Miers withdraw - bets, anyone?

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by DanS


Yep. I'm willing to buy anywhere.

Take him to a clip joint.

[flash9286]

Anybody willing to take bets on who the next nominee will be? I putting my money on Janice Rogers Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown). She is VERY conserative, she is black and a woman, and she has the credintals to be a Supreme Court judge. But Bush is very stubborn(or thats what I hear) so he might just nominate Alberto Gonzales, someone he knows that the rightwing of the party hate, and its also somebody very close to him, and we all know how he likes to appoint his friends to top positions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Some Republicans would hate her. She wrote an opinion saying Calfornia had the right to ban assault weapons. She also has written opinions asserting greater 4th Amendment rights than we get currently (raising the ire of the law and order crowd).

[DanS]

What's a clip joint? Edumacate.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Some Republicans would hate her. She wrote an opinion saying Calfornia had the right to ban assault weapons. She also has written opinions asserting greater 4th Amendment rights than we get currently (raising the ire of the law and order crowd).

The right to ban assualt weapons case, was a case involving states rights. Alot of conseratives would praise her for upholding states rights in that case. She is very libertatrion on on criminal cases, but that might help here get support from some Democrats.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by flash9286
The right to ban assualt weapons case, was a case involving states rights. Alot of conseratives would praise her for upholding states rights in that case. She is very libertatrion on on criminal cases, but that might help here get support from some Democrats.

You are insane. Don't you realize that 'states rights' means leave it to the states on issues that the federal government is against you?

Conservatives want to hear that the right to bear arms to be stated clearly... and the Constitution's Bill of Rights, of course, trumps the rights of states.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




You are insane. Don't you realize that 'states rights' means leave it to the states on issues that the federal government is against you?

Conservatives want to hear that the right to bear arms to be stated clearly... and the Constitution's Bill of Rights, of course, trumps the rights of states.

I dont know what you are getting to but Republicans have been the states right party for a time being now. Being a strong supporter of states rights is going to help her on abortion which some Republicans belive should be left to indiviudal states and that Roe V. Wade intervens on states rights. And your right the constitution would trump this if those assualt weapons were being used some how to maintain a well regulated milita.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I dont know what you are getting to but Republicans have been the states right party for a time being now.

I'm sorry, what is the Republican party's issue on states passing medical marijuana laws? How about gay marriage (Hello, Constitutional Amendment!)?

BOTH parties will use states rights only for the things they like (and when they don't like the federal government's position).

Republicans are no better than the Democrats and on many issues believe in the supremacy of the federal government over the states.

And your right the constitution would trump this if those assualt weapons were being used some how to maintain a well regulated milita.

The Republican party line doesn't care about the militia part of the Amendment (neither do I really). They think the Constitution says every person should be able to have a gun (and I somewhat agree... but I think licensing and registration is a needed step).

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by flash9286
Anybody willing to take bets on who the next nominee will be? I putting my money on Janice Rogers Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown). She is VERY conserative, she is black and a woman, and she has the credintals to be a Supreme Court judge. But Bush is very stubborn(or thats what I hear) so he might just nominate Alberto Gonzales, someone he knows that the rightwing of the party hate, and its also somebody very close to him, and we all know how he likes to appoint his friends to top positions.

She sounds pretty good. I just read this speech by her: http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/...jrb_fedsoc.htm

Sounds like my kinda gal.

Plus she's only 56 and better looking than Miers, heh.

[flash9286]

The Republican party line doesn't care about the militia part of the Amendment (neither do I really). They think the Constitution says every person should be able to have a gun (and I somewhat agree... but I think licensing and registration is a needed step).

So I guess Rehnquist or Burger wouldn't have been nominated by Republicans...

[Odin]

Originally posted by flash9286


So I guess Rehnquist or Burger wouldn't have been nominated by Republicans...

That was in the innocent pre-Bork days when choosing justices was a lot more civilized.

[Berzerker]

The only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment belongs to the people and that right is to keep and bear arms. Transfering this right to the states and their militias is illogical, why mention the people at all if the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to create a state's right to have militias? That interpretation defies the notion that we the people grant certain powers to government, not rights...rights belong to people. The Framers knew the difference between a right and a power, why dont some members of the SCOTUS? Because they are qualified

Oh well, I really had no opinion on Miers other than my knee jerk reaction to any Bush nomination and I wanted to see her in the hearings to see if she was qualified. Of course, partisan politics severely limits what nominees will tell us about their views, so even hearings wouldn't give me much. But it would have given me more than I've gotten from the President and his party. Ann Coulter says she's unqualified and I'm supposed to believe Miers is unqualified?

Tonight that tower of moral intellect Bill Bennett who spends alot of quality time with one-armed bandits offered the following:

Miers said we've gone far beyond legislating morality.

Bennett then informed us that legislating morality is what government does and then cited laws against murder and rape as examples. This was Bennett's proof Miers was unqualified.

This guy writes books about morality?

Bill, she said we've gone far beyond legislating morality! That raises the question: is it possible to pass immoral laws or laws that dont legislate morality, i.e., go far beyond morality?

YES! Slavery is one example, the drug war is another. We cease "legislating morality" when our reaction to a "crime" is worse than the offense. And Bill Bennett, who, btw, was rather ambiguous about Miers before she withdrew and is now critical, expects me to believe she was unqualified because he says so? Bu****

I'm actually getting a bit angry over this, I dont like it when elitist liberals slam people before they can be heard, now right wingers who complain about elitist liberals are slamming Miers. The real message is: leave us to run government, you outsiders aren't qualified.

Kudos to Alan Colmes, he nailed Bennett with the hypocrisy of Repubs demanding an up or down vote just a few weeks ago and now dont want Miers to have an up or down vote.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Winston
Well done.

I think I'll take any bets that the next nominee will be either Gonzales or Luttig.

It will be a woman.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm going to throw out Michael McConnell as a possible replacement. He seems to be a candidate that the ulta-right who destroyed Meirs could support, and gossip has it that his name is being thrown around by those inside.

McConnell would be ideal, but I doubt we'll be that lucky.

[SpencerH]

I'm picking the female judge here in Birmingham who carries a gun and says she'll shoot any white man who tries to repress her (no foolin).