Do voters have a right to know if a candidate is in poor health?

[columbus]

sweet.
When is his draft dodging trial?

Given his family money, I am sure his draft dodging was of the highest legal quality.
Like Slick Willy's doubtless was.
We are living in a time where many of the power elite came from the generation that didn't want to go to Vietnam any more than Muhammad Ali did. And they often had the clout to get deferments.
Tom

 

[McBell]

Yes, no one did. So why mention it?

Becuase YOU did in the post I quoted and indented

 

[McBell]

Given his family money, I am sure his draft dodging was of the highest legal quality.
Like Slick Willy's doubtless was.
We are living in a time where many of the power elite came from the generation that didn't want to go to Vietnam any more than Muhammad Ali did. And they often had the clout to get deferments.
Tom

He presented medical excuses to get out of the draft.
One wonders why he failed to capitalize on his miracle treatments?

 

[Augustus]

Becuase YOU did in the post I quoted and indented

I said "more deserves the right to privacy than" i.e which right is more important A or B? As in "Do voters have a right to know if candidates are in poor health?" or "do politicians have the right to privacy?" i.e the OP.

Make sense?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Apply said standard to both candidates.

It seems to me that is exactly what was being done in that post.

 

[Acim]

do the voters have a reasonable expectation of a candidate sharing health issues that can compromise their abilty to work before an election?

Yes. A reasonable expectation as I see it. Not an absolute right to know. If a candidate wishes to invoke privacy, that is a reasonable response. But it may also lead to decision for some voters to say that nullifies any possibility of voting for them.

To me, what makes it a reasonable expectation is two things. Perhaps foremost is if any candidate (for same position) has at any point done this (share health issues), then it would be reasonable to expect others may as well, especially as age is fairly well understood to be a debilitating factor to one's own health. Once any candidate does this, I think it becomes reasonable expectation for other candidates to share this. I think they maintain legal rights to not meet those expectations.

The second reason is I think for POTUS, a candidate ought to be an open book as much as humanly possible. While that might be very tough to go for, I think when it is the opposite (they are shielding things), that becomes even tougher to manage and to support. Takes die hard supporters / kool-aid drinkers to support that type of position and want that type of person in a leadership role. Fortunately for most POTUS candidates there are plenty of kool-aid drinkers around.

 

[Wirey]

Why public scrutiny? As I said at the beginning of the thread, I see absolutely no need for that and many compelling reasons not to allow such a thing. Whether or not a medical condition makes a person unfit for duty is (and should be) between the patient and the doctor. The doctor - a professional and an expert who has the best interests of the patient at heart, and is objective in their assessments. Contrast that to "the public," where you'll get mob-mentality, people with agendas wanting to take them down a peg, and who are hardly experts. It's just an incredibly stupid idea. As we've observed already, people use this crap for political gain. For that reason alone, it should absolutely be a private affair. I have no patience for that kind of discriminatory, exploitative backstabbing.

No, I agree it's a doctor's call. But right now, it's not. There is no process in place to cover an issue like this of which I'm aware.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hillary had a claimed bill of 'excellent health' end of July but not stumbled on a day that wasn't that hot or humid leaving a 9-11 service 3 hours early... leaving a shoe behind... I went to a picnic for hours today and it was fairly moderate and pretty nice out in NY

Now, stories of pneumonia, heat exhaustion, and blood clots to the brain emerge where she can't recally briefings... do the voters have a reasonable expectation of a candidate sharing health issues that can compromise their abilty to work before an election?

it would be advantageous to know if there are long term health issues, but there is no "right" conferred by the constitution or law, in general. Pneumonia is temporary, and is of little concern.

 

[Perditus]

I think the people of this country do have an implied right to know the truth about a candidate's health and related ability to run this nation.

To think otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Fine with me. I think the life appointment jobs are ridiculous and take away any accountability to the public. I think supreme court nominees should be elected by the people with a limited term.

That's an awful and terrifying idea. A large part of the Supreme Court's job is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. If it wasn't for the Supreme Court, we wouldn't have many of the rights we have today, because the voters are stupid and easily swayed by fear and lies. Look at the gay marriage issue. Those state bans were voted into power. It took the courts to knock them down and give us, finally, nationwide marriage equality.

 

[David1967]

That's an awful and terrifying idea. A large part of the Supreme Court's job is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. If it wasn't for the Supreme Court, we wouldn't have many of the rights we have today, because the voters are stupid and easily swayed by fear and lies. Look at the gay marriage issue. Those state bans were voted into power. It took the courts to knock them down and give us, finally, nationwide marriage equality.

As imperfect as it may be, I still think elections are best. The president and congress are ultimately held accountable to the people by being either voted back in or voted out. The Supremes are not and can therefore legislate from the bench.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As imperfect as it may be, I still think elections are best. The president and congress are ultimately held accountable to the people by being either voted back in or voted out. The Supremes are not and can therefore legislate from the bench.

They don't "legislate from the bench". That's a right-wing lie they throw around when the Court rules in a way they don't like. They can strike down legislation that is in violation of our Constitutional rights and clarify things. That's all. They're a needed protection and often the only thing that stands between civil rights and the ignorant whims of a flaky and idiotic voting population.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As imperfect as it may be, I still think elections are best. The president and congress are ultimately held accountable to the people by being either voted back in or voted out. The Supremes are not and can therefore legislate from the bench.

I don't want some ******* to be able to vote my rights away because they have a problem with me and that I "offend" their religious beliefs. America was deliberately and intentionally set up to not be a democracy in order to preserve rights and protect people from the whims of the majority. Afterall, to the Founders democracy was a term that is synonymous with mob rule.
And they don't legislate anything. That is the job of Congress. The Supreme Court hears cases where the nature of them call into question the Constitutional legalities of an issue, and make their judgements based on interpreting the Constitution and prior precedence. Such as, when the Supreme Court inevitably hears cases of transsexual discrimination and bathroom use, they will consider things such as Title IX, the Equal Protections clause, prior Federal Circuit Appeals cases, and the Civil Rights Act, and will most likely rule North Carolina's law unconstitutional. It's not an act of legislation, but rather declaring that a certain law causes undue discrimination and is thus a violation of the Constitution and not legal.

 

[Underhill]

As imperfect as it may be, I still think elections are best. The president and congress are ultimately held accountable to the people by being either voted back in or voted out. The Supremes are not and can therefore legislate from the bench.

I have to side with Frank on this one. The Supreme Court cannot, by design, be elected. It would defeat their entire purpose.

 

[David1967]

I have to side with Frank on this one. The Supreme Court cannot, by design, be elected. It would defeat their entire purpose.

No worries. I respect your opinion.

 

[Koldo]

I don't want some ******* to be able to vote my rights away because they have a problem with me and that I "offend" their religious beliefs. America was deliberately and intentionally set up to not be a democracy in order to preserve rights and protect people from the whims of the majority. Afterall, to the Founders democracy was a term that is synonymous with mob rule.
And they don't legislate anything. That is the job of Congress. The Supreme Court hears cases where the nature of them call into question the Constitutional legalities of an issue, and make their judgements based on interpreting the Constitution and prior precedence. Such as, when the Supreme Court inevitably hears cases of transsexual discrimination and bathroom use, they will consider things such as Title IX, the Equal Protections clause, prior Federal Circuit Appeals cases, and the Civil Rights Act, and will most likely rule North Carolina's law unconstitutional. It's not an act of legislation, but rather declaring that a certain law causes undue discrimination and is thus a violation of the Constitution and not legal.

I would say the Supreme Court has the power to legislate to the extent that its interpretation can lead somewhere unintended by the legislator.

 

[Koldo]

I have to side with Frank on this one. The Supreme Court cannot, by design, be elected. It would defeat their entire purpose.

They are, however, elected indirectly.
In which case, what difference does it make ?

 

[Lyndon]

The Supreme Court rules on the legal merit of a case regardless of whether the majority of people support the opinion or not, for instance the Supreme Court will rule against racism and discrimination because it is illegal when a majority of people might support some form of racism or discrimination. Some issues should not be up to a majority of voters to decide, because legally the majority is not always right, the Supreme Court is the system of checks and balances to correct for the "tyranny" of the majority, be they voters or congress.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would say the Supreme Court has the power to legislate to the extent that its interpretation can lead somewhere unintended by the legislator.

They don't legislate though. They are judges. They hear a case, they make a judgement. They don't actually create any laws, but can extend the coverage of an existing law, stick down an existing law, but they do not have legislative power to just create new laws.

 

[Lyndon]

That's nitpicking, they have the power to determine if a legislated law can be put into effect or not, that's pretty damn close to legislating laws. They have the power to interpret and decide just what a law actually means, often far from the meaning the law was originally intended to have, so that's "dangerously" close to legislating laws