Deleted Account

It's called "punctuation". Try it sometime. I'm not acting like I'm better than everyone else, and I firmly believe that we are perfectly equal in the Good Lord's eyes. I'm just saying that you're flat out wrong if you think that ONLY caucasians voted based on their perception of Obama's race. I've stated why this is flatly wrong earlier in this thread, and since you can "m-fin read" you can find it yourself. You were the one who acted like I peed in your Cheerios when I called you out on it. Get some thicker skin...

LOL, that might be fitting if you voted McCain! :D But I hope you're feeling better. I HATE the stomach flu.

That's the bipartisanship I was hoping for out of the Obama campaign! And BTW, stay classy, Rahm Emanuel!

Everyone on here knows that you're not going to get me to shut up unless you give me solid, fact-based reasoning. You didn't provide any support for your statement, I did, and you took offense to it. No biggie. I never said Obama *didn't* deserve to win; it's not like Ted Stevens, who truly didn't deserve to win. But you're sadly deluded if you think that racism's only a one-way street.

Save it, LaFleur!

It doesn't sound like everyone's making a huge deal to me. Outside of internet message boards, I've not seen one soul that's claimed that they wanted Obama to lose because of his color. In fact, the majority of Republicans I've seen have been nothing but classy in defeat. But if you get my point, you sure haven't accented it. I'm sure the 20% higher African-American turnout this year was just a mere coincidence. I'm sure Obama winning every other minority by a 2-1 count was also just circumstance. I would surely assume that some people didn't vote for Obama because of the amount of melanin in his skin. But one can surely infer from these CNN statistics that there was a counterbalance by those who DID vote for him on the basis of skin tone. And that's all I have to say about that.

How true this is. But it goes both ways...

I may have misinterpreted you in my previous post. Because this analysis is right; the 4 left-leaning Justices are much more likely to retire now since Obama's been elected. Especially Stevens and Ginsburg (one of whom would be 92 by the end of Obama's term, one of who would be near 80 and in poor health). Ah, what goes on in my mind with 4 hours of sleep!

You're in for a rude awakening...

I disagree somewhat with your stance, my friend. There's an obvious split in the court: 5 right-leaning justices (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Souter, Alito) and 4 left-leaning justices (Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer). It's pretty clear from reading cases upon cases upon cases like I've been forced to over the last year and a half. The beauty (or disdain) in having this split is that one right-leaning justice switching leads to the effect of upholding abortion (which I dislike) or invalidating the denial of due process to military detainees (which I have mixed feelings about). Not only that, plurality opinions are possible with concurring/dissenting opinions by some of the justices, and this can cause some of the results which seem counter-intuitive toward the Court's leanings. But I digress. There is a fair split, and it's pretty evident in the voting pattern. The 4 Justices that would likely be next in line to retire are the 4 left-leaning ones I've mentioned in my other thread. The youngest of that crew is 70 (Breyer). The oldest of the 5 right-leaning Justices is 72 (Scalia). See my other thread for my analysis on this topic.

3rd string QB + 1st career game + national TV = trouble 31-19 Maryland.

Great post.

Those four I mentioned are the traditionally left-leaning members of the court, yes. I find it highly unlikely that any of the more conservative members of the Court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Souter, Thomas) will retire with a Democrat in the White House. The oldest is Scalia at "just" 72, and there have been 2 nominees under G.W. Bush. This has been a mark of an advanced partisanism in the Supreme Court ever since the first Clinton administration. For example, only Ginsburg and and Breyer were appointed under a Democratic president; Stevens came in under Ford and Kennedy came in under Reagan. However, I feel that the time is right for up to 3, and perhaps maybe even all 4, of the left-leaning Justices to step down. Especially Stevens (decrepitly old) and Ginsburg (failing health). Kennedy has been practicing law since the mid-1960s, and Breyer since 1970. And don't be ashamed; law school taught me about everything I know on this. Without it, I'd be lost, too.

Haha, I should've known. ;)

Thanks, bud! What I couldn't articulate as well in a pretty succinct form. Much appreciated!

Great point here. And I've seen it all around today.

For #2, here's my take on justices that should/might be replaced: Justice Stevens: 88 years old, and almost certainly going to step down immediately after Obama's elected. Basically, he lived long enough to see a Democrat take his place. I wish him well in post-retirement. Justice Ginsburg: 75 years old, and in poor health right now, from what I've read lately. Almost a lock to step down. Justice Kennedy: 72 years old, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see him retire during Obama's term. Justice Breyer: 70 years old, perhaps the least likely to step down of the bunch, but again, at age 70, it's not unlikely Virtually, Obama's reign has the chance to see him replace up to 4 Supreme Court justices, but more than likely 2-3. Which is part of the reason this election had HUGE stakes for this nation. The Supreme Court wields MUCH more power than a lay-person realizes.

Voted from home, will vote from law school tomorrow. Perhaps on multiple computers. ;)

Oh, poor MLB players! How will they ever find a way with their 7-figure salaries! ;)

Ah, alright, I misinterpreted you, then. Carry on. And I agree with this analysis.

Awesome post, brother.

Great post!

Congratulations to her! It's wonderful to see someone local go on to great things such as this.

Valid point, indeed.

George W. Bush? That was the last divided election. But I have grave doubts that he'll govern as he states: toward the center. His Senate record indicates otherwise. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves otherwise. He is our President-elect, after all.