Chief Justice Roberts...

[Ben Kenobi]

Don't do it!!!... Or we'll split our vote on the conservative ideologue too. Just watch us.

Why? More liberals have been elected to the court by the republicans then by the democrats. They should be allowed to nominate the many qualified and excellent candidates who are conservative.

[KrazyHorse]

Ben, do you ever get anything right?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Fixed

Maybe so but its the liberals who're whining about Roberts. Partisan politics has reached a new low IMO.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, do you ever get anything right?

Regarding the statement by DanS, or the fact that the Republicans have nominated more liberals then the Democrats? I'm still not sure I correctly interpreted his statement.

[KrazyHorse]

Both.

Right now the two parties are equal when it comes to liberal nominees which have been confirmed (2 apiece)

And Dan was mocking the value of the Democratic party's "or else"

[Dinner]

I don't expect him to be the best man on the court but he won't be the worst either.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, here's what I consider:

Liberals:

Stevens - nominated by republicans (Ford)
O'Connor - nominated by republicans (Reagan)
Kennedy - nominated by republicans (Reagan)
Souter - nominated by republicans (Bush Sr)

Ginsburg - nominated by democrats (Clinton)
Breyer - nominated by democrats (Clinton)

Conservatives

Thomas - nominated by republicans (Bush Sr.)
Scalia - nominated by republicans (Reagan)
Roberts - nominated by republicans (Bush Jr.)

We are hoping that Roberts adequately replaces one of the more conservative members, in Rehnquist, so I don't see why the republicans, since they nominated 3 liberals left of O'Connor, why they should be required to nominate another. I mean, you don't see Clinton nominating conservatives to her right, do you?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Both.

Right now the two parties are equal when it comes to liberal nominees which have been confirmed (2 apiece)

And Dan was mocking the value of the Democratic party's "or else"

Yeah, Delay has been able to hold the Republicans to partyline votes while the Democrats have not been able to do the same. Part of that was Delay controlled the dirty money machine and if you didn't vote the way he wanted you didn't get money come reelection time and part of it was withholding endorsements and commitee positions if you didn't vote party line.

That's how the right wing conservatives maintain control of the party.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, here's what I consider:

Liberals:

Stevens - nominated by republicans (Ford)
O'Connor - nominated by republicans (Reagan)
Kennedy - nominated by republicans (Reagan)
Souter - nominated by republicans (Bush Sr)

Ginsburg - nominated by democrats (Clinton)
Breyer - nominated by democrats (Clinton)

Conservatives

Thomas - nominated by republicans (Bush Sr.)
Scalia - nominated by republicans (Reagan)
Roberts - nominated by republicans (Bush Jr.)

And you're wrong

The liberal bloc is generally considered to be Stevens, Ginzburg, Souter and Breyer

Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy are seen as the conservative bloc

O'Connor spent most of her time in the conservative camp, but often voted with the liberals.

But I suppose we should go with whatever definition you feel like making.

[KrazyHorse]

At most you can consider Kennedy and O'Connor moderate conservatives.

Yet again you display your predilection for making definitions fit your worldview instead of abiding by the conventions that the rest of us follow. If I was defining things I'd only put one or two of the justices in my liberal category and the rest as hidebound conservatives. But I tend not to be intellectually dishonest enough to make claims based on my peculiar definitions without stating them first.

[Ben Kenobi]

Okay, even if you consider Kennedy a conservative, then that still leaves the Republicans nominating 3 liberals to two.

[KrazyHorse]

O'Connor's not a liberal either, numbnuts. Only people with an agenda and insufficient brainpower to promulgate it honestly define her as such.

[Ben Kenobi]

But I tend not to be intellectually dishonest enough to make claims based on my peculiar definitions without stating them first.

Fair enough. Which is why I preface my post:

Well, here's what I consider:

[KrazyHorse]

Not that post. Wrong again. The one of 13:14 EDT

[lord of the mark]

two canadians arguing about the US Supreme Court.

I couldnt name ONE member of YOUR supreme court. And I probably know more about your politics then even most educated Americans.