[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Here in Wisconsin we passed a gay-marriage ban.

South Dakota passed an abortion ban, which failed, but they're working on passing another one.

Utah is also working to pass an abortion ban.

Dozens of states have concealed-carry.

Conclusion: A President has no impact on social policy.

[TitansAFC]

---"Conclusion: A President has no impact on social policy."---

Well then, we SoCons have nothing to fear from a Hitlery Presidency, do we?

At least she'll give us "free" stuff, right?

[beltfed308]

Conclusion: A President has no impact on social policy.

There you go again. Social security? Medicade or taxes? Immigration? Perhaps you meant the President has little impact on State issues?

[Amalie]

"Conclusion: A President has no impact on social policy."


EXCEPT when they nominate justices to the Supreme Court, who have done more harm than all the DEM Congresses since the start of the Union put together. Trying to end the Ruth Bader Ginsburg factor is my goal in any election.

[wouldntbprudent]

Conclusion: A President has no impact on social policy.

Except for judicial nominations, which the president barely has any impact on either, you are exactly correct.

[epow]

Conclusion: A President has no impact on social policy.

Not true. Bush's judicial appointments will have a major impact on social issues and so would Giuliani's, but on the opposite side of those issues.

I don't believe for one NY minute that Giuliani would appoint strict constructionist judges or Justices, who by definition are opposed to his radically liberal social policies and his strongly anti-2nd Amendment position.