BREAKING NEWS! supreme court opening?! O'Connor Retires

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
This may mean that Roe vs. Wade gets overturned next year.

It will never be overturned. Dem's use the possibility of Roe V Wade being overturned to scare the more ignorant into line.

So they would scare you into line?

Haha.

maybe your mom!

play nice red

You know damn well that abortion is a talkin point and not a lot more to any politicician. The left promises to preserve the right to have an abortion and the rigth says it will take it away.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
i want someone who will uphold the Constitution appointed. If it takes a "Liberal" or "Conservative" to get that person, so be it.

Completely unhelpful. The Constitution is vague and subject to multiple interpretations. Just look at cruel and unusual for an example. People can interpret this different ways. Some say electrocution is cruel and unusual, others don't.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I want a good conservative on the court, but I don't want Roe v. Wade overturned. I think it'll create a backlash against the court and Republicans in general.

why do Republicans not have the balls to say that they want to overturn Roe v. Wade. If they are for this culture of life, they should make the case. I am personally ambivalent about abortion rights but the Republicans should really sh*t or get off the pot.

O'Connor is a swing vote, so the battle is on. Gonzo would be the Democrats "best" choice.

 

[Infohawk]

Part of me wouldn't mind Roe v. Wade being overturned to wake people up to the dangers of religion in government.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
i want someone who will uphold the Constitution appointed. If it takes a "Liberal" or "Conservative" to get that person, so be it.

Completely unhelpful. The Constitution is vague and subject to multiple interpretations. Just look at cruel and unusual for an example. People can interpret this different ways. Some say electrocution is cruel and unusual, others don't.

See... that's the problem. The Constitution is not vague. If you read it you'll find that it is very specific and to the point. This notion that it is open to interpretation is why this nomination is so important. Activist judges have twisted the Constitution into something that barely resmbles the document our country was founded on. Justices (including those sitting on the SC right now) often don't even consult the document in their decisions citing case law and legislation from other countries. Holy crap.

This court needs to be reigned back in and people need to be placed on it who will faithfully defend, not interpret or twist or mangle the constitution.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Infohawk posted:

Completely unhelpful.

Ah, but that's where you misunderstand, likely due to your everpresent quest for a political game. "Liberal" or "Conservative" shouldn't matter in upholding the Constitution as both should be doing that. Thus, I don't care what label you throw at them if they do their job which is to uphold the Constitution.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: filterxg
Gonzo is personally prochoice, but state's right, so he would overturn Roe V Wade. I follow this stuff pretty closely and I think they are waiting for Reinquest to retire before putting up Gonzalez. To replace a moderate they need an easy confirmation. Dark Horse: Orrin Hatch. He would be easy bc he has a lot of friends in the senate, and is definetly a conservative.

Great point!

I, too , beleive Hatch is lurking as a dark horse and it would be a good tactic to nominate him now. Gonzo later if Bush is adament about nominating him. And I believe he is, seems he badly wants to nominate a Hispanic.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

Originally posted by: Czar
Isnt Gonzales a really bad choice?

Well he's from the South, so that aint a good start.

Geez, bad grammer and racist remarks all in one post :thumbsdown:

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
i want someone who will uphold the Constitution appointed. If it takes a "Liberal" or "Conservative" to get that person, so be it.

Completely unhelpful. The Constitution is vague and subject to multiple interpretations. Just look at cruel and unusual for an example. People can interpret this different ways. Some say electrocution is cruel and unusual, others don't.

See... that's the problem. The Constitution is not vague. If you read it you'll find that it is very specific and to the point.

so what does cruel and unusual mean in specifics?

 

[Mr Nate]

I've got a huge round up going on my site if you guys want to check it out.

As for what I think Bush should do - He should nominate someone who will face the least resistence in the senate, like gonzales, and he should get back to more important issues like kicking terrorists asses.

 

[zendari]

Orrin Hatch is too old. Bush is probably looking for someone in his 40s - 50s, 60s at latest. We need someone who can sit on the court for a while.

He definitely shouldn't be held hostage by the Senate Dems.

 

[herkulease]

alot of what we have today would not exist if thte Supreme Court read the constitution literally.

Judicial review would not exist unless there was an amendment. other than disputes between states and individuals the courts would pretty much be useless.

as for the opening.

I suspect this is a start of probably 3 openings. with rehnquist and stevens going next. stevens is 85 already and I doubt he can hold on until 2008 so hopefully a democrat would be president. and we all know rehnquist's health problems.

If bush is smart, nominate someone to keep the current status quo, likely a moderate and slowly push towards a more conservative court. instead of having maybe 3 hard battles over the nomination, you could take it down to just 1.

the only thing I haven't seen is if rehnquist steps down will they elevate a current member or get an outsider. If they do it that way they'll have potentially an extra battle to deal with.

hopefully they get a nomination through and have a complete court before the next term starts. I think its unfair for litigants to have to present their case in front of an incomplete court due to reasons besides conflict of interest.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Ferocious

Well he's from the South, so that aint a good start.

Geez, bad grammer and racist remarks all in one post :thumbsdown:

Well, since you've evidently appointed yourself Arbiter of All Things Linguistic, I'll point out that you've misspelled "grammar," and that your post is a sentence fragment, rather than a sentence (in that it lacks a verb).

Moreover, what specifically is "racist" about the post you quoted? Southerners don't constitute a separate race to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Or why not do the opposite? Go for a hard-core constructionist right off the bat and then back off a little on any other nominations he might have to make.

Not that it matters. Whoever he nominates better remember to wear a helmet.

 

[Zebo]

It will be a hispanic not doubt in my mind to solidify that vote..soon to be 50% of USA. Most likly Alberto Gonzales, personel freind to Bush and is nebulus on abortion rights which is what the republicans need. Can't have an Emilio Garza, hard core Catholic federal judge who makes no secret about abortion.

 

[nageov3t]

you think Gonzales will be an easy confirm with all the media attention on gitmo these days?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: loki8481
you think Gonzales will be an easy confirm with all the media attention on gitmo these days?

Media are big governemnt whores and love a story like Gonzos.. one of 12 children from a migrant shack who rose to be a SC judge... No problemo.


Edit:
All the media attention? it's not getting that much considering the depravity diplayed by our government here.... mostly relegated to page 15 stories, instead of Front Page with pictures and everyday as my newspaper would have... Not just gitmo either... Abu garab, Sibel Evans, Reid etc where the government is treasonous and violates rules of law on a daily basis.

 

[Taggart]

He should nominate Judge Reinhold!

Is Hatch ever been a judge? Is he a lawyer?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
See... that's the problem. The Constitution is not vague. If you read it you'll find that it is very specific and to the point.

Again, the Constitution only mentions "cruel and unusual." This is subject to interpretation. The Constitution offers no guidance as to what is "cruel and unusual."

Take a look at the 9th 9th Amendment It is purposefully left open-ended! There is no answer in the Constitution as to what these other rights are.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Taggart
He should nominate Judge Reinhold!

Is Hatch ever been a judge? Is he a lawyer?

95% of these senators are lawyers, ya of course he is. That should tell you what's wrong with our gov't right there.. (no offense Donvito)

 

[filterxg]

Originally posted by: zendari
Orrin Hatch is too old. Bush is probably looking for someone in his 40s - 50s, 60s at latest. We need someone who can sit on the court for a while.

He definitely shouldn't be held hostage by the Senate Dems.

Unless he is going for a "special" candidate, like a hispanic I don't think it'll be somebody in their 40s-50s. At least thats the general pattern presidents follow.

Originally posted by: Taggart
He should nominate Judge Reinhold!

Is Hatch ever been a judge? Is he a lawyer?

He was never a judge, but he is a lawyer. Plus he chaired the judicial committee until term limits kicked in this term.

 

[maddogchen]

I don't think Roe would be overturned. What you think of my picks?

Uphold:
Breyer
Ginsburg
Stevens
Kennedy
Souter

Overturn:
Bushy Pick
Scalia
Thomas
Rehnquist

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: loki8481
you think Gonzales will be an easy confirm with all the media attention on gitmo these days?

Media are big governemnt whores and love a story like Gonzos.. one of 12 children from a migrant shack who rose to be a SC judge... No problemo.


Edit:
All the media attention? it's not getting that much considering the depravity diplayed by our government here.... mostly relegated to page 15 stories, instead of Front Page with pictures and everyday as my newspaper would have... Not just gitmo either... Abu garab, Sibel Evans, Reid etc where the government is treasonous and violates rules of law on a daily basis.

I've been noticing a lot... and I think the Bush admin would rather not bring even more attention to the issue. if Gonzales gets nomincated, Gitmo will be front page news all summer.

 

[filterxg]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
I don't think Roe would be overturned. What you think of my picks?

Uphold:
Breyer
Ginsburg
Stevens
Kennedy
Souter

Overturn:
Bushy Pick
Scalia
Thomas
Rehnquist

Though Kennedy used to be pro-choice, he is now considered pro-life. Assuming Kennedy doesn't change his mind again, it would be 5-4 to overturn.

 

[Infohawk]

People forget that Roe v. Wade was almost overturned in the Casey case (5-4). It only takes one more vote to do it.