Rehnquist dies and Bush replaces him with a 50 year old version who the Demos can't touch. How exactly is Bush so weak in DC?Biden To Roberts: 'You're The Best'
Exclusive Drudge sources in the U.S. Senate's Hart Building heard Democrat Sen. Joe Biden say to Judge John G. Roberts in a private conversation on the hearing room floor: 'You're the best I've ever seen before the committee'...
Developing...
Seriously, if Bush was so damn weak shouldn't the Dems be able to derail Roberts' nomination? They haven't been able to land a glove on him.
Next Bush will nominate Brown to replace O'Connor. Will the Dems find themselves filibustering the nomination of the first African-American female to the Supreme Court? That's going to play well. Time to trot out the Uncle Tom card, I suppose.
"How exactly is Bush so weak in DC?"
I bet Bush didn't know who TF Roberts was until various Repubs put the short list together. Remember, Bush isn't a detail main, nor a lawyer, he's a Big Picture Artist, yeah right. Bush is weak everywhere, above all between his ears, and where his so-called brain connects to his tongue. He's an embarrassment to the US overseas. He's an insult from the Repub to the USA.
Roberts not as bad as Scalia or Thomas. So I don't find it so painful to see this guy get in.
The next nominee will probably a lot worse, the Repub attempt, having gotten some good will with a digestible first pick, to pack the court with a extreme far-right activist idealogue.
as opposed to the dems packing the court with extreme leftist....
I dunno...but it seems like you almost want to see the court go totally conservative...
I don't. I don't want to see Roe V Wade overturned(and no sane politician does, including W)...
I am not going to rip the Dems for playing hardball on the next nominee...checks and balances you know. I don't want a court comprised totally of 50 years old consrervatives...I want a balanced court. I will however rip them if the nature of their attacks is similar to their attacks on the President....IE Demonization.
And Bush is never going to be a lameduck with a Republican controlled congress...the idea is asinine.
Yet despite all of that, he replaces the 80+ year old conservative stalwart Chief Justice with a 50 year old one. That's a potentially 3 decades long imprint that Bush is apparently going to get on the federal judiciary. For such an awful "repug", "shrub" certainly has "owned" the Senate Dems.
Keep telling yourself that. Other than replacing one of the liberal bloc justices with a conservative, replacing Rehnquist as Chief Justice with a 50 year old is the GOP's wet dream.Roberts not as bad as Scalia or Thomas. So I don't find it so painful to see this guy get in.
boutons cracks me the .. anything good, he couldn't possibly have come up with... anything bad, no matter how complex or smart you had to be to pull it off, bush did it!!!
i beg to differ clan
More than Roe is in the balance with the next appointment. Justice O'Connor's legacy as a swing vote derives as much from her positions on Establishment Clause cases, and racial and gender discrimination cases, as it does on her support for Roe (even through a slow erosion). Roe remains the big-ticket item that connects the public to the Court, but the other issues are vitally important to large numbers of people; a change in the composition of the Court could seriously threaten a number of matters that we take for granted.
For instance, Justice O'Connor provided a crucial vote in a gender case in which a party argued that gender-based classifications should be subject only to rational review, rather than so-called intermediate scrutiny. The difference is fairly substantial, since legislative acts that are subject to rational review are presumably cons utional and are unlikely to be struck down, while those that are subject to intermediate scrutiny enjoy no such presumption. In practical effect, subjecting gender-based discrimination to only rational review would allow legislatures to treat men and women very differently in many different ways, based solely on the happenstance of their chromosomes. A more conservative justice might not have the same qualms with that scenario that Justice O'Connor did.
It's but one example, but it paints the picture. The battle over a replacement for O'Connor will be bloody and I don't think the Democrats are going to fret too seriously about fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo, regardless of the iden y of the nominee. At this point, the Democrats have some arrows in their political quiver, with an election still 3 years away, with an increasingly unpopular war beginning to look quagmire-ish, with a degradation of individual rights in the crosshairs, and with a lame-duck President in the White House. I actually think the Democrats would take the losses that might result from a filibuster if it meant that the ideological composition of the Court could be roughly maintained.
"could be roughly maintained."
esp if the next nominee is mid 40's to early 50s, looking at 30 - 35 years on the bench.
Whaaat? Bouts, you called the President "Bush" instead of shrub?
Please don't tell me you've been Hannitized.
Whaaat? Bouts, you called the President "Bush" instead of shrub?
Please don't tell me you've been Hannitized.
dude...shhhhhh! I had to beg for that, please don't it up.
Well I don't know what justice made what decision...and I do support the Democrats trying to maintain the balance of the court...
But the Democrats are not in control of anything...I see the term lame-duck being bandied about inaccurately these days...technically...it's impossible for Bush to be a lame duck...and that's without having the backing of a Republican Congress and 3 years to go into his term.
On top of that...Republicans are actually incrasing their margin over Democratic Candiates for the 2008 Presidency(for those who think polls mean everything)...so while Bush himself may have some low approval ratings...there is nothing to indicate the Democrats are doing anything to regain popularity in this country...
As for the Democratic strategy with regards to the nominees...
The Dems can get away with fillibustering one minority Nominee...but they cannot pull off doing it with two...
What will your strategy be if the first Bush nominee is Alberto Gonzalez?
Then you filibuster the first Hispanic Supreme Court Nominee and the first African American Female?
LOL..Lame Duck indeed...Good luck with that one. I'll remember the Democratic Party fondly...
This doesn't even take into account the probably 3rd Justice Spot Bush is going to have the opportunity to fill when Stephens retires...yes he's become a liberal...but he was a Republican apointee...
Like I say...I am all for maintaining the balance of the court...but it's going to be harder to pull off than you would think with a lame duck president in office...In any case...I think you should trust the Republicans...they've done a better job of appointing moderates or even conservatives who move to the left...than the Democrats have. Pick your battles carefully.
I thought he did it on his own, my bad.dude...shhhhhh! I had to beg for that, please don't it up.
Something to think about. The ages of the current Supreme Court Justices...
Stevens 85
O'Connor 75
Ginsburg 72
Scalia 69
Kennedy 69
Breyer 67
Souter 66
Thomas 57
Out of the top 3 oldest justices, 2 are members of the liberal bloc of the Court. The other, regarded as a "swing vote" yet one who leans somewhat to the right, has announced her retirement. With 3 years left in Bush's 2nd term, he could very well have another shot at nominating a SC justice and this time, one who could turn a 5-4 split into 6-3, with 5 of those 6 being more ardent conservatives than O'Connor and Kennedy.
"Good game, buddy, good game."
Sounds like he was kissing up a bit.. Just.. in case... ..
Biden was probably plagiarizing again...
No, just cancel out Ginsburg.
Why not? It never should have been a federal issue to begin with.
I'd like to see them try and Bork Judge Brown. Now, THAT'S entertainment!
Nope, he's not.
Whatever needs to be done to maintain a moderate and balanced court.
Trust me...I keep these views largely to my self on this forum for a reason...get me started talking on this subject and I'll start to sound a whole lot like the Chinese Government. I don't necessarily think abortion should be the #1 form of birth control....but I am definitely among those in favor of taking an pro active stance in how many people the world is producing. You show me a world problem...historically or otherwise...and one way or another it's going to lead back to over-population 99% of the time. This includes terrorism by the way..Why not? It never should have been a federal issue to begin with
Define moderate and balanced.
You know, I'm comfortable letting God, nature's God, Allah, Mother Nature, whomever or whatever you wish to call it, take the lead on population control.
Who knows, you may be killing the child that would grow to solve such problems... Wouldn't that be a pisser?
Sure...we have brains...no sense in actually using them....remember that the next time you get life saving surgery or medical aid.
The solution is already obvious. You don't out produce the ability of the land to sustain you...you don't have more children than you can adequately care for, this means emotionally as well. You don't produce so many people that they are denied educaton and the opportunity for good life. Forced to live in squalor and poverty...or the flipside...that they are brought up parentally detached, a budding sociopath.Who knows, you may be killing the child that would grow to solve such problems
And besides...being a god-fearing Christain...why would you think death is the worst thing that can happen to a person? Isn't it a reward for a life well lived? You think god is going to punish someone who never had the chance?
Maybe god'll just send them back to someone who wants them.Wouldn't that be a pisser?
Big difference between terminating a life and saving one. If I were a betting man, I'm not, and if I were a God-fearing man, I am; I'd put my money on believing God has no problem with the latter and is pretty ticked about the former. But, that's just me.
And we haven't. If you'll look at the areas where people are starving it's because of political strife, not unproductive land.
None of the problems you mention are due to too many people...just too many unproductive people.
As a God-fearing Christian, I'm as concerned for the murderer as the murdered. I don't believe God created man to be killed in the womb and I don't believe God -- well he said it right there in the 10 commandments -- intended for his creation to kill its offspring.
That's reincarnation...different religion.
Well...God knows Christians have never killed anyone before...I see your point.
I disagree...the decline of nearly every great civilization and period of enlightenment has been due to over-population...And we haven't. If you'll look at the areas where people are starving it's because of political strife, not unproductive land.
And political strife comes out over-population...not vice versa. Political strife usually ends it.
So are you saying it's possible for these governments to give everyone a job?None of the problems you mention are due to too many people...just too many unproductive people.
You little commie you.
I must have missed the commandment that said Though shalt not kill thy offspring...which one is it?As a God-fearing Christian, I'm as concerned for the murderer as the murdered. I don't believe God created man to be killed in the womb and I don't believe God -- well he said it right there in the 10 commandments -- intended for his creation to kill its offspring.
And aren't you Pro-Death Penalty?
I don't think it's ever been specified one way or the other...Where did God say he won't send them back if they were never given a chance to live?That's reincarnation...different religion.
They may have called themselves Christians...many do. That doesn't make them followers of Christ.
Really? Name one.
Tell that to the Subsaharan Africans being systemically starved by corrupt totalitarian regimes that re agricultrual advancement and hijack international aid. Tell that to the North Koreans...
Give? No, allow them to work and be productive without fear of having the fruits of their labor taken by communist or totalitarian regimes.
#6; "You shall not murder."
Yep. Legal execution for a capital crime is not murder.
Sorry, I'm not a theologian. Why don't you find me the passage where it says He will. Me, absent any clear direction, I'm going to err on the side of life.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
