn't carry as much moral weight when Democrats object).

The problem with the Schiavo case is that:

a) Most Americans have some faith in the judicial system. Some may want more conservative judges and some may want more liberal judges, but very few think the judicial system is corrupt or incompetent.

b) The Schiavo case, itself, wasn't that great of a case for the Republicans. She'd been in vegetative state for fifteen years. Most people felt removing the feeding tube was the sensible choice, even if they felt sympathy for the parents' personal agony.

c) The Republicans targeted exactly the type of judge they'd probably like to include in their next round of nominations. He was a conservative, evangelical judge who refused to let his personal beliefs interfere with his job performance. There's a real risk that more people would identify with Judge Greer's courage than the Republican politicians if the spotlight shone a little brighter on the judge.

d) The bill shot itself in the foot. It couldn't remove the Schiavo case from the judicial system, since that would be unconstitutional. It wound up being "Judges are out of control, so we're going to take it from them and send it to some, uh, different judges." Uh, huh?

e) Schiavo-parent supporters shot the Republicans in the foot. Were they really advocating that Jeb Bush break the law and stage a military coup against the judicial system? And were they really trying to infer that Bush was a coward for not breaking the law?

f) The memo pretty much confirmed what most folks guessed. This was a political maneuver by Republican politicians that had little real knowledge of the details of issue they were pushing.

I found the entire drama a little embarrassing. Fortunately, the prime players were Republicans that I don't particularly care for (George Bush, Frist, and DeLay). I almost felt sorry for Jeb Bush, because I did get the impression he was truly acting on principal and wound up getting burned for it.

I don't think the impact goes beyond short term embarrassment, though. Long term, I think they'll even gain from this. The details will be forgotten. Those that viewed the Republican effort with cynicism will practically forget the entire story, while the few that do agree with the Republican effort will only remember that the Republicans stood up for life.

 

[kat]

Well Russ, that's assuming the "hits" had anything to do with Schiavo and not to do with the price of gasoline or social security issues.

 

[russ_watters]

c) The Republicans targeted exactly the type of judge they'd probably like to include in their next round of nominations. He was a conservative, evangelical judge who refused to let his personal beliefs interfere with his job performance. There's a real risk that more people would identify with Judge Greer's courage than the Republican politicians if the spotlight shone a little brighter on the judge.

Now that, I didn't know. Another bullet in the foot. They got exactly the type of judge they wanted to hear the case and he shot them down (more than once). Ironic.

Well Russ, that's assuming the "hits" had anything to do with Schiavo and not to do with the price of gasoline or social security issues.

Granted, kat, but the short timeframe tends to rule out SS, and gas prices have been going up for a year. Regardless, the point was that the numbers do not show an increase, as was claimed previously.

 

[Moonbear]

Well Russ, that's assuming the "hits" had anything to do with Schiavo and not to do with the price of gasoline or social security issues.

I agree with you on that point. The timing of the polls showing the drop in approval ratings coincided with several events, any or all of which could have influenced those ratings. I suspect it is the combination of factors, not any single issue, that led to the drop. Though, I don't think the social security issues really factor into it that much, because those issues have been around quite a while. Those would have already been reflected in previous polls. Dramatically rising gas prices and the Schiavo case, however, both likely factored into this round of polling data.

 

[Rev Prez]

Probably because of the transparency of the Republican effort. The issue wasn't Schiavo and, almost surprisingly, few Americans seemed to believe it was. Either that or the Republicans just chose a bad case as their rally flag.

So you're saying Democrats lied to themselves about their opponents motivations in order to avoid the fact they were murdering an innocent young woman.

The issue was judicial activism. The Republicans hoped the emotional issues in the Schiavo case would cast judges in a bad light.

I'm sure they expected it to, and it did. That, however, does not speak to their motivation. It speaks more to the sick cynicism of the Left, one that would allow the state to starve Terri Schiavo to death.

The problem with the Schiavo case is that:

a) Most Americans have some faith in the judicial system. Some may want more conservative judges and some may want more liberal judges, but very few think the judicial system is corrupt or incompetent.

I think you better http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm that.

b) The Schiavo case, itself, wasn't that great of a case for the Republicans. She'd been in vegetative state for fifteen years. Most people felt removing the feeding tube was the sensible choice, even if they felt sympathy for the parents' personal agony.

Prove she was in a vegetative state, then prove that she should be starved to death even if she was. And I think you better look at the polling (1,2) on removing the tube.

c) The Republicans targeted exactly the type of judge they'd probably like to include in their next round of nominations. He was a conservative, evangelical judge who refused to let his personal beliefs interfere with his job performance. There's a real risk that more people would identify with Judge Greer's courage than the Republican politicians if the spotlight shone a little brighter on the judge.

Really? Where the numbers?

d) The bill shot itself in the foot. It couldn't remove the Schiavo case from the judicial system, since that would be unconstitutional. It wound up being "Judges are out of control, so we're going to take it from them and send it to some, uh, different judges." Uh, huh?

For a de novo hearing. The judges then instituted a higher standard for determining whether a case merited a hearing at all. The law itself was never ruled unconstitutional.

e) Schiavo-parent supporters shot the Republicans in the foot. Were they really advocating that Jeb Bush break the law and stage a military coup against the judicial system?

Since when does the law make the Courts the final authority? Last time I checked there was such a thing as separation of powers.

And were they really trying to infer that Bush was a coward for not breaking the law?

Jeb Bush couldn't do anything because the local police refused to cooperate, which is why we haven't heard anything about it. The necessary executive agencies refused to follow his orders. Welcome to the wonderful world of divided power.

f) The memo pretty much confirmed what most folks guessed. This was a political maneuver by Republican politicians that had little real knowledge of the details of issue they were pushing.

Where in the memo did it say "this is a political maneuver by Republican politicians?" Also, where did it deny what the Republicans themselves have said, that this is an effort to save Terri's life? And exactly what is wrong with profiting politically by doing the right thing?

I found the entire drama a little embarrassing.

But that doesn't really matter, does it?

Fortunately, the prime players were Republicans that I don't particularly care for (George Bush, Frist, and DeLay). I almost felt sorry for Jeb Bush, because I did get the impression he was truly acting on principal and wound up getting burned for it.

For reasons that you apparently won't share with us. And you'll forgive me if I don't go with your gut on this one.

I don't think the impact goes beyond short term embarrassment, though.

The number of people who said they would elect to starve to death dropped 13 points in a month.

Long term, I think they'll even gain from this.

Correct.

The details will be forgotten. Those that viewed the Republican effort with cynicism will practically forget the entire story, while the few that do agree with the Republican effort will only remember that the Republicans stood up for life.

And that's because its true. The Left cynically stood up for murder. Republicans took a principled stand for life. If the Left suffers for this, I can't think of a bunch of losers who deserve it more.

Rev Prez

 

[loseyourname]

I don't think it's supposed to add up to 100% - some overlap, i.e., 42% believe it should be legal, but only under certain circumstances, etc. (I did a copy and paste - ?).

1) 61% say abortion should be legal, 2) only in a few circumstances (42%), 3) or illegal in all circumstances (18%). Gallup Poll, May 2003

That still makes is hard to interpret. 1) and 3) can't overlap. Neither can 2) and 3). Your overlap works, but then we end up with this:

61%-42%=19% believe it should be legal in all circumstances

42% believe it should be legal in some circumstances

18% believe it should be illegal in all circumstances

That adds up to 79%. It's hard to believe that 21% would have no opinion (and that the data wouldn't indicate this). "Some circumstances" is also very broad. It can encompass a rather wide variety of beliefs.

I'm not picking on you or anything, I just hate polls. When you really look at them, you see how easy it can be to lie with statistics. (I'm not implying that is your intent - again, I just hate polls. I critiqued Kat's as well.)

 

[loseyourname]

Sure, so long as you ask whether or not the courts should grant a second opinion.

You mean a twentieth opinion? She received more than two.

In any case, the Democratic activists miscalculuated.

Who was an activist here? All the Democrats did was complain about what the Republicans were doing. Unless you consider refusing to take action activist and you consider non-partisan courts to be Democratic. A bit of a stretch, don't you think? Believe me, living in California, I've learned to hate the Democratic party as much as the next guy. Still, let's be fair here.

 

[Rev Prez]

You mean a twentieth opinion? She received more than two.

Legally she's had one, the Greer finding.

Who was an activist here? All the Democrats did was complain about what the Republicans were doing.

I'm not referring to "activist" in that sense. I'm talking about the party's activists--policymakers and grassroots types representing Democratic interests in this issue.

Rev Prez

 

[BobG]

So you're saying Democrats lied to themselves about their opponents motivations in order to avoid the fact they were murdering an innocent young woman.



I'm sure they expected it to, and it did. That, however, does not speak to their motivation. It speaks more to the sick cynicism of the Left, one that would allow the state to starve Terri Schiavo to death.



I think you better http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm that.

The poll about how many judges allow their political views to inappropriately affect their judicial decisions is pretty mixed. People find the idea that a judge can make his decisions in a vacuum a little bit unrealistic. That's not the same as saying most judges don't do their best at their jobs - it's an admission that a judge's background does matter and that Congressional fights over judicial nominations aren't a waste of time. I'm not sure I like including 'inappropriately' in the poll question. Instead, I would have preferred a question that asked how much do you think judges let personal political views affect their decisions. (I would have said, "Probably a little")

Greer's background would suggest that he isn't one of the judges that allow his own political views to have much affect. If right-to-lifers could have handpicked the judge that would hear the Schiavo case, Greer would have been one of their top choices. Unfortunately, it would be hard to find a neutral bio or discussion of Greer post-Schiavo. Any search for Greer brings up page after page of right-wing websites slamming Greer. In any event, they need to go a little further and prove every other judge who heard the case was in conspiracy with Greer to commit murder.

Prove she was in a vegetative state, then prove that she should be starved to death even if she was. And I think you better look at the polling (1,2) on removing the tube.

Mixed results. Your first supports my point while your second supports your point (at least it's "fair and unbalanced"). In the Zogby poll, I'd ignore the results to this question due to very bad wording:

"If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not being kept alive on life support, and they have no written directive, should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked.

A whopping 79 percent said the patient should not have food and water taken away while just 9 percent said yes.

The remainder of the questions seemed reasonable and some of the results surprising.

For a de novo hearing. The judges then instituted a higher standard for determining whether a case merited a hearing at all. The law itself was never ruled unconstitutional.

I never said it was. I just found it ironic that their solution for 'out of control' judges was to send the issue to a different 'out of control' judge. They had nothing and knew it - it was all for show.

Since when does the law make the Courts the final authority? Last time I checked there was such a thing as separation of powers.

Jeb Bush couldn't do anything because the local police refused to cooperate, which is why we haven't heard anything about it. The necessary executive agencies refused to follow his orders. Welcome to the wonderful world of divided power.

You're suggesting the equivalent of the South seceding from the Union (although, admittedly, on a much smaller level). That would have been high drama, for sure.

Fortunately, the prime players were Republicans that I don't particularly care for (George Bush, Frist, and DeLay). I almost felt sorry for Jeb Bush, because I did get the impression he was truly acting on principal and wound up getting burned for it.

For reasons that you apparently won't share with us. And you'll forgive me if I don't go with your gut on this one.

Frist is too far to the right for my taste, although I have no problem with him otherwise - he generally does a good job for the folks he represents. I can't really think of anything very respectful to say about Bush or DeLay.

 

[Rev Prez]

I'm not sure I like including 'inappropriately' in the poll question.

The goal is to find out how many people think its occurring inappropriately, not how many people think discretion is being exercised.

Greer's background would suggest that he isn't one of the judges that allow his own political views to have much affect.

You speak a lot on his background but offer nothing in the way of evidence to back it up. Take the time and do so.

Mixed results.

Did anyone even bother to read the first poll in the first link? Check it again.

The remainder of the questions seemed reasonable and some of the results surprising.

Not to the good number of smart Democrats who kept their mouth shut during this whole thing.

I never said it was. I just found it ironic that their solution for 'out of control' judges was to send the issue to a different 'out of control' judge. They had nothing and knew it - it was all for show.

Their solution was to provide Terri a de novo hearing. Absent that, there was little else they could do peacefully.

You're suggesting the equivalent of the South seceding from the Union (although, admittedly, on a much smaller level). That would have been high drama, for sure.

No, I'm suggesting the equivalent of Andrew Jackson telling the Supreme Court what it could go do with itself. Unfortunately, we don't invest our executives with that much power anymore.

Frist is too far to the right for my taste, although I have no problem with him otherwise - he generally does a good job for the folks he represents. I can't really think of anything very respectful to say about Bush or DeLay.

And I don't care.

Rev Prez

 

[russ_watters]

Legally she's had one, the Greer finding.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/1203galrpt.pdf

Terri has had several "Guardian Ad Litem"s - independent doctors appointed to be her temporary guardian and to assist various courts (not just Greer's) in reviewing her medical case making their decisions. In addition, many of the courts that reviewed her case, at the very lest, appointed their own doctors to review the case and advise them. All of these independent doctors have confirmed the diagnosis.

In one such case, each side chose two doctors and the court selected one, to review the case. (Naturally, the two selected by the Schindlers believed she could recover - however, they presented only anecdotal evidence).

Even I learned something new from that report: far from being negligent, Michael Schiavo was called "a nursing home administrator's nightmare" for being so demanding with regards to the quality of care and attention she was getting.

In addition, the Schindler's acknowledged Terri's condition and even stated that even if they had a clear statement of Terri's wish to be taken off life support, they still would not do it.

In addition, there were, (de facto, if not actually called it) de novo reviews (June 2003, 2nd DCA).

 

[kat]

As you said the questions were worded to energize a select few activists into saying "see we were right!"

You'll have to show me a quote of where I have said this...I don't remember saying anything like that at all.

I thought this thread was about activism; however, most of it seems to be about Terri Schiavo (She already has a couple of threads). I'm willing to discuss "democratic activism" but I don't see this the poll you presented as such (though I did get a larf from it when I read it).

Well, quite frankly..as sad as the Schiavo story is...I think there is a far greater movement at hand, and I don't think that the players are at all stupid enough to fall into some sort of Schiavo trap. The poll...I quoted reflected issues that were being discussed by the "right to lifers". No other poll that I have seen in regards to this matter appear to be asking the questions that reflected the issues that I've heard from that portion of the populace. It's also interesting that on the right has been a cry against judicial activisism that is gather strength. In fact I'm pretty sure there was a march today or..maybe it's tomorrow against Judicial activism. This is what I think are the far reaching aspects of the Terri Schiavo situation...what did the Republicans achieve may not be so obvious in the short run..
Here is a very interesting article from Time magazine:

The Schiavo case has provoked a passionate American conversation, which is taking place on a more profound level than the simple yes and no answers of the polls. Yes, the vast majority disdain the politicians who chose to exploit the case. And yes, a solid majority would not want their own lives prolonged in a similar situation. But the questions that cut closest to home are the family issues. What would you do if Terri Schiavo were your daughter? Why couldn't Michael Schiavo just give custody over to the parents? What do we do about custody in a society where the parent-child bond is more durable than many marriages? The President's solution, to "err on the side of life," seems the only humane answer - if there is a dispute between parents and spouse, and the disabled person has left no clear instruction.

The Democrats' relative silence on all this has been prudent, but telling. Their implicit position has been to err toward law. "The notion that Florida failed to do its job in the Schiavo case is wrong," said Congressman Barney Frank, one of the few Democrats willing to speak about the case. "Procedurally, there was a great deal of due process." Frank was right, but it was a curiously sterile pronouncement, bereft of the Congressman's usual raucous humanity. It exemplified the Democratic Party's recent overdependence on legal process, a culture of law that has supplanted legislative consideration of vexing social issues. This is democracy once removed.

The Democrats come to their dilemma honorably. It dates back to the civil rights movement, when federal courts had to enforce federal law in states that refused racial integration. But the courts soon wandered into unlegislated gray areas. They imposed forced busing to achieve school integration, allowed racial preferences in hiring and school admissions, extrapolated a constitutional right to privacy and declared abortion legal in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case (and more recently, on the state court level, allowed gay marriage). Many of these were worthy decisions, but they were never voted on. Over time, as the Democrats became the minority party, their efforts to hold on to this last area of solace became more desperate.

This month, Democrats may use procedural tricks to stop all Senate business and block a Republican effort to eliminate minority filibuster rights and jam through seven federal judges proposed by the President. The fight may be winnable, but it is a culture of law cul-de-sac. The Democrats will be shutting down the Senate over a matter of process rather than substance, a pinhead of principle most civilians will find difficult to understand. The Armageddon of confirmation battles - over the next Supreme Court Justice - will probably follow soon after, and it may cement a public impression of the Democrats as a party obsessed with the legal processes that preserve the status quo on issues such as abortion, gay rights and extreme secularism - and little else. The political damage may be considerable.

Oddly, a solution to the Dems' dilemma may be on offer from liberal academia. "The hot new idea in liberal law journals is called popular constitutionalism," says Paul Gewirtz of Yale Law School. "It argues that legislatures and voters should have more control over government, and the judiciary should take a more subsidiary position." In other words, issues like abortion should be put to a vote. This is an idea unthinkable to most Democratic politicians, who believe the right to an abortion is tucked somewhere in the Constitution - and also to the more extreme religious conservatives, who believe abortion is murder. That leaves the rest of us. And I imagine most of us would prefer some good, messy legislative compromises, hammered out at the state level, with the unimpeachable imprimatur of public approval. Perhaps it is time, finally, for Democrats to embrace democracy.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1044638,00.html

 

[loseyourname]

No, I'm suggesting the equivalent of Andrew Jackson telling the Supreme Court what it could go do with itself. Unfortunately, we don't invest our executives with that much power anymore.

You better rethink that, Rev. I'm half Cherokee and would beat the living hell out of you if you ever said that in my presence. Jackson defied the Supreme Court's ruling that the Cherokee tribe was an autonomous sovereignty with a legal right to their land. He ignored the ruling and forcibly removed them, simply because the land was valuable and in the process nearly half of the tribe starved to death during the 'trail of tears' relocation to Oklahoma. If you're advocating that kind of behavior from our elected leaders, that's damn near advocating genocide.

 

[Rev Prez]

You better rethink that, Rev.

I don't think so.

I'm half Cherokee and would beat the living hell out of you if you ever said that in my presence.

I'm not impressed.

Jackson defied the Supreme Court's ruling that the Cherokee tribe was an autonomous sovereignty with a legal right to their land.

A great day for the separation of powers.

He ignored the ruling and forcibly removed them...

Jackson wasn't President in 1938.

...simply because the land was valuable and in the process nearly half of the tribe starved to death during the 'trail of tears' relocation to Oklahoma. If you're advocating that kind of behavior from our elected leaders, that's damn near advocating genocide.

The world was a harsh place back then. I've no interest in a pissing contest over whose ancestors suffered worse, especially when it involves someone sticking up for a system that murders an innocent woman in this lifetime.

Rev Prez

 

[BobG]

Jackson wasn't President in 1938.
Rev Prez

Neither was Martin Van Buren. None the less, Jackson did play a key role in expelling the Cherokee's.

The court decision I think you're referencing was just a minor part of that. Two missionaries were jailed for failing to swear an oath of loyalty to the State of Georgia. The US Supreme Court ruled that they should be set free. Unfortunately, the Court based their decision on the technicality that the Cherokees were a sovereign nation and that Georgia law had no authority on the reservation.

Jackson's stand was "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" and he refused to order the release of the two missionaries for failing to swear an oath loyalty to Georgia (John Marshall being the Supreme Court Justice).

Keep in mind that this USSC decision reversed their previous decision that gave the Cherokees some rights as a dependent nation of Georgia. While Jackson didn't release the two missionaries, he did take advantage of the USSC decision to treat the Cherokees as a federal issue and was the original initiator of moving Cherokees off their reservation even if the actual move came under Van Buren's term.

In other words, I just don't understand why you'd use this as an example.