PDA

View Full Version : Chief Justice Rehnquist has died


memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:06 PM
CNN reporting. Yikes.

I thought this last week was depressing enough. Now DUHbya gets to finish the sweep of the branches of government. :shake:

Ultra Peanut
09-03-2005, 09:09 PM
This has been such a slow week...

That sucks.

irishjayhawk
09-03-2005, 09:11 PM
CNN reporting. Yikes.

I thought this last week was depressing enough. Now DUHbya gets to finish the sweep of the branches of government. :shake:
That really sucks.

Just what we need Duhbya owning all three branches.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:14 PM
MSNBC now reporting that AP has confirmed. Fox just followed.

Stinger
09-03-2005, 09:14 PM
Wow RIP ....



On the other hand is the left going to blame Bush for the situation in New Orleans so he can sneak another justice under the radar?

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:16 PM
Wow RIP ....



On the other hand is the left going to blame Bush for the situation in New Orleans so he can sneak another justice under the radar?

Actually, I thought he'd try to invade Iran. Seeing that the old guy was on his way out, why waste such a major diversion on something that was going to happen anyway? :hmmm:

Logical
09-03-2005, 09:17 PM
Wow that is just so sad, he was indeed a great man and a fine justice. May his family find peace in this time of great sadness.

Bwana
09-03-2005, 09:17 PM
Wow RIP ....



On the other hand is the left going to blame Bush for the situation in New Orleans so he can sneak another justice under the radar?
Not only New Orleans, but Da-Knees is trying to figure out a way to pin Justice Rehnquist's death on Bush. I give it about 24 hours until she comes up with that spin.

RIP Justice Rehnquist

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:18 PM
Wow that is just so sad, he was indeed a great man and a fine justice. May his family find peace in this time of great sadness.

Yes, I'm sad for his family...

and especially for our country. The incompetent idiot in the WH gets to choose another justice.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:19 PM
Not only New Orleans, but Da-Knees is trying to figure out a way to pin Justice Rehnquist's death on Bush. I give it about 24 hours until she comes up with that spin.

Nah, like I said, the guy was on his way out. If anything, W was Xing the days on his calendar.

Logical
09-03-2005, 09:21 PM
Yes, I'm sad for his family...

and especially for our country. The incompetent idiot in the WH gets to choose another justice.DEnise, seriously you do know that Rehnquist was easily the 3rd most conservative of the Justices so replacing him should not really shift the balance, just keep it the way it has been for a much longer period of time.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:25 PM
DEnise, seriously you do know that Rehnquist was easily the 3rd most conservative of the Justices so replacing him should not really shift the balance, just keep it the way it has been for a much longer period of time.

Jim, compared to Scalia and Thomas (either of whom will get the nod), Rehnquist was cool beans. I didn't like him much but compared to those other two whack jobs, he was tolerable.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:27 PM
Hum, the timing of this might help save DUHbya's azz though...

cuz all of a sudden Katrina is off the screens.

There, that is for you Bwana. :p

alnorth
09-03-2005, 09:29 PM
Hum, the timing of this might help save DUHbya's azz though...

cuz all of a sudden Katrina is off the screens.

There, that is for you Bwana. :p

For political junkies, yes. For everyone else, hell no. As much as the liberal groups like to scream about the threat to abortion, etc, the general public doesnt give a rat's ass about judges.

Rehnquist was important, but Katrina is bigger than even him.

Bwana
09-03-2005, 09:30 PM
Don't be surprised if Bush tries to get Mark Racicot in there to replace him.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:31 PM
For political junkies, yes. For everyone else, hell no. As much as the liberal groups like to scream about the threat to abortion, etc, the general public doesnt give a rat's ass about judges.

Rehnquist was important, but Katrina is bigger than even him.

Gawd, I hope you are right.

I was just about reaching for the Jack Daniels and sleeping pills at the thought of DUHbya and his incompetence causing so much pain in the Gulf and then being saved by this guy's death.

alnorth
09-03-2005, 09:31 PM
If anything, Katrina is going to allow Bush to pick whoever the hell he wants to Chief Justice. The left is not going to be able to muster the required controversy to sink a nomination, Katrina will drown them all out, and even an arch-conservative will be able to waltz in.

Logical
09-03-2005, 09:32 PM
Jim, compared to Scalia and Thomas (either of whom will get the nod), Rehnquist was cool beans. I didn't like him much but compared to those other two whack jobs, he was tolerable.So your concern is with who will be elevated not with the majority. Isn't that really the issue?

Electric
09-03-2005, 09:33 PM
I read the bantering back and forth about the passing of an American that has served our country.

It's a shame that one of the posters on this board has to make a political statement about anything that she (yes D enise I'm talking about you) can, not because it is relevant but because she can use it to bash the president.

It's just a shame.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:33 PM
If anything, Katrina is going to allow Bush to pick whoever the hell he wants to Chief Justice. The left is not going to be able to muster the required controversy to sink a nomination, Katrina will drown them all out, and even an arch-conservative will be able to waltz in.

Or a DUHbya weakened by a debacle in Iraq AND the United States will have less political clout to throw behind a RRWNJ and thus will have to choose someone more moderate because he's got nothing left in the political gas tank...and refills cost so freakin much. :hmmm: :cuss:

(hehe, how many political jabs did I get in that one little paragraph?)

Bwana
09-03-2005, 09:34 PM
Gawd, I hope you are right.

I was just about reaching for the Jack Daniels and sleeping pills at the thought of DUHbya and his incompetence causing so much pain in the Gulf and then being saved by this guy's death.

Errrrrrrrr :banghead:

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:34 PM
So your concern is with who will be elevated not with the majority. Isn't that really the issue?

Yep. It's a given the court will be a conservative one. I can live with that. But the idea of Thomas or Scalia running the show gives me the heebie jeebies.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:36 PM
I read the bantering back and forth about the passing of an American that has served our country.

It's a shame that one of the posters on this board has to make a political statement about anything that she (yes D enise I'm talking about you) can, not because it is relevant but because she can use it to bash the president.

It's just a shame.

Oh grow up. This is a huge political event. The RWNJ base will see to it. They needed something to rally around their man after he's been so completely incompetent the past week. Sheesh, if you listen you can probably hear the champaign corks.

alnorth
09-03-2005, 09:36 PM
Your assuming that Bush would have to muster the political capital to convince the public to politically allow his allies in the senate to confirm him.

I'm saying its the opposite. The default result is the president gets anyone he wants, to change the default result, the left would have to successfully muster the political capital to convince the public to make it politically impossible for the GOP to win. That may have been possible without Katrina, but now I dont see how the left could even prevent Janice Brown if Bush were so inclined.

Logical
09-03-2005, 09:36 PM
Yep. It's a given the court will be a conservative one. I can live with that. But the idea of Thomas or Scalia running the show gives me the heebie jeebies.Isn't it really true that Chief Justice is more ceremonial and admininistrative than an actual position of greater judicial authority. I can definitely use some knowledge on this topic.

mlyonsd
09-03-2005, 09:38 PM
Gawd, I hope you are right.

I was just about reaching for the Jack Daniels and sleeping pills at the thought of DUHbya and his incompetence causing so much pain in the Gulf and then being saved by this guy's death.

What do you mean "saved"? Saved from what?

KC Dan
09-03-2005, 09:39 PM
Isn't it really true that Chief Justice is more ceremonial and admininistrative than an actual position of greater judicial authority. I can definitely use some knowledge on this topic.
There are some important functions of the Chief Justice but what is considered one of the more important is deciding who provides the written opinions if I am correct.

alnorth
09-03-2005, 09:39 PM
Isn't it really true that Chief Justice is more ceremonial and admininistrative than an actual position of greater judicial authority. I can definitely use some knowledge on this topic.

Its not totally ceremonial. The Chief Justice does have a small additional impact. For example, many times when Rehnquist knew he would lose 5-4, he would switch his vote and use his authority to appoint himself to write the majority opinion. That way he could write an opinion he doesnt agree with, but one that is as lukewarm and non-precedent-setting as possible, instead of allowing the Liberal block to write a much stronger opinion.

Other than little things like that though, in the end, his vote counts the same as everyone else.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:39 PM
Isn't it really true that Chief Justice is more ceremonial and admininistrative than an actual position of greater judicial authority. I can definitely use some knowledge on this topic.


I'm of the understanding that is true. However, I've heard, the 'tone' of the court is often set by its CJ.

mlyonsd
09-03-2005, 09:39 PM
Isn't it really true that Chief Justice is more ceremonial and admininistrative than an actual position of greater judicial authority. I can definitely use some knowledge on this topic.

Hopefully Amno will be along shortly because I don't know the answer to that either.

Logical
09-03-2005, 09:42 PM
Its not totally ceremonial. The Chief Justice does have a small additional impact. For example, many times when Rehnquist knew he would lose 5-4, he would switch his vote and use his authority to appoint himself to write the majority opinion. That way he could write an opinion he doesnt agree with, but one that is as lukewarm and non-precedent-setting as possible, instead of allowing the Liberal block to write a much stronger opinion.

Other than little things like that though, in the end, his vote counts the same as everyone else.Thanks that was a good incite. Rep

KC Dan
09-03-2005, 09:43 PM
As opposed to the uncaring BITCH on this board:

RIP Chief Justice Rehnquist, The American people owe you a debt of gratitude for your 33 years of service to your country. Whether you agree with his decisions or not, he server with great distinction. Prayers to his family as well.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:43 PM
From Slate.com

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109807/



The trick to understanding the chief justice's real role in shaping a court has to do with the myriad subtle ways in which any savvy administrator can effect vast policy changes. Having the authority to send around initial cases for discussion gives the chief justice tremendous power to shape the court's agenda, for instance, as does his power to introduce and offer the first vote at case conferences. Historically, some of the most powerful chief justices have exercised their influence by stifling dissent. In his first four years as chief justice, John Marshall (chief from 1801-1835) was so insistent that all opinions be unanimous that he simply authored all of them—save for those published per curiam (or unsigned)—himself. In those four years there was only one published dissent. As chief justice, William Howard Taft (1921-1930) espoused the same philosophy: Dissents fostered an appearance of uncertainty and were only a form of egotism anyhow, in his view. So over Taft's tenure, the high court issued unanimous opinions 84 percent of the time.

The big stealth power for any chief justice lies in his ability to assign written opinions whenever he votes with the majority in a case. If he votes with the minority, the most senior judge in the majority does the assigning. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (chief from 1930-1941) regarded his opinion-assignment power as "a special opportunity for leadership" and, as a consequence, his "most delicate task." It doesn't sound like a big deal, but consider Warren Burger, chief justice from 1969 to 1986. In The Brethren, Bob Woodward describes Burger's assignment strategy as having two components: shifting his vote after conference so as to retain the assignment power (even if it meant voting against his originally stated views) and then assigning only lame opinions to his enemies.

According to Woodward, Burger's strategy was to keep all the big criminal law, racial discrimination, and free-speech cases away from his ideological "enemies," as he called William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and William O. Douglas—as well as to author all the unanimous opinions himself. That way it looked as if his wisdom was indisputable and his leadership unparalleled. Burger also did a tremendous amount of politicking as chief—giving policy speeches and attending conferences, as well as shamelessly pressuring the other justices to vote with him for blatantly political reasons.

Rehnquist is not at all creepily Machiavellian, like Burger. In fact, while he's known for making the case conferences extremely brief and businesslike, he's also acknowledged as more than evenhanded when it comes to handing out opinions—occasionally even assigning himself a crappy one, just to be fair. Still, there is little doubt that Rehnquist will go down in the books as an extremely influential chief justice, regardless of the fact that O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy will ultimately have had far more influence over the case law emerging from the Rehnquist Court than he did.

As an amateur historian, Rehnquist knows this well. In his 2001 book, The Supreme Court, he attempts to explain why John Marshall left such a massive footprint on the political landscape by reminding readers that Marshall was not the first chief justice, merely the first chief justice anyone remembers. "Marshall's predecessors were probably both better-known men in the young republic at the time of their respective appointments than Marshall was in 1801, but neither appeared to see any opportunity in the post in which they served." [Italics mine.] Marshall was acutely aware of the political potential for himself and the Supreme Court, and he seized it, nabbing all of constitutional history right along with it. As Rehnquist notes in his book, many of the most famous chief justices were not the most brilliant jurists. They were big-picture operators—with one eye on the law and the other on the Washington political scene. This is how Rehnquist has made such a significant impression on the court: not with eloquent opinions (his opinions tend to be short and workmanlike) or obsessive professorial absorption in the nuance of the law. He will be remembered instead as a great administrator, the head of an exceptionally collegial court, a savvy observer of history and government, and a man who saw many of his political views morph from the extreme minority to the law of the land.

Does it really matter who steps into the chief justice's striped robe? It might. A canny politician or rabid ideologue can use all these seemingly trivial powers to wrench the court onto a vastly different trajectory, whereas a bookish or naive successor could just fade back into the red velvet curtain. Layer this uncertainty over all the other uncertainties surrounding the court's future, and it's just one more question mark, as the great confirmation wars begin.

Electric
09-03-2005, 09:44 PM
Oh grow up. This is a huge political event. The RWNJ base will see to it. They needed something to rally around their man after he's been so completely incompetent the past week.

Grow up? You are so bitter of a person that every event in this country is a conspiracy of the conservatives or will be turned into one. You are trying to divert your bitterness towards 1/2 of the American people because you don't agree. I guess that's OK in some arena's but I just think you have turned into a political junkie that cannot resist throwing darts at the republican side of the house. It doesn't matter if they are right or not.

How has Bush been incompetent in the past week? He didn't put the existing response teams into action soon enough? He didn't correct the deficiencies that was inherent in some of the departments of Government that have existed for 40+ years? Well exxxxccccuuuusssseeee mmmmeeee!!!!

I'm sorry I didn't see that one man is responsible for the entire failings of this country. He will take the heat, but he isn't the ONE person that needs to be singled out, there is no one person. Check your facts, and you will see that the failings you so willingly blame on one person is a beauracy that has been in place for a long long time.

Pointing fingers for your convenience and political agenda is your mojo and sadly is wrong.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:48 PM
How has Bush been incompetent in the past week? He didn't put the existing response teams into action soon enough? He didn't correct the deficiencies that was inherent in some of the departments of Government that have existed for 40+ years? Well exxxxccccuuuusssseeee mmmmeeee!!!!



That has got to be the funniest, if not the most likely coming from Bush himself, retort I've read regarding the response this week. ROFL ROFL ROFL

mlyonsd
09-03-2005, 09:48 PM
Its not totally ceremonial. The Chief Justice does have a small additional impact. For example, many times when Rehnquist knew he would lose 5-4, he would switch his vote and use his authority to appoint himself to write the majority opinion. That way he could write an opinion he doesnt agree with, but one that is as lukewarm and non-precedent-setting as possible, instead of allowing the Liberal block to write a much stronger opinion.

Other than little things like that though, in the end, his vote counts the same as everyone else.

This might be the most interesting post I've seen in weeks.

Electric
09-03-2005, 09:52 PM
That has got to be the funniest, if not the most likely coming from Bush himself, retort I've read regarding the response this week. ROFL ROFL ROFL

Name the issues that he was directly incompetent with?

What did the Governor of the State do prior to the hurricane?

What did the mealy mouthed Mayor of N.O. do before the hurricane?

What did the state police do before the hurricane?

What did anyone of the state do that could have averted the storm or the damage?

You want to blame Bush for the hurricane? For the aftermath? You must think he has some mystical powers that could turn the hurricane away or turn it down a few notches.

Your response is ludicrious as well as showing you don't have the answers nor will you ever have them! You remain a bitter person that has to blame the President for anything and everything that happens in this country. He's probably responsible for your perpetual PMS as well!

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 09:53 PM
Name the issues that he was directly incompetent with?

What did the Governor of the State do prior to the hurricane?

What did the mealy mouthed Mayor of N.O. do before the hurricane?

What did the state police do before the hurricane?

What did anyone of the state do that could have averted the storm or the damage?

You want to blame Bush for the hurricane? For the aftermath? You must think he has some mystical powers that could turn the hurricane away or turn it down a few notches.



Nope, not on this thread. If you have been paying attention, I've posted on numerous threads (including links and sources) about the incompetence. If you want my responses, happy hunting.

Stinger
09-03-2005, 09:58 PM
On the other hand is the left going to blame Bush for the situation in New Orleans so he can sneak another justice under the radar?

Well it has already started :rolleyes: . Here is just a few

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1751025

Bet he died days ago and they are just announcing it now to try and take the heat off bush. One man has died, well guess what, thousands have died and more are still dying.


How soon do we get the autopsy results to check for "carcinogens"...Makes one wonder it his death was "hastened"...

A good time to get Katrina off the headlines.

We need to push for impeachment now more than ever. The memo should be "if a man would kill poor people in New Orleans for politics, why should we allow him to appoint TWO judges for the Supreme Court."

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 10:01 PM
Your assuming that Bush would have to muster the political capital to convince the public to politically allow his allies in the senate to confirm him.

I'm saying its the opposite. The default result is the president gets anyone he wants, to change the default result, the left would have to successfully muster the political capital to convince the public to make it politically impossible for the GOP to win. That may have been possible without Katrina, but now I dont see how the left could even prevent Janice Brown if Bush were so inclined.

I don't know. As disillusioned as I've seen some of W's own supporters this week I don't know how excited they will be to rally around him going for a food fight during this time of national crisis.

But then again, it might be something like Katrina that jolts his supporters from their post-hurricane funk and back into the 'big picture' and thus allow them to forget the past week and focus on the future.

I think it's too soo to tell. Should be an interesting scenario either way.

alnorth
09-03-2005, 10:04 PM
I don't know. As disillusioned as I've seen some of W's own supporters this week I don't know how excited they will be to rally around him going for a food fight during this time of national crisis.

But then again, it might be something like Katrina that jolts his supporters from their post-hurricane funk and back into the 'big picture' and thus allow them to forget the past week and focus on the future.

I think it's too soo to tell. Should be an interesting scenario either way.

Are you kidding me? Your whistling through the graveyard here.

Everyone on the right wing, from those wavering on loyalty like Buchanon to the die-hards will absolutely fall in line behind Bush when it comes to naming judges. For many on the left and the right, this was the whole ball game in 2004, the priviledge of naming 1 or 2 judges, far far more important than whether Bush or Kerry lived in the white house.

mlyonsd
09-03-2005, 10:04 PM
Name the issues that he was directly incompetent with?

What did the Governor of the State do prior to the hurricane?

What did the mealy mouthed Mayor of N.O. do before the hurricane?

What did the state police do before the hurricane?

What did anyone of the state do that could have averted the storm or the damage?

You want to blame Bush for the hurricane? For the aftermath? You must think he has some mystical powers that could turn the hurricane away or turn it down a few notches.

Your response is ludicrious as well as showing you don't have the answers nor will you ever have them! You remain a bitter person that has to blame the President for anything and everything that happens in this country. He's probably responsible for your perpetual PMS as well!

Now just stop it. That's common sense and it isn't allowed these days.

Neg rep to you.

memyselfI
09-03-2005, 10:06 PM
Are you kidding me? Your whistling through the graveyard here.

Everyone on the right wing, from those wavering on loyalty like Buchanon to the die-hards will absolutely fall in line behind Bush when it comes to naming judges. For many on the left and the right, this was the whole ball game in 2004, the priviledge of naming 1 or 2 judges, far far more important than whether Bush or Kerry lived in the white house.

Perhaps, but then again during a time of national crisis in two different nations, I am not sure W has the clout he had even a week ago. I do believe the timing of this helps him though so I guess we'll see.

go bowe
09-03-2005, 10:07 PM
Isn't it really true that Chief Justice is more ceremonial and admininistrative than an actual position of greater judicial authority. I can definitely use some knowledge on this topic.the chief justice has one vote on each decision, just like the other eight...

it's more of a question of influence...

a good chief justice can influence the other justices through persuasion...

the classic case of this was brown v. bd. of education...

earl warren persuaded all the other 8 justices to join in a unanimous decision (an extremely rare event at that time), despite the fact that some of them were deadset against it at the beginning...

mlyonsd
09-03-2005, 10:10 PM
Perhaps, but then again during a time of national crisis in two different nations, I am not sure W has the clout he had even a week ago. I do believe the timing of this helps him though so I guess we'll see.

Can't argue with the clout issue. Although you are really off base on the timing issue. Dumbasses like you that are blaming the hurricane on him have done their damage.

alnorth
09-03-2005, 10:12 PM
Perhaps, but then again during a time of national crisis in two different nations, I am not sure W has the clout he had even a week ago. I do believe the timing of this helps him though so I guess we'll see.

Again, your assuming that the default position is a generic nominee is not confirmed unless the president convinces everyone otherwise. Its really the opposite, any old random joker is confirmed in the default scenario, unless the opposition is able to make enough of an outcry to defeat him. With Katrina, this kind of public outcry is simply not going to be possible. The public is very apathetic even in the best of times, they will simply not care whatsoever right now. The left will not be able to get airtime, and they are going to lose unless the nominee has some spectacular criminal skeletons in the closet.

KC Dan
09-03-2005, 10:14 PM
Can't argue with the clout issue. Although you are really off base on the timing issue. Dumbasses like you that are blaming the hurricane on him have done their damage.
I really don't think clout is going to matter much on this one. Bush is not up for re-election and although there are mid-terms coming up, he won't care. His legacy is definately only about the 2000 election, Iraq, and now and more importantly - Supreme Court Appointments. He won't care about clout, this pick will be a strict conservative. For his legacy, it has to be.

jettio
09-03-2005, 10:32 PM
This would seem to make it unlikely that any of the current justices would get promoted to Chief Justice, there would have to be three confirmations.

Roberts might be resubmitted as a Chief nomination.

Another possiblity would be O'Connor sitting for cases this year until the 2 or three confirmation hearings are done.

Logical
09-03-2005, 10:32 PM
Again, your assuming that the default position is a generic nominee is not confirmed unless the president convinces everyone otherwise. Its really the opposite, any old random joker is confirmed in the default scenario, unless the opposition is able to make enough of an outcry to defeat him. With Katrina, this kind of public outcry is simply not going to be possible. The public is very apathetic even in the best of times, they will simply not care whatsoever right now. The left will not be able to get airtime, and they are going to lose unless the nominee has some spectacular criminal skeletons in the closet.Though much or what you say is true, the fact is that a Filibuster is still a possibility. That compromise is not legally binding and if the President makes an error in judgement it will go out the window. Then his new found weakness among the people is going to make a major difference to the Senators voting.

KC Dan
09-03-2005, 10:44 PM
Though much or what you say is true, the fact is that a Filibuster is still a possibility. That compromise is not legally binding and if the President makes an error in judgement it will go out the window. Then his new found weakness among the people is going to make a major difference to the Senators voting.
It wont matter, Jim. They will use the Nuke option if necessary this time. i seriously doubt that the cons will hesitate, this is far to important to them

WoodDraw
09-03-2005, 10:48 PM
I'd like for any Bush nominee to be asked their interpretation of the 9th amendment. Originalists my ass.

I don't trust either side to pick a quality justice or do much of anything correctly at this point.

alnorth
09-03-2005, 10:50 PM
Though much or what you say is true, the fact is that a Filibuster is still a possibility. That compromise is not legally binding and if the President makes an error in judgement it will go out the window. Then his new found weakness among the people is going to make a major difference to the Senators voting.

They would not dare, because the GOP would go nuclear. The gang of 14 would not withstand a filibuster of a supreme nominee. At that point, the democrats would lose all semblance of clout for the courts.

Logical
09-03-2005, 10:51 PM
It wont matter, Jim. They will use the Nuke option if necessary this time. i seriously doubt that the cons will hesitate, this is far to important to themWith an election coming up and the Republicans severely harmed by the ineffectiveness of this President the Nuke option is not looking very good right now. I am sure that at least 5 so called Republican Senators (led by McCain) would defect immediately to stop the Nuke option, maybe more.

go bowe
09-03-2005, 10:55 PM
It wont matter, Jim. They will use the Nuke option if necessary this time. i seriously doubt that the cons will hesitate, this is far to important to themwasn't the nuke option scuttled last time by the moderate coalition?

why would the moderates vote for that rule change now, when they thwarted that change just a little while ago?

KC Dan
09-03-2005, 10:56 PM
With an election coming up and the Republicans severely harmed by the ineffectiveness of this President the Nuke option is not looking very good right now. I am sure that at least so called Republican 5 Senators (led by McCain) would defect immediately to stop the Nuke option, maybe more.
If that is truly possible, which it is, I would say that the hearings on Roberts will be very important. If the lefties attack en masse and try to hold that up or really dirty him up, the 5 repubs may just play along with a nuke option. We will have to wait and see but it will be interesting drama.

Michael Michigan
09-03-2005, 10:59 PM
May he rest in peace--a great American has passed.

alnorth
09-03-2005, 11:11 PM
wasn't the nuke option scuttled last time by the moderate coalition?

why would the moderates vote for that rule change now, when they thwarted that change just a little while ago?

It was not settled, only delayed.

Back then it was about appeals court judges, something not quite as important. A few of the GOP members of the compromise have strongly indicated that they will break in the event of a SCOTUS nominee filibuster, they just didnt want to go nuclear untill all other options were exhausted, and to them, appeals judges were not important enough.

alnorth
09-03-2005, 11:14 PM
With an election coming up and the Republicans severely harmed by the ineffectiveness of this President the Nuke option is not looking very good right now. I am sure that at least 5 so called Republican Senators (led by McCain) would defect immediately to stop the Nuke option, maybe more.

If there was ever a bad time for the democrats to have this happen, its now. During an election year the GOP would be forced to consider a consensus candidate, but no one but the die-hards are paying attention to politics right now. By the time the 06 elections rolls around, the new nominees will have been long seated and all of this would be ancient history. For the 06 election, this nominee will be completely irrelevant.

Michael Michigan
09-03-2005, 11:21 PM
It was not settled, only delayed.

Back then it was about appeals court judges, something not quite as important. A few of the GOP members of the compromise have strongly indicated that they will break in the event of a SCOTUS nominee filibuster, they just didnt want to go nuclear untill all other options were exhausted, and to them, appeals judges were not important enough.

Two are certain:

Warner and Graham. That's 50, and that's the magic number.


There will be no filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice.



You have to love Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he held on long enough to flip the liberals off one last time.

America is better for it, and his legacy will show that.

mlyonsd
09-03-2005, 11:41 PM
I really don't think clout is going to matter much on this one. Bush is not up for re-election and although there are mid-terms coming up, he won't care. His legacy is definately only about the 2000 election, Iraq, and now and more importantly - Supreme Court Appointments. He won't care about clout, this pick will be a strict conservative. For his legacy, it has to be.

My point is, if Bush truly calculated this coming, as a true conservative the timing couldn't be worse. He is politically damaged at this point so if he really wanted to nominate a true/strict/right wing conservative he must take a gamble doing so.

Boyceofsummer
09-03-2005, 11:45 PM
Bush puts his stamp of disaster on yet another moment of American history. I can't wait.

After all the stench and decay is finally exposed in New Orleans Republican conservatism will be ultimately exposed for the uncaring and unsympathetic values that it truly represents. Bring on Michael Moore.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

alnorth
09-03-2005, 11:51 PM
Bush puts his stamp of disaster on yet another moment of American history. I can't wait.

After all the stench and decay is finally exposed in New Orleans Republican conservatism will be ultimately exposed for the uncaring and unsympathetic values that it truly represents. Bring on Michael Moore.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

*points at the moron*

*laughs*

alnorth
09-03-2005, 11:55 PM
My point is, if Bush truly calculated this coming, as a true conservative the timing couldn't be worse. He is politically damaged at this point so if he really wanted to nominate a true/strict/right wing conservative he must take a gamble doing so.

What gamble? That Bush wont be re-elected in 2008?

A year and a half is an eternity in politics. As tragic as it is, from the cold political standpoint, this couldnt happen at a BETTER time for the GOP. The people might lazily follow the nomination during the final months of an election year, but they flat-out wouldnt care now. He'd have to nominate a suspected felonious tax cheat before a nominee might be defeated.

You are underestimating the dire political position the left is in at the moment. Unless the nominee has some serious legal or ethical problems, the Democrats will be powerless.

Logical
09-03-2005, 11:55 PM
Friday, September 2nd, 2005 Dear Mr. Bush: Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag. Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with? Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her! I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dike? And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ! On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there done that. There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland. No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this! You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit.
Yours, Michael Moore

As usual a bit shrill, but he is not as far off as I would prefer.

:cuss: WTH is it not possible to create paragraph spacing?

Logical
09-04-2005, 12:01 AM
What gamble? That Bush wont be re-elected in 2008?

A year and a half is an eternity in politics. As tragic as it is, from the cold political standpoint, this couldnt happen at a BETTER time for the GOP. The people might lazily follow the nomination during the final months of an election year, but they flat-out wouldnt care now. He'd have to nominate a suspected felonious tax cheat before a nominee might be defeated.

You are underestimating the dire political position the left is in at the moment. Unless the nominee has some serious legal or ethical problems, the Democrats will be powerless.I have seen this too many times before. I bet you are wrong and I bet there is a monstrous Senate battle.

WoodDraw
09-04-2005, 12:06 AM
Dems have a bad habit of getting all worked up over what really isn't a huge controversy. The Republicans did win the presidency, senate, and house and the voters knew their stances on things like abortion and privacy when they elected these people. If Bush nominates another person like Roberts or even Scalia and the Dems attempt to justify a filibuster by saying the nominee is "out of touch with society" then they will just look foolish.

On the other hand, if Bush nominates someone who is truly unqualified and the Dems can successfully show that then it could play right into their hands. That won't happen though.

It may be unrealistic but I'd like to see the Senate Dems make it an issues oriented debate completely. Don't threaten to filibuster but instead bring their core issues front and center and say this is who you elected. They don't believe in X, we do. They support Y, we don't. If you don't want that then stop voting for them.

alnorth
09-04-2005, 12:09 AM
I have seen this too many times before. I bet you are wrong and I bet there is a monstrous Senate battle.

I understand where your coming from, but I believe that history will not be an accurate predictor here. The GOP has never been in a position where they were so incredibly strong that they had the votes to throw out the senate rulebook and re-write the filibuster rule if the Democrats displeased them. In years past the opposition at least had the credible threat of a filibuster, unspoken hanging over the air like a dark cloud, thus forcing the majority to endure the battle.

Now, the Democrats can be as shrill and unreasonable as they want, but they are going to lose, its pretty much predestined unless the nominee has serious legal or ethical concerns, or if he was simply unqualified for the position, but we can pretty much rule out that final possibility now. Everyone on Bush's short list will have a sufficient resume.

Logical
09-04-2005, 12:10 AM
Dems have a bad habit of getting all worked up over what really isn't a huge controversy. The Republicans did win the presidency, senate, and house and the voters knew their stances on things like abortion and privacy when they elected these people. If Bush nominates another person like Roberts or even Scalia and the Dems attempt to justify a filibuster by saying the nominee is "out of touch with society" then they will just look foolish.

On the other hand, if Bush nominates someone who is truly unqualified and the Dems can successfully show that then it could play right into their hands. That won't happen though.

It may be unrealistic but I'd like to see the Senate Dems make it an issues oriented debate completely. Don't threaten to filibuster but instead bring their core issues front and center and say this is who you elected. They don't believe in X, we do. They support Y, we don't. If you don't want that then stop voting for them.I will give them credit that is exactly what they are using against Roberts here in California in the media ads. Very good ads if you ask me. I know I would be less than enthused about him after hearing more about him.

Michael Michigan
09-04-2005, 12:16 AM
Now, the Democrats can be as shrill and unreasonable as they want, but they are going to lose, its pretty much predestined unless the nominee has serious legal or ethical concerns, or if he was simply unqualified for the position...

Yep.

There will be no filibuster.

Really hard lesson for the left, want to rule in this country--win some fuggin' elections.

Boyceofsummer
09-04-2005, 12:24 AM
Yep.

There will be no filibuster.

Really hard lesson for the left, want to rule in this country--win some fuggin' elections.

since 2000 it's a shame the result in Florida has turned out to be the one defining moment of what could have been. You and Bush might have won the elections, but yours is the party of losers. Just look around.

DenverChief
09-04-2005, 12:27 AM
Wow that is just so sad, he was indeed a great man and a fine justice. May his family find peace in this time of great sadness.

IMHO it should be a celebration

Michael Michigan
09-04-2005, 12:30 AM
since 2000 it's a shame the result in Florida has turned out to be the one defining moment of what could have been. You and Bush might have won the elections, but yours is the party of losers. Just look around.

I'm not a Republican, but the numbers would disagree with your assessment.

It doesn't help your side when Michael Moore is given a more prominent place in the party than any conservative democrat.

Keep it up and you'll be mumbling about Florida 2000 for the rest of your life.

Lunatics lose elections--yours are front and center.

Logical
09-04-2005, 12:31 AM
IMHO it should be a celebrationI am not sure I understand.

DenverChief
09-04-2005, 12:33 AM
I am not sure I understand.

I think his life should be celebrated not wept over....I think that the final year or so of his life was probably full of pain....celebrate for him that hte pain is over :)

Logical
09-04-2005, 12:35 AM
I think his life should be celebrated not wept over....I think that the final year or so of his life was probably full of pain....celebrate for him that hte pain is over :)Thanks for the clarification, it sounded wrong to me so I was thinking I was not understanding.

Electric
09-04-2005, 06:40 AM
Nope, not on this thread. If you have been paying attention, I've posted on numerous threads (including links and sources) about the incompetence. If you want my responses, happy hunting.

The only thing I see in your other posts on DC is a consistant hatred of GWB. Each and every one of your posts is aimed in that direction.

By your response what you are saying that there are thousands of opinions of yours floating around. I have read far too many of them to go hunting. If you were passionate about your beliefs you could repeat them without using the writings of other "haters".

Alas, you are just pimping your agenda and not worth the effort.

penchief
09-04-2005, 07:51 AM
Grow up? You are so bitter of a person that every event in this country is a conspiracy of the conservatives or will be turned into one. You are trying to divert your bitterness towards 1/2 of the American people because you don't agree. I guess that's OK in some arena's but I just think you have turned into a political junkie that cannot resist throwing darts at the republican side of the house. It doesn't matter if they are right or not.

How has Bush been incompetent in the past week? He didn't put the existing response teams into action soon enough? He didn't correct the deficiencies that was inherent in some of the departments of Government that have existed for 40+ years? Well exxxxccccuuuusssseeee mmmmeeee!!!!

I'm sorry I didn't see that one man is responsible for the entire failings of this country. He will take the heat, but he isn't the ONE person that needs to be singled out, there is no one person. Check your facts, and you will see that the failings you so willingly blame on one person is a beauracy that has been in place for a long long time.

Pointing fingers for your convenience and political agenda is your mojo and sadly is wrong.

It's not so much bitterness as it is concern and fear for the future. Bush has been incompetent and ideologically driven from the start. It's not our agenda that motivates us, it is Bush's extreme right-wing agenda that motivates us to shed light on policies and conduct that are presented to the public in terms that belie their true intent.

Incompetence and ideologically driven leadership is a deadly combination akin to the proverbial bull in a china closet. There is no concern for the damage that is done in pursuit of their goals.

This president is damaging our country beyond repair and he doesn't care about anything but imposing his ideology through double-speak, hollow nationalistic jingoism, false pride, slogans, self-righteous moralistic ranting, intimidation, secrecy, and dirty tricks.

I'm tired of it. I initially gave this president a chance but he quickly made it apparent what was important to his administraion and how he was more than willing to subvert America's integrity in order to accomplish his narrow agenda. The big picture and the future of our country is suffering and continues to worsen but the Cons keep on pushing the envelope to see how far we'll let them go before we hold them accountable.

We, as citizens, are either part of the solution or part of the problem. I'm not going to keep silent while we continue to travel down a path of incompetence, ignorance, greed, and the usurpation and consolidation of political and economic power in the hands of those who desire to impose their ideals upon the rest of us.

memyselfI
09-04-2005, 07:56 AM
What gamble? That Bush wont be re-elected in 2008?

A year and a half is an eternity in politics. As tragic as it is, from the cold political standpoint, this couldnt happen at a BETTER time for the GOP. The people might lazily follow the nomination during the final months of an election year, but they flat-out wouldnt care now. He'd have to nominate a suspected felonious tax cheat before a nominee might be defeated.

You are underestimating the dire political position the left is in at the moment. Unless the nominee has some serious legal or ethical problems, the Democrats will be powerless.

And you are under-estimating the lack of patience the public now has with GWB and the WH. And if the WH thinks they will be able to cowtow to the Christocrats and stack the court with someone who is going to cause a food fight then you are in denial about how DUHbya's freefall impacts the rest of the CONS in DC.

This is a president with a 40% approval rating BEFORE the incompetence of Katrina.

Bush's coat tails are all but gone except with his base. Though he's not up for re-election, many of his cronies ARE. And the trump card of Iraq is still in the background. In a matter of weeks the US death toll will be 2k and the dollar toll is untold. As the death and dollar toll in the Gulf climbs, people are going to be demanding the President pay attention to this country and try to heal it as he did with 9/11. Except that this time he can't heal with war because he can't declare war on Mother Nature and there is no one he can bomb to make folks feel better. And even if there were, he's stretched the military thin. Thus, nominating a whackjob to please the base is not the way he will be able to appeal to the American people to try to work together to heal from this natural/national disaster.

For some reason, I think the Dems are feeling alot less powerless than they were the day after the election or even last week. On the contrary, I think they are of the realization that DUHbya has sunk himself the question is how low will he go.

Iowanian
09-04-2005, 09:25 AM
Its Debbie Downer.


Only a disgusting Rutt Like Dense, could turn a Justince's death into a political turd before the body temp dropped below 90.




The funny thing about the constitution, and how its written is, that the sitting president gets to choose the supreme Court. Ooops.

alnorth
09-04-2005, 11:41 AM
since 2000 it's a shame the result in Florida has turned out to be the one defining moment of what could have been. You and Bush might have won the elections, but yours is the party of losers. Just look around.

If this is losing, then I hope and pray that the GOP continues to lose for a very long time to come.

Baby Lee
09-04-2005, 11:52 AM
Had an enjoyable weekend until now. Why was that? Oh yeah, no masochistic peeking over that this craphole to see the state of the hate.

alnorth
09-04-2005, 12:16 PM
Had an enjoyable weekend until now. Why was that? Oh yeah, no masochistic peeking over that this craphole to see the state of the hate.

Forgive me for using you for a moment, Baby Lee.

meme, if you want to defeat the new nominee (assuming Bush nominates a hard-right conservative), these are the people you will need to motivate into outrage. You will need to convince people like this that they should give a sh** about judges.

If this were late summer 2006, the GOP would be forced to nominate a consensus candidate, but it isnt, and the people who really matter outside the political junkies are just not paying attention, and this will be ancient history next year.

I'm telling ya, Bush and the GOP pretty much have a blank check for this nomination, assuming they dont nominate a felon, someone with ethical problems, or someone who graduated from law school yesterday.

Baby Lee
09-04-2005, 12:50 PM
meme, if you want to defeat the new nominee (assuming Bush nominates a hard-right conservative), these are the people you will need to motivate into outrage. You will need to convince people like this that they should give a sh** about judges.
I'll save the haters the time and effort.

As I have utterly failed to offer up my personal tearful account of how Bush has kicked me in the nuts and ate my chillin's, I fall into the 'mindless sheep' category, who couldn't admit the truth, even if it'd bring the chillin's of mine Bush slaughtered and ate raw back to life.

go bowe
09-04-2005, 02:04 PM
I'll save the haters the time and effort.

As I have utterly failed to offer up my personal tearful account of how Bush has kicked me in the nuts and ate my chillin's, I fall into the 'mindless sheep' category, who couldn't admit the truth, even if it'd bring the chillin's of mine Bush slaughtered and ate raw back to life.damn, can't you take something for that? :p :p :p

Electric
09-04-2005, 02:23 PM
It's not so much bitterness as it is concern and fear for the future. Bush has been incompetent and ideologically driven from the start. It's not our agenda that motivates us, it is Bush's extreme right-wing agenda that motivates us to shed light on policies and conduct that are presented to the public in terms that belie their true intent.

Incompetence and ideologically driven leadership is a deadly combination akin to the proverbial bull in a china closet. There is no concern for the damage that is done in pursuit of their goals.

This president is damaging our country beyond repair and he doesn't care about anything but imposing his ideology through double-speak, hollow nationalistic jingoism, false pride, slogans, self-righteous moralistic ranting, intimidation, secrecy, and dirty tricks.

I'm tired of it. I initially gave this president a chance but he quickly made it apparent what was important to his administraion and how he was more than willing to subvert America's integrity in order to accomplish his narrow agenda. The big picture and the future of our country is suffering and continues to worsen but the Cons keep on pushing the envelope to see how far we'll let them go before we hold them accountable.

We, as citizens, are either part of the solution or part of the problem. I'm not going to keep silent while we continue to travel down a path of incompetence, ignorance, greed, and the usurpation and consolidation of political and economic power in the hands of those who desire to impose their ideals upon the rest of us.


I know that you think that by bashing the president at every turn that you are part of the solution. Bashing on a BB doesn't even touch solving any problems. What you are doing is trying to prove your agenda of anti-Americanism is alive and well.

Virtually everything you've posted is based on your hatred of the President, unfortunately for us it will not stop after the next election if a republican is elected. You will then aim your sour grapes at him/her.

The situation with the hurricane is not political in any sense, it is a natural disaster. The response to the disaster is not tied to any one political party, it is the American people that have accepted the status quo for over 40 years. It is now popular to blame everything on the president and government.

We have become a welfare state and you only amplify the evidence that proves that part.

You are sick, bitter and as wrong as you can be. It is truly a shame that you cannot see what is actually there and what is happening.

Logical
09-04-2005, 04:01 PM
The only thing I see in your other posts on DC is a consistant hatred of GWB. Each and every one of your posts is aimed in that direction.

By your response what you are saying that there are thousands of opinions of yours floating around. I have read far too many of them to go hunting. If you were passionate about your beliefs you could repeat them without using the writings of other "haters".

Alas, you are just pimping your agenda and not worth the effort.Don't be so lazy there are literally dozens of posts she has made corroborating the Bush administration's incompetence during relief for Katrina. She is doing the right thing by not bringing them to this thread.

Logical
09-04-2005, 04:10 PM
Forgive me for using you for a moment, Baby Lee.

meme, if you want to defeat the new nominee (assuming Bush nominates a hard-right conservative), these are the people you will need to motivate into outrage. You will need to convince people like this that they should give a sh** about judges.

If this were late summer 2006, the GOP would be forced to nominate a consensus candidate, but it isnt, and the people who really matter outside the political junkies are just not paying attention, and this will be ancient history next year.

I'm telling ya, Bush and the GOP pretty much have a blank check for this nomination, assuming they dont nominate a felon, someone with ethical problems, or someone who graduated from law school yesterday.

Well they have already won me over, the last thing I want is a f*cking Christocrat nominee who will take a woman's right to abortion away. I am pretty conservative and voted for Bush but I will be against this nominee if he is wrong ideologically. I am still somewhat ok with Roberts but after seeing him being exposed more and more for what he might be I am becoming doubtful. Whoever the other nominee is I pray for this country he is not to the right of Roberts.

memyselfI
09-04-2005, 04:14 PM
I'm telling ya, Bush and the GOP pretty much have a blank check for this nomination, assuming they dont nominate a felon, someone with ethical problems, or someone who graduated from law school yesterday.

I don't believe it's so. I guess we'll see who is right. I don't think DUHbya has the political capital to do much of anything right now.

penchief
09-04-2005, 04:24 PM
I know that you think that by bashing the president at every turn that you are part of the solution. Bashing on a BB doesn't even touch solving any problems. What you are doing is trying to prove your agenda of anti-Americanism is alive and well.

Virtually everything you've posted is based on your hatred of the President, unfortunately for us it will not stop after the next election if a republican is elected. You will then aim your sour grapes at him/her.

The situation with the hurricane is not political in any sense, it is a natural disaster. The response to the disaster is not tied to any one political party, it is the American people that have accepted the status quo for over 40 years. It is now popular to blame everything on the president and government.

We have become a welfare state and you only amplify the evidence that proves that part.

You are sick, bitter and as wrong as you can be. It is truly a shame that you cannot see what is actually there and what is happening.

You are wrong. I'm tired of criticizing this president. I feel a responsibility to state what should already be so obvious. As I have said before, I initially gave this president the benefit of the doubt. It didn't take long before it was evident that he was not only hell-bent on his agenda but that he was willing to do whatever it took, honest or dishonest, to get that agenda implemented.

I am not anti-American. Just the opposite is true. I am ardently pro-American. I just happen to believe that the Cheneyburton Administration's agenda is not in the best interest of our great nation's future. I don't hate the president. I think he is a fool. I hate what their narrow self-serving ideology is doing to our country.

There are a lot of republican candidates I could vote for. It just so happens that this presidency is the most divisive and power hungry in my memory. Nothing that has happened within the scope of the Bush presidency has happened without a reason for scrutiny, yet scrutiny has been more than elusive. It has been completely absent.

The hurricane was not the president's fault. But the president and his administration exhibited the same lack of forsight and lack of diligence that has been a pattern since they have stepped into office. Why is it a pattern? Because they are single-mindedly focused on their very specific political agenda, which I believe goes against the grain of American political tradition. Because they are so narrow-minded they are slow to understand the pragmatic aspects of their job. We have seen it over and over again.

Worse than those of us who see through the guise of this presidency are those who continue to blindly defend every action or inaction of an administration that plays politics with everything. Worse than those of us who want to scrutinize the actions of our leaders are those who refuse to hold our government accountable for their conduct or their failed policies regardless of how negative the consequences we, as a nation, ultimately pay. Worse than those of us who criticize our government out of patriotic love for our country are those who cast aspersions about the patriotism of those of us who do because they are incapable of thinking for themselves.

I'm afraid you need a lesson on what it means to be an American.

alnorth
09-04-2005, 04:44 PM
Well they have already won me over, the last thing I want is a f*cking Christocrat nominee who will take a woman's right to abortion away. I am pretty conservative and voted for Bush but I will be against this nominee if he is wrong ideologically. I am still somewhat ok with Roberts but after seeing him being exposed more and more for what he might be I am becoming doubtful. Whoever the other nominee is I pray for this country he is not to the right of Roberts.

I disagree, you are closer to Libertarian than conservative. (Nothing wrong with that, I dont agree with every single one of the social conservative positions myself) As a politically-active Libertarian-leaning voter you are in an extremely tiny minority. The GOP base will not have even so much as a hairline fracture on this particular issue. When the people who really matter, the uncaring moderates in the middle continue to not care, the GOP will prevail rather easily.

I don't believe it's so. I guess we'll see who is right. I don't think DUHbya has the political capital to do much of anything right now.

Allow me to make my own prediction. In the coming months as the nominations go off with barely a hitch, you will wear a brave face on these forums, but you will be privately stunned and outraged at the lack of (or insignificant amount of) political blame and damage directed at Bush.

Brock
09-04-2005, 05:22 PM
Great news.

|Zach|
09-04-2005, 06:07 PM
Wow that is just so sad, he was indeed a great man and a fine justice. May his family find peace in this time of great sadness.Indeed.

|Zach|
09-04-2005, 06:10 PM
he held on long enough to flip the liberals off one last time.

The only thing conservatives seem to care about these days. Seriously, when is it you guys will start acting like a majority party?

Michael Michigan
09-04-2005, 07:19 PM
The only thing conservatives seem to care about these days. Seriously, when is it you guys will start acting like a majority party?

I don't think that's accurate. The GOP plans and wins elections for just this reason.

I think you'll get a glimpse of that with the two new Supreme Court Justices.

And perhaps three and four...

Michael Michigan
09-04-2005, 07:22 PM
I don't believe it's so. I guess we'll see who is right. I don't think W has the political capital to do much of anything right now.

How will the Dems stop it?

The GOP has the votes.

If you're going to spend so much time opining on politics, you may want to take the time to understand the rules.

Electric
09-04-2005, 07:26 PM
Don't be so lazy there are literally dozens of posts she has made corroborating the Bush administration's incompetence during relief for Katrina. She is doing the right thing by not bringing them to this thread.

For a person that has some credibility with logic you have missed the reason she started this thread, it wasn't to bring up the memory of the Judge, it was to aim it towards her agenda.

I may not be the most popular person on this board, but it's easy to see that everything she posts is in accordance with her hatred of the President and the republicans.

IMHO her obsession with discrediting the President at all costs is formost on her mind. It's one thing to point blame when it is due, but I cannot see that 100% of the things she posts has any relevance to the office of president.

Logical
09-04-2005, 07:46 PM
For a person that has some credibility with logic you have missed the reason she started this thread, it wasn't to bring up the memory of the Judge, it was to aim it towards her agenda.

I may not be the most popular person on this board, but it's easy to see that everything she posts is in accordance with her hatred of the President and the republicans.

IMHO her obsession with discrediting the President at all costs is formost on her mind. It's one thing to point blame when it is due, but I cannot see that 100% of the things she posts has any relevance to the office of president.

Nope you were baiting her to bring those opinions to this thread.

... By your response what you are saying that there are thousands of opinions of yours floating around. I have read far too many of them to go hunting. If you were passionate about your beliefs you could repeat them without using the writings of other "haters".... She just refused to take you up on the baiting.

Electric
09-04-2005, 08:06 PM
You are wrong. I'm tired of criticizing this president. I feel a responsibility to state what should already be so obvious. As I have said before, I initially gave this president the benefit of the doubt. It didn't take long before it was evident that he was not only hell-bent on his agenda but that he was willing to do whatever it took, honest or dishonest, to get that agenda implemented.

I am not anti-American. Just the opposite is true. I am ardently pro-American. I just happen to believe that the Cheneyburton Administration's agenda is not in the best interest of our great nation's future. I don't hate the president. I think he is a fool. I hate what their narrow self-serving ideology is doing to our country.

There are a lot of republican candidates I could vote for. It just so happens that this presidency is the most divisive and power hungry in my memory. Nothing that has happened within the scope of the Bush presidency has happened without a reason for scrutiny, yet scrutiny has been more than elusive. It has been completely absent.

The hurricane was not the president's fault. But the president and his administration exhibited the same lack of forsight and lack of diligence that has been a pattern since they have stepped into office. Why is it a pattern? Because they are single-mindedly focused on their very specific political agenda, which I believe goes against the grain of American political tradition. Because they are so narrow-minded they are slow to understand the pragmatic aspects of their job. We have seen it over and over again.

Worse than those of us who see through the guise of this presidency are those who continue to blindly defend every action or inaction of an administration that plays politics with everything. Worse than those of us who want to scrutinize the actions of our leaders are those who refuse to hold our government accountable for their conduct or their failed policies regardless of how negative the consequences we, as a nation, ultimately pay. Worse than those of us who criticize our government out of patriotic love for our country are those who cast aspersions about the patriotism of those of us who do because they are incapable of thinking for themselves.

I'm afraid you need a lesson on what it means to be an American.

I know what it means to be an American. It has nothing to do with the agenda that De nise is pushing. If you read her posts she attacks everything that anything to do with the President, as an American she has the freedom to do what she wants, it just makes me sick.

Do I agree with the President all of the time? No, but that doesn't mean that I go out publically and ridicule him. Did I agree with anything that Clinton did? Yes, but there were more things that I did not agree with. While he was president I said nothing disrespectful about him, even in jest. After I was free to do so, I did, but not on the scale that De nise does.

Electric
09-04-2005, 08:10 PM
Nope you were baiting her to bring those opinions to this thread.


Why on God's green earth do you think she started the thread in the first place? It surely wasn't to praise a conservative judge that had just passed.

Check out the posts that I didn't make and the responses that were given. She got exactly what she wanted, another Bush bashing!!! It seems as if you've joined her bash!

BigOlChiefsfan
09-05-2005, 06:05 AM
Bush nominates John Roberts for Chief Justice to replace Rehnquist.

penchief
09-05-2005, 06:42 AM
Why on God's green earth do you think she started the thread in the first place? It surely wasn't to praise a conservative judge that had just passed.

Check out the posts that I didn't make and the responses that were given. She got exactly what she wanted, another Bush bashing!!! It seems as if you've joined her bash!

Clearly, if you read her opening comments I think it's apparent that she's expressing deep reservations about the direction the Supreme Court is about to take. It's the moment all democrats and a lot of independents/moderates have been fretting since this highly ideological, yet unqualified president, took office.

Expressing one's concerns is not bashing. Neither is pointing out the obvious.

JMO.

DaKCMan AP
09-05-2005, 08:08 AM
Bush nominates John Roberts for Chief Justice to replace Rehnquist.


:shake:

Baby Lee
09-05-2005, 08:14 AM
Expressing one's concerns is not bashing. Neither is pointing out the obvious.
There's expressing political concerns, then there's expressing political concerns while the man's body is still warm.

penchief
09-05-2005, 08:57 AM
There's expressing political concerns, then there's expressing political concerns while the man's body is still warm.

I don't believe that looking ahead at this point is disrespectful to Justice Rehnquist. I do believe that those who prayed for his and other justices' demise so that Bush could appoint another ideologue to the court were being very disrespectful.

memyselfI
09-05-2005, 12:24 PM
I know what it means to be an American. It has nothing to do with the agenda that De nise is pushing. If you read her posts she attacks everything that anything to do with the President, as an American she has the freedom to do what she wants, it just makes me sick.



At least you have enough of a clue to realize that it's the President I'm attacking and not America. I have to give you :clap: for that. Some of your ilk can't seem to make the distinction and there is one.

Let it make you sick. This President SUCKS and I appreciate the fact that I have the ability and RESPONSIBILITY to say it.

go bowe
09-05-2005, 01:23 PM
eh, responsibility is overrated...

penchief
09-05-2005, 01:53 PM
Let it make you sick. This President SUCKS and I appreciate the fact that I have the ability and RESPONSIBILITY to say it.

I'm not sure that breaking out the Blues Brothers (Bush/Clinton disaster relief fund) is going to help GWBush's image. Clinton is already making Bush look like an amateur.

memyselfI
09-05-2005, 01:59 PM
I'm not sure that breaking out the Blues Brothers (Bush/Clinton disaster relief fund) is going to help GWBush's image. Clinton is already making Bush look like an amateur.

I was glad to see him be critical of the initial response. William Cohen is as well!!! I'd vote for him for President. He is so diplomatic and intelligent...

what a contrast to the Chimp In Chief and his cracking jokes on the way to the first fly over N/O.

Baby Lee
09-05-2005, 02:03 PM
I don't believe that looking ahead at this point is disrespectful to Justice Rehnquist. I do believe that those who prayed for his and other justices' demise so that Bush could appoint another ideologue to the court were being very disrespectful.
They're exactly the same, even if you moved the football from moments after his death to a couple of days later.

Hint to penchief, 'your side is worse' only works if the guy/incident you are citing is actually on the person with whom your conversing's side. Pat Robertson and Mememe are, to my view, two sides of the same coin, equally disgusting. They agree on everything a remarkable amount of the time, just come to widely differing conclusions.

memyselfI
09-05-2005, 02:19 PM
They're exactly the same, even if you moved the football from moments after his death to a couple of days later.

Hint to penchief, 'your side is worse' only works if the guy/incident you are citing is actually on the person with whom your conversing's side. Pat Robertson and Mememe are, to my view, two sides of the same coin, equally disgusting. They agree on everything a remarkable amount of the time, just come to widely differing conclusions.


You know, instead of :deevee: about it, why didn't you start a prayers for the SCJ thread? This thread had room for all. Sadness for his family, gratitude for his work, (if you found it worth being grateful for) and speculation about the future of the court without him.

If you or anyone else want a tribute thread why in the heck don't you start one and stop PMSing on this one.

And FTR, the difference between Pat and I is that I was not praying for Rehnquist's death, unlike Pat.

penchief
09-05-2005, 02:28 PM
They're exactly the same, even if you moved the football from moments after his death to a couple of days later.

Hint to penchief, 'your side is worse' only works if the guy/incident you are citing is actually on the person with whom your conversing's side. Pat Robertson and Mememe are, to my view, two sides of the same coin, equally disgusting. They agree on everything a remarkable amount of the time, just come to widely differing conclusions.

Baby Lee,

It is what it is.

80 year old people pass away. De nise is not the only person who recognizes the gravity of the situation. Just because she is not afraid to let out a peep on this bulletin board does not mean that Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, and their minions on this board were not doing cartwheels over Rehnquist's passing even before De nise posted her comments.

I am not suggesting that both sides don't have the same goal on different ends of the spectrum. I am suggesting that too often criticisms of De nise are not only unfair but also hypocritical.

I know she likes to push buttons but think about what this board was like two years ago. People like De nise who spoke out against the popular sentiment were crucified. Now that many of her and others' concerns have proven to be not only legitimate but maybe even prophetic, people are defensive and sometimes blatently spiteful.

JMO.

Logical
09-05-2005, 02:37 PM
This would seem to make it unlikely that any of the current justices would get promoted to Chief Justice, there would have to be three confirmations.

Roberts might be resubmitted as a Chief nomination.

Another possiblity would be O'Connor sitting for cases this year until the 2 or three confirmation hearings are done.

Good job Jettio, you called it exactly right.:clap::clap::clap:

alanm
09-05-2005, 03:30 PM
since 2000 it's a shame the result in Florida has turned out to be the one defining moment of what could have been. You and Bush might have won the elections, but yours is the party of losers. Just look around.
If the Republicans are the party of losers, What would that make the democratic party???? Dogshit????

KC Dan
09-05-2005, 03:32 PM
Good job Jettio, you called it exactly right.:clap::clap::clap:
Yep, good call Jettio. You has a 33% chance of being right and that is before taking into account the lack of desire for a third confirmation process occurring. I salute you for picking the most obvious course of action to be taken and posting it. ROFL

Actually, good call no one else posted it.

Logical
09-05-2005, 03:42 PM
Yep, good call Jettio. You has a 33% chance of being right and that is before taking into account the lack of desire for a third confirmation process occurring. I salute you for picking the most obvious course of action to be taken and posting it. ROFL

Actually, good call no one else posted it.ainorth might be interested in knowing that all the correspondants this morning said Bush chose to go this way because he had lost the political clout to name someone like Scalia or Thomas and get them affirmed.

KC Dan
09-05-2005, 03:49 PM
ainorth might be interested in knowing that all the correspondants this morning said Bush chose to go this way because he had lost the political clout to name someone like Scalia or Thomas and get them affirmed.
Whom? Stephanopopolupus? Brown? Wolfie? Please, it only made sense to just elevate Roberts = Less pain. It had nothing to do with clout. It is political expediency coupled with the desire to not have another political congressional show on air for 6-8 weeks.

Logical
09-05-2005, 03:52 PM
Whom? Stephanopopolupus? Brown? Wolfie? Please, it only made sense to just elevate Roberts = Less pain. It had nothing to do with clout. It is political expediency coupled with the desire to not have another political congressional show on air for 6-8 weeks.No it was their court watch legal correspondants. Said he no longer had the power in the Senate to face a major floor fight over candidates as controversial as Scalia and Thomas.

jettio
09-05-2005, 04:00 PM
Good job Jettio, you called it exactly right.:clap::clap::clap:


Thanks, I think it may have been a good prediction, but there is also the possiblity that; considering that the Planet is one of the most hotly FBI monitored sites since the Patriot Act, my turd of an idea was flushed into the lagoon and percolated through the soil until it made it to the White House

KC Dan
09-05-2005, 04:18 PM
Thanks, I think it may have been a good prediction, but there is also the possiblity that; considering that the Planet is one of the most hotly FBI monitored sites since the Patriot Act, my turd of an idea was flushed into the lagoon and percolated through the soil until it made it to the White House
:clap:, now that there is some insightful posting.

memyselfI
09-05-2005, 04:22 PM
Thanks, I think it may have been a good prediction, but there is also the possiblity that; considering that the Planet is one of the most hotly FBI monitored sites since the Patriot Act, my turd of an idea was flushed into the lagoon and percolated through the soil until it made it to the White House


Post it and they will lurk... ;) ROFL

alnorth
09-05-2005, 05:28 PM
ainorth might be interested in knowing that all the correspondants this morning said Bush chose to go this way because he had lost the political clout to name someone like Scalia or Thomas and get them affirmed.

Those correspondents didnt know WTF they were talking about. Politically speaking, it is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more desirable to name a young guy as chief justice rather than Scalia. He isnt going to die anytime soon, but he also will serve only a fraction of Robert's term.

Logical
09-05-2005, 05:43 PM
Those correspondents didnt know WTF they were talking about. Politically speaking, it is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more desirable to name a young guy as chief justice rather than Scalia. He isnt going to die anytime soon, but he also will serve only a fraction of Robert's term.

ROFL oh yeah, yesterday you were telling us how he could go as conservative as he wanted so now he goes with a guy who's credentials don't even bother the liberals (at least significantly). Nice squiggle.

jettio
09-05-2005, 07:04 PM
My guess is that Scalia would be confirmed as Chief so long as he satisfactorily answered any questions regarding his administrative abilities. He gets along well with his fellow justices even if he uses sarcasm and insults in his written opinions.

I think Thomas would get a lot more no votes, but in light of Kanye West's recent remarks, Thomas was not about to get nominated for Chief anyway.

memyselfI
09-05-2005, 07:35 PM
Those correspondents didnt know WTF they were talking about. Politically speaking, it is FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR more desirable to name a young guy as chief justice rather than Scalia. He isnt going to die anytime soon, but he also will serve only a fraction of Robert's term.


One thing I had read that I had not considered is that unlike post 9/11 DUHbya's sinking popularity will not bode well for the customary 'bounce' of support and affection for the President in a time of crisis. So while he may only lose a few points of support in the polls, the real cost is that he doesn't receive a post tragedy bump of support and therefore the cost to him politically is greater than can be measured at the moment.

So far I've seen only you and Bill Kristol maintain that DUHbya has not lost a thing politically and can do WTF he pleases. The thing about Kristol is PNAC and how badly he screwed up in predicting what would happen in Iraq. Knowing that, I like my chances.



http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050905/5roberts.htm

Bush may also be boxed in ideologically–less inclined to nominate somebody as conservative or to the right of Roberts. But officials close to the White House predicted the president would pick a conservative in the mold of Roberts.

"The fight is over the next one," said Democratic consultant Nick Baldick. "Roberts is taking the Rehnquist voting slot and no one worried about him being much more conservative than Rehnquist."

Privately, several Republicans predicted Monday that Bush's political stature will continue to decline as the Gulf Coast death toll mounts. That may make Roberts an easier target.

But the real complications come later, when Bush turns to O'Connor's seat.

As one senior Republican put it: Weak presidents beget weak nominees. Whoever Bush selects next will be vulnerable because the president's political troubles have grown since he first tapped Roberts. The officials, including two who are working closely with the White House on Supreme Court picks, spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the process publicly.

alnorth
09-05-2005, 09:12 PM
ROFL oh yeah, yesterday you were telling us how he could go as conservative as he wanted so now he goes with a guy who's credentials don't even bother the liberals (at least significantly). Nice squiggle.

Roberts is a conservative, all you have to do is look at some of his writings working for Reagan. He just didnt have a long track record to give the opposition ammunition. I still cant believe that Bush made such a good pick with this guy, a clear (to me) conservative that is a virtual lock for confirmation. Making him chief justice is a no-brainer to me. Seriously, I would have been a little disappointed if Scalia were nominated, nominating Roberts would virtually guarantee a conservative chief for 30+ years.

alnorth
09-05-2005, 09:14 PM
So far I've seen only you and Bill Kristol maintain that DUHbya has not lost a thing politically and can do WTF he pleases.

Here's another prediction. Someone named Edith will be nominated, the left will raise a bit of a fuss, there will be controversial headlines, and then she will be confirmed by a comfortable margin.

Logical
09-05-2005, 09:14 PM
Roberts is a conservative, all you have to do is look at some of his writings working for Reagan. He just didnt have a long track record to give the opposition ammunition. I still cant believe that Bush made such a good pick with this guy, a clear (to me) conservative that is a virtual lock for confirmation. Making him chief justice is a no-brainer to me. Seriously, I would have been a little disappointed if Scalia were nominated, nominating Roberts would virtually guarantee a conservative chief for 30+ years.You do realize he is 50 and there is no guarantee he will live to 80 let alone want to work that long. Average male lifespan is still 74 right?

alnorth
09-05-2005, 09:17 PM
I think Thomas would get a lot more no votes, but in light of Kanye West's recent remarks, Thomas was not about to get nominated for Chief anyway.

As much as I like Thomas, I wouldnt nominate him even if you set aside the age issue. The Chief needs to be a pragmatic conservative, someone who is conservative, yet will be willing to compromise to get whatever small victory he can when the votes arent there. Rehnquist was perfect.

Thomas is more of a my way or the highway kind of guy who wouldnt budge a centimeter. His time is better spent writing entertaining lone dissents.

Logical
09-05-2005, 10:06 PM
As much as I like Thomas, I wouldnt nominate him even if you set aside the age issue. The Chief needs to be a pragmatic conservative, someone who is conservative, yet will be willing to compromise to get whatever small victory he can when the votes arent there. Rehnquist was perfect.

Thomas is more of a my way or the highway kind of guy who wouldnt budge a centimeter. His time is better spent writing entertaining lone dissents.Well we agree on this at least.:clap: