What's Wrong with Democratic activists?

[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.

 

[SOS2008]

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

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

How do these numbers work? Is the 42% inside the 61%? Is the total 121%?

Since that data came from a third-party site that was referring to a Gallop Poll, I decided to look for the data directly from Gallop. The following information has been obtained with a 30-day trial (I think it is a $95/year subscription otherwise), so if you can’t access entire information via links--sorry.

2005 Mar 21-23: Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?

Legal under any circumstances - 23%
Legal only under certain circumstances - 55%
Illegal in all circumstances - 20%
No opinion - 2%

Now that's better--I just didn't want to provide stats like 2/3 of Americans support Roe v Wade, because I feel it is important to see the breakdown. Yes, 78% believe abortion should be legal, however what percent of the 55% who believe it should be legal only under certain circumstances (rape, incest, etc.) are pro-life along with the 20% who believe it should be illegal in all circumstances (including when the woman's life is at risk)?

And while I was in the Gallop site I gathered this information as well, which helps separate the variables affecting approval ratings over the same short period (though higher gas prices was not a category in this section):

Presidential Ratings - Issues Approval
All from 2005 Apr 1-2

The Terri Schiavo Case
Approve - 34%
Disapprove - 53%
No opinion - 13%

Social Security
Approve - 35%
Disapprove - 57%
No opinion - 8%

The Economy
Approve - 41%
Disapprove - 55%
No opinion - 4%

In another section with regard to gas prices specifically - "The poll, conducted April 1-2, finds that 58% of Americans have experienced hardship, the first time in the past six years that a majority has expressed this view."

April 7, 2005
Congress Gets Thumbs Down for Stepping Into Schiavo Case http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=15541

Congress went to extraordinary measures to pass legislation on March 21 that allowed Terri Schiavo's parents to take their case for keeping her alive to a federal district court. Although 4 in 10 Americans agree with the parents and believe Schiavo's feeding tube should have been reinserted, only 20% of Americans agree with Congress' intervention in the case.

There are graphs but I would have to link these somehow. But once again, I believe opinions about the Schiavo case is separate from other right-to-life issues, such as abortion. loseyourname--This is why I don't feel polls are the "end all" for information either, though you do a great job interpreting such data if I might say.

 

[SOS2008]

How many more must die before Kofi quits?

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

While going through the thread I saw this post again, and had meant to post a reply to it. I agree that such issues are neglected, and it would seem the left would be more likely to champion such causes. IMO it's more a matter of Americans being geocentric and uninformed in general, which the media does not help. If these people do tune into the news, apparently they want to hear about celebrity trials, etc. It truly is a shame.

 

[loseyourname]

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

Wow. I don't know what to say to you. I may have never encountered a more insensitive comment on an internet forum. You're defending a man that effectively killed off several thousand innocent people, men, women, and children, over some land in Georgia, while getting all righteous over the removal of a feeding tube for an unconscious non-person, a body with no frontal cortex.

Shame on you, Rev.

Edit: Congratulations, buddy. You just became the first person to ever go on my ignore list. Back to the relatively civil and respectful forum we had a couple weeks ago. Continue to respond if you feel the need.

 

[russ_watters]

Wow. I don't know what to say to you. I may have never encountered a more insensitive comment on an internet forum. You're defending a man that effectively killed off several thousand innocent people, men, women, and children, over some land in Georgia, while getting all righteous over the removal of a feeding tube for an unconscious non-person, a body with no frontal cortex.

Insensitive is not the word. "[holding] a false belief strongly... in spite of invalidating evidence..."

There is a severe disconnect there. A blatant disregard for reality.

 

[Rev Prez]

Wow. I don't know what to say to you.

I don't know. I'm too busy laughing up one mods inability to control himself.

Rev Prez

 

[Informal Logic]

Insensitive is not the word. "[holding] a false belief strongly... in spite of invalidating evidence..."

There is a severe disconnect there. A blatant disregard for reality.

Definitely. Unfortunately this is not the thinking of just one person--but hopefully only a fringe minority.