Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rehnquist out tomorrow?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    How bad could Reihnquist retiring actually be? Is Bush really going to be able to appoint someone more conservative that he was?
    "Chemistry is a class you take in high school or college, where you figure out two plus two is 10, or something."
    - Dennis Rodman, NBA Basketball player, on Chicago Bull's team chemistry being overrated

    Comment


    • #17
      Bring back Bjork!
      We need seperate human-only games for MP/PBEM that dont include the over-simplifications required to have a good AI
      If any man be thirsty, let him come unto me and drink. Vampire 7:37
      Just one old soldiers opinion. E Tenebris Lux. Pax quaeritur bello.

      Comment


      • #18
        Interesting...I can see the admin setting up another "compromise" to get one extremely conservative and one moderate-conservative out of this. Two at once? How many times has that happened before?
        "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Q Cubed
          I'm glad Bush gets to nominate two new justices. This way, the court will finally have the conservative court we've all been looking for, and do away with those damn liberal activist judges.

          And then we will be stuck with stupid, power-hungry conservative judges.
          A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

          Comment


          • #20
            How come in every discussion of Rehnquist quitting now, everyone thinks Bush will go for a comprimise of 1 conservative and 1 moderate conservative.

            If he wants to satisfy the desires of his evangelical electors, won't he need to nominate 2 hardliners?
            Resident Filipina Lady Boy Expert.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Ninot
              How come in every discussion of Rehnquist quitting now, everyone thinks Bush will go for a comprimise of 1 conservative and 1 moderate conservative.

              If he wants to satisfy the desires of his evangelical electors, won't he need to nominate 2 hardliners?
              See the "gang of 14"
              "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

              Comment


              • #22
                Well yeah, the Democrats are gonna filibuster if he nominates 2 hardliners.

                But the same people who came out in droves to make sure gay marriage was eliminated in so many states aren't gonna be very pleased if the Supreme Court goes back to some kind of status quo.

                As I understand it, for O'Connor's replacement, they'll filibuster anyone who's anti-abortion.
                Resident Filipina Lady Boy Expert.

                Comment


                • #23
                  As I understand it, for O'Connor's replacement, they'll filibuster anyone who's anti-abortion.
                  Not necessarily, since unless Kennedy changes his mind from his position in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there are still five pro-choice justices even without O'Connor.

                  It looks like Gonzales is the most socially liberal candidate that Shrub'll appoint (the theocons consider him to be another Souter). But I'd much rather have a reasonable social conservative. Unfortunately Reid has seemed to endorse Speedy Confession.
                  "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                  -Bokonon

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Ramo


                    Not necessarily, since unless Kennedy changes his mind from his position in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there are still five pro-choice justices even without O'Connor.

                    It looks like Gonzales is the most socially liberal candidate that Shrub'll appoint (the theocons consider him to be another Souter). But I'd much rather have a reasonable social conservative. Unfortunately Reid has seemed to endorse Speedy Confession.
                    Oh yeah, abortion laws aren't going to get turned on their head just quite yet, but i still remember a few Senators being asked if the abortion issue was important enough to filibuster, and them saying yes.

                    Gonzales would be a good pick tho. I just think many Republicans wouldn't like'm.
                    Resident Filipina Lady Boy Expert.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Boris Godunov
                      Speaking of which...

                      What defines a judge "legislating from the bench?" I'm curious as to what those opposed to "judicial activism" would say.
                      Generally, when the constitution/law says one thing, and they do something else.

                      The case I posted eariler for instance:A law passed by congress said that a citizen convicted in any court could be deprived of the ability to lawfully possess a weapon, and the court ruled that it applied only to domestic courts. And they further said that if the law had meant to be for any court they should have said any court . that is legislating from the bench.

                      and for a more traditional example, the "right to privacy". It is a good idea, but we need to go through the amendment process and explicitly specify what it means and what it applies to. It does not as of yet exist in the constitution.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Ramo


                        Not necessarily, since unless Kennedy changes his mind from his position in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there are still five pro-choice justices even without O'Connor.

                        It looks like Gonzales is the most socially liberal candidate that Shrub'll appoint (the theocons consider him to be another Souter). But I'd much rather have a reasonable social conservative. Unfortunately Reid has seemed to endorse Speedy Confession.
                        Probably cause NARAL commands a lot more votes than does Amnesty Int
                        "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          they should bring back duels
                          That would be a bad day for the Democrats I should think.
                          "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Patroklos


                            That would be a bad day for the Democrats I should think.
                            Ha, thats not an argument to get started on.
                            Resident Filipina Lady Boy Expert.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Agreed.
                              "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Ramo
                                But I'd much rather have a reasonable social conservative.
                                Out of interest what conservative would you be able to hold your nose long enough to endorse? (This question can go to Boris as well) Personally, I'm hoping for a justice in the model of Scalia.
                                I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
                                For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X