O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,302
10
81
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I wish she would wait three more years.
Why? So the next appointee can be even more liberal, thus strengthening this eminent domain crap decision?

Sandra was a swing vote who dissented on the ED vote. Bush replacing her is a GOOD thing. Replace her with a liberal judge and you can kiss your proerty rights goodbye forever.
You think whoever he picks would be any better? I just have no trust in Bush's decision making capabilities--nor whoever coaches him on the decision. It won't be in favor of the American people or the Constitution. I have no problem with her being replaced--I just don't want him in charge of it.
Exactly right.
 

tami

Lifer
Nov 14, 2004
11,582
3
81
it is truly sad when one reads the topic of this post and immediately thinks "sinead o'connor was on the supreme court?"

:eek:
 

Pepsei

Lifer
Dec 14, 2001
12,895
1
0
Originally posted by: Phoenix86
Originally posted by: Pepsei
maybe bush will replace her with that new black woman judge.
She barely got confirmed for a lower court...

it was all a ploy, she just pretended to be very conservative and will do a 360 in the supreme court.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
"he would recommend a replacement who will "faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country."

God I hope so, 4 of them had no clue about property rights
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: OrByte
I tend to agree.

I wonder why she is retiring?
Cause she's 75 years old and ready to retire?

 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: jemcam
Yeah, I'm glad to see it, but I have a feeling this really is going to end up needing to be in P&N.
Why, so Conjur and BBOnd can go off about how Bush engineered her retirement so that he could replace her with a secret shadow-government operative intent on infiltrating the Supreme Court's legal decisions?

I think we all know the outcome of ANYTHING posted in P&N: Conjur, BBond and a handful of other mindless MORONS flog the conspiracy theory BS until reasonable people get fed up and tell them to fvck off.

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I wish she would wait three more years.
Why? So the next appointee can be even more liberal, thus strengthening this eminent domain crap decision?

Sandra was a swing vote who dissented on the ED vote. Bush replacing her is a GOOD thing. Replace her with a liberal judge and you can kiss your proerty rights goodbye forever.
If there were REAL Liberals on the court you'd have your property rights in a flash. It was originally the Liberals who INSISTED on property rights as the foundation of all other Civil Rights.

Today's "Liberals" are more or less Socialists, not Liberals at all. Today's Conservatives are pretty much still Conservatives, and they NEVER cared about individual rights or Civil Liberties.

Jason
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,283
12,019
146
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I wish she would wait three more years.
Why? So the next appointee can be even more liberal, thus strengthening this eminent domain crap decision?

Sandra was a swing vote who dissented on the ED vote. Bush replacing her is a GOOD thing. Replace her with a liberal judge and you can kiss your proerty rights goodbye forever.
If there were REAL Liberals on the court you'd have your property rights in a flash. It was originally the Liberals who INSISTED on property rights as the foundation of all other Civil Rights.

Today's "Liberals" are more or less Socialists, not Liberals at all. Today's Conservatives are pretty much still Conservatives, and they NEVER cared about individual rights or Civil Liberties.

Jason
You start off good, then go down hill fast.

Conservatives do care about civil liberties and individual rights.

I give you the 2nd Amendment.
Property rights.
Opposition to nanny state laws.
And most importantly, economic freedom.

Look at it this way, modern "liberals" want to save you from yourself by restricting your risk. Modern conservatives (of the religious right) want to save your soul by limiting your sins.

It's 6 of one, a half dozen of another. The only real issue is, who's ideology is winning, and therefore a greater danger to our freedom?

Right now, that would be the modern "liberal" nanny-state. The religious right seldom makes any real headway. But the nanny-state, socialist left has been making great strides in restricting our freedoms.

One final shot:

Many modern conservatives fully supported the civil rights movement of the 60s. Charlton Heston marched with MLK. Ronald Reagan was a huge supporter as well.

To say conservatives oppose civil liberties is absurd.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
I don't really get why people think that SC judges will be any more tilted in one ideological direction or the other than in the past. If we didn't see extremists in robes during the worst of the Cold War, we aren't going to see them do the same today.
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I wish she would wait three more years.
Why? So the next appointee can be even more liberal, thus strengthening this eminent domain crap decision?

Sandra was a swing vote who dissented on the ED vote. Bush replacing her is a GOOD thing. Replace her with a liberal judge and you can kiss your proerty rights goodbye forever.
If there were REAL Liberals on the court you'd have your property rights in a flash. It was originally the Liberals who INSISTED on property rights as the foundation of all other Civil Rights.

Today's "Liberals" are more or less Socialists, not Liberals at all. Today's Conservatives are pretty much still Conservatives, and they NEVER cared about individual rights or Civil Liberties.

Jason
You start off good, then go down hill fast.

Conservatives do care about civil liberties and individual rights.

I give you the 2nd Amendment.
Property rights.
Opposition to nanny state laws.
And most importantly, economic freedom.

Look at it this way, modern "liberals" want to save you from yourself by restricting your risk. Modern conservatives (of the religious right) want to save your soul by limiting your sins.

It's 6 of one, a half dozen of another. The only real issue is, who's ideology is winning, and therefore a greater danger to our freedom?

Right now, that would be the modern "liberal" nanny-state. The religious right seldom makes any real headway. But the nanny-state, socialist left has been making great strides in restricting our freedoms.

One final shot:

Many modern conservatives fully supported the civil rights movement of the 60s. Charlton Heston marched with MLK. Ronald Reagan was a huge supporter as well.

To say conservatives oppose civil liberties is absurd.
You belie your ignorance, my friend. ATM, the religious right is winning great strides in the United States. Bush's re-election is evidence of this, as are the absurd cases of Terry Schiavo and the current ranting proclaiming America a "Christian Nation", which is absurd and untrue.

Conservatives are NOT against "Nanny state" laws at all. They differ on WHICH items the state should rule over your personal life in than the "Liberals" (who, I'll point out again, are NOT Liberal. In fact the far left are closer to Socialists than they are to Liberals), but they are in NO WAY against the Nanny State. They want to legislate with whom you can sleep, who you may love and be married to, whether or not Husbands and Wives have say over the fateof their incapacitated spouses and whether you can burn a FLAG.

The only Civil Liberty that Conservatives tend historically to uphold is in fact that of economic Liberty, and even at that they are erratic and inconsistent. Men like Robert Bork are an excellent example of Conservatism's *hatred* for Individual Liberty, for what some call "the Self-Directed Life". For these people, freedom to choose and think and act and be an individual are corrosive to Societal stability, and they prefer to legislate your "morality" and enforce it.

I'll point you to an excellent series of articles comparing and contrasting Liberalism and Conservatism here by Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Tim Sandefur. He's an expert on constitutional law and moral philsophy, as well as an astoundingly astute historian and expert on the Founding Fathers. I've personally been acquainted with Mr. Sandefur for more than 15 years, and there are few opinions I respect as highly as his.

As for Ronald Reagan, perhaps you are unaware that he *wrote* and *published* that people should be free to use drugs if they wish, but that they should *choose* not to as a matter of morality?

Again, Conservatives are NOT about Civil Liberties, they are about maintaining their vision of a "stable" Society. Freedom and Stability are NOT friends; freedom *creates* turbulence as a necessary consequence of the fact that it doesn't attempt to cease the natural motion of life.

Jason
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,283
12,019
146
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I wish she would wait three more years.
Why? So the next appointee can be even more liberal, thus strengthening this eminent domain crap decision?

Sandra was a swing vote who dissented on the ED vote. Bush replacing her is a GOOD thing. Replace her with a liberal judge and you can kiss your proerty rights goodbye forever.
If there were REAL Liberals on the court you'd have your property rights in a flash. It was originally the Liberals who INSISTED on property rights as the foundation of all other Civil Rights.

Today's "Liberals" are more or less Socialists, not Liberals at all. Today's Conservatives are pretty much still Conservatives, and they NEVER cared about individual rights or Civil Liberties.

Jason
You start off good, then go down hill fast.

Conservatives do care about civil liberties and individual rights.

I give you the 2nd Amendment.
Property rights.
Opposition to nanny state laws.
And most importantly, economic freedom.

Look at it this way, modern "liberals" want to save you from yourself by restricting your risk. Modern conservatives (of the religious right) want to save your soul by limiting your sins.

It's 6 of one, a half dozen of another. The only real issue is, who's ideology is winning, and therefore a greater danger to our freedom?

Right now, that would be the modern "liberal" nanny-state. The religious right seldom makes any real headway. But the nanny-state, socialist left has been making great strides in restricting our freedoms.

One final shot:

Many modern conservatives fully supported the civil rights movement of the 60s. Charlton Heston marched with MLK. Ronald Reagan was a huge supporter as well.

To say conservatives oppose civil liberties is absurd.
You belie your ignorance, my friend. ATM, the religious right is winning great strides in the United States. Bush's re-election is evidence of this, as are the absurd cases of Terry Schiavo and the current ranting proclaiming America a "Christian Nation", which is absurd and untrue.

Conservatives are NOT against "Nanny state" laws at all. They differ on WHICH items the state should rule over your personal life in than the "Liberals" (who, I'll point out again, are NOT Liberal. In fact the far left are closer to Socialists than they are to Liberals), but they are in NO WAY against the Nanny State. They want to legislate with whom you can sleep, who you may love and be married to, whether or not Husbands and Wives have say over the fateof their incapacitated spouses and whether you can burn a FLAG.

The only Civil Liberty that Conservatives tend historically to uphold is in fact that of economic Liberty, and even at that they are erratic and inconsistent. Men like Robert Bork are an excellent example of Conservatism's *hatred* for Individual Liberty, for what some call "the Self-Directed Life". For these people, freedom to choose and think and act and be an individual are corrosive to Societal stability, and they prefer to legislate your "morality" and enforce it.

I'll point you to an excellent series of articles comparing and contrasting Liberalism and Conservatism here by Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Tim Sandefur. He's an expert on constitutional law and moral philsophy, as well as an astoundingly astute historian and expert on the Founding Fathers. I've personally been acquainted with Mr. Sandefur for more than 15 years, and there are few opinions I respect as highly as his.

As for Ronald Reagan, perhaps you are unaware that he *wrote* and *published* that people should be free to use drugs if they wish, but that they should *choose* not to as a matter of morality?

Again, Conservatives are NOT about Civil Liberties, they are about maintaining their vision of a "stable" Society. Freedom and Stability are NOT friends; freedom *creates* turbulence as a necessary consequence of the fact that it doesn't attempt to cease the natural motion of life.

Jason
All your examples of the religious right "winning great strides" are, in fact, FAILURES. (The idea that Bush's reelection was a "great stride" for the religious right is patently absurd. The RR makes up a TINY % of the US population. Bush won because Kerry was the greater evil in a majority of people's opinions.)

They failed with Schiavo, have failed making the US a "Christian Nation" and have failed on many other fronts. Sure, they make a lot of noise, but get very little done.

As for "nanny-state laws," I believe we have merely a difference of definition. Again, I pointed out how the differences are between the right and the left, and how each attempts to limit our rights and freedoms. Read it again and stop disagreeing with me while actually agreeing with me.

Ignorance? Hardly. I form my own opinions rather than have people form them for me.

You CAN have freedom and stability. The idea you cannot is absurd. "Fairness" and freedom are opposites, but not stability and freedom.

Finally, "Liberal" in the US has come to mean the socialist left. You can rally all day against it, but that is the POPULAR definition. Arguing semantics with me accomplishes nothing. You wont be changing that popular definition any time soon.

This is why "classical liberals" now call themselves "libertarians."

And what is wrong with Reagan's statement on drugs? Makes perfect sense to me. Too bad he continued the war on drugs, though. That action goes against his statement.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY