Things should be interesting over the next couple months as Sandra Day O'Conner is retiring.

Rehnquist will retire later this year, I think. Bush will nominate extremists (the Dobsonites have $18 million ready to pour into the effort), possibly starting with Janice Rogers Brown. The filibuster compromise in May rendered her unobjectionable in theory, so she's a freebie. Otherwise, we'll see judges on the order of Robert "there's no such thing as privacy" Bork and Antonin "I'm an originalist when it suits me" Scalia. The Dems have submitted a number of judges they'd be happy with despite being conservative, but Bush will be looking to people he knows or owes a favor. I also think the Repubs (DeLay, Frist and Rove certainly) want a fight and will encourage an extreme nominee.

I'd like to think we could get through this with a reasonable replacement for O'Connor, but I doubt it.

O'Conner was your classic Goldwater Republican - from Arizona, to boot. Basicly, that made her about as moderate as possible. Hated by the left and right Her judicial legacy (not her historic one, as the first female...) will mostly be that she refused to let cases like Casey v Planned Parenthood revisit Roe v Wade, but did allow them to "modify" it.

I'm not sure that ANYONE can put a justice on the court that'll overturn Roe - even with Bush in the White House.

Sorry, let me add... I hate to simplify the reduce the replacement of a Supreme Court Judge down to Roe v Wade, but...it's all we're going to see on the news for the next couple months, especially if Rehnquist calls it quits too.

:::: rubs his hands together :::::::::

Now we can get down to work!

I'm not sure that ANYONE can put a justice on the court that'll overturn Roe - even with Bush in the White House.

No, but adding two justices(since Rhenquist is about to retire) could overturn it.

Hear that sound? Its the jackboots in DC getting warmed up. Soon to follow will be a flushing sound that was the Bill of Rights.

All hail Emperor Bush!!, the duly elected right hand of Jesus!
Seriously , this is the ultimate check and the final balance.
the greater interest of the people and sancitity of the union are best served by a moderate choice.
Put aside for a moment the culture of political us vs them that both sides have driven the average american to embrace these days.

No, but adding two justices(since Rhenquist is about to retire) could overturn it.

Well, I think Thormir meant that any judge who would vote in favor of getting rid of Roe v. Wade would not get voted in. If you're strictly going by that logic, the number of judges getting voted in doesn't matter.

I think only judges opposed to Roe v. Wade will be nominated. The religious right base and DeLayicans won't be satisfied by anything less. Despite her conservatism, the rr's loathed O'Connor. Reverend Flip Benham, Director of Operation Save America. Reverend Flip Benham, Director of Operation Save America, typifies their thinking:
"Although we applaud her decision to step down and care for her ailing husband, her 'swing-vote' status on the Supreme Court over the issues of abortion and homosexual rights wrought more havoc upon our nation than our foreign enemies ever have."
Women's reproductive rights and homosexuality are worse than terrorism, and O'Connor abetted such activity. You can bet if the Dems filibuster the nomination, they'll be roundly accused of obstructionism, killing children, and hating the poor, persecuted Christians. Bush can try to heal the tremendous divide in our nation or he can drive the wedge further. Given previous behavior, the latter seems most likely (though I think the majority of Americans would rather that not be the case).

As an aside, word has it Karl Rove has been revealed as the one leaking Valerie Plame's name. Not confirmed, but it'd come as no surprise.

The speculation is now that Rhenquist is going to stay. Of course, this'll be the #1 story for weeks, so...

The Rove thing is a wild card, one that may cripple Bush if he is trying to push a SCJ through during a grand jury investigation of Rove+

All things considered though, Neither Bush and the Hard Line Right nor The Way Left Liberals are in control of this thing. McCain made a brilliant move in creating a small group of 14 moderate senators from both sides of the aisle. They control the floodgates on this. Make no mistake this "Gang of 14" as the Right Wingers like to smear them, has set themselves up as king makers.

Its really the nature of a democracy, and the nuts and bolts of how and why it works. The more extreme each side gets, the easier it becomes for a group to stake a middle ground and hold great power by merely bridging the gap.

The thing I think we see is the nomination of a moderate conservative. Either the AG or a realitive unknown. To try to nominate a lightning rod candidate may be more than Bush is willing to risk at the moment.
Bolton... left to rot
Social Security... dead
Iraq War... quagmirish
Nuclear Option... squashed
Job Approval... fading

And this with a majority in the house and senate?

He can use this to stalk middle ground and get some allies for the other things he wants or he can throw this country into what will become the most intense poltical season of our lifetimes. Uniter not a Divider? We shall see
Can Bush lead more than 51% of the country? This is his chance. He can still get his way, but he can also gain some political capital with deft political moves, the kind of which he has not shown himself capable. I think to some extent, 9/11 spoiled him, and he never learned to LBJ his way politically.

What scares me if a lot of the potential replacments are Texans....freaking Bush acolytes.

never learned to LBJ his way politically.

hahahaha

Bush will no doubt be hard pressed to find a suitable replacement for O'Connor and due to what she said in her letter to him about serving until her replacement has been confirmed, not appointed - confirmed, he may just let it wait out until the Rove thing is over by nominating obviously unqualified or polarized candidates.

If Bush doesn't pander to the far right wing, Republicans will suffer at the polls (or, at least, be threatened with suffering). Jim Dobson, Edwin Veira, Randall Terry and the like wield enormous electoral influence through their organizations and e-mail lists, and they expect payback. Bush has given only lip service to the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment, and that infuriates them. Bush couldn't get all of his most extreme judges confirmed, and that infuriates them more. The Republican Congressional leadership wants a far right wing judge in place -- DeLay to renew his sagging popularity with issues like the 10 Commandments, and Frist so he can win the 2008 Repub primary.

There are a lot of scenarios that can play out, but I expect Bush to finally reward his base with the nomination they expect, leading to the fight they want. The extreme right views all this as part of their "culture war," and will couch the debates as obstructionism and "persecution of people of faith." It's all bullshit, of course, and I think they're overreaching, but it's a religious crusade they're unlikely to let go of anytime soon.

A scenario similar to this was done on "The West Wing", with the result being the appointment of two judges that would never have been allowed as a single appointment; it was a compromise, with each side of the aisle getting someone they wanted along with someone they could live with, and it allowed for business to continue being conducted.

Of course, that scenario involved replacing both the chief justice and another justice simultaneously.

Ahhhh, for the fantasy world of television.........:rolleyes:

Honestly, what does the nation see to gain from a far right government? Does that mean all Americans minus the politically dissenfanchised groups get to go to Heaven when the Rapture comes? Personally I don't give a fuck about that.

I would like to see the US remain a science leader because the same ole same ole doesn't make new jobs.

I am sick of indirectly paying the same ragheads I am sent off to Iraq to deal with an assload of money for gas at the pump. Find some other energy please, thanks.

I really don't want to go to Iraq unless I have to, and when I do go, please send me there with at least a good plan on how I can make it back home safe and not have to continually find myself there again.

I am really wanting to see roads and bridges that arn't crumbling.

Our national debt and trade imbalance are disgraceful.

I want my kids to come out of public schools ready for the colleges of tomorrow and not the Burger King of today.

I want to retire, and not work until they chunk me in the grave. Yah, alot of that is on me, but even so, I would like to not have my nest egg taxed to death.

I want to be able to get good healthcare when I am no longer in the military, and not have to get a second mortgage just to pay for my care.

All that stuff seems to never get the spotlight as much as it should, and yet all this religious bullshit does? Where in that list of things I would like to see happen is there any reference to religion, and yet I think I am pretty much at about the norm as far as my wants? Sometimes it almost seems, be it so a remote reference, akin to the politics of the Darkages where religion is used to pull the wool over the eyes of the common man so they can't see what is really going on. So if we get a judge or judges that overturns RvW or allows the 10 commandments to be in public buildings....

HOW DOES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO SOLVING ALL THE OTHER PROBLEMS?!!!!

HOW DOES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO SOLVING ALL THE OTHER PROBLEMS?!!!!

God solves all problems. Give your faith -- and your donation -- to God's appointed leaders on earth (Messrs. Frist, DeLay, Dobson, Veira, Terry, and Cheney -- don't worry, God will keep his ticker ticking), and all will be well. They may still have to chuck you in a grave paid by Burger King wages, but your soul will sleep well at night. Trust us.

This has been a public service announcement.

I am expecting to hear the Terry Schiavo case discussed during the debate over the appointment, as an extension of the right to life debate.

It is unfortunate that the appointee will not be judged as much on her or his ability to interpret law as on her or his willingness to take sides in political debate.

Sandra Day O'Connors legacy will be her ability to focus on the question of law, rather than opinion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aJB7hcZIdFbg&refer=us


July 14 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, aiming to end a swirl of speculation about his future, said in a statement that he has no immediate plans to retire and intends to stay in his position as long as his health allows.

Boy, you'd like to know his reasons, wouldn't you?

Nothing new under the sun here. Each side lines up who they want in power after they leave office.

Dont make this a case of "Damn Repubs!!!" When the detached and angry Left do the same thing when they are in power.

McCain is pulling off a nice coup, very smert is that man.

Ahhh and Thor, lately the Left are obstructionists. Rarely does the like of Ted "The Killah" Kennedy do more than obstruct instead of offer possibilities...

Fandros

Ahhh and Thor, lately the Left are obstructionists. Rarely does the like of Ted "The Killah" Kennedy do more than obstruct instead of offer possibilities...
Don't fall for this right wing pablum, Fandros. The Repubs and their base cried foul over Dem filibustering, even after the Dems passed 95% of Bush's judges (blocking only 10 out of over 200). Compare this to the Repub treatment of Clinton's attempts to fill the judicial ranks. Consider Orrin Hatch's "blue slip" rule, a parliamentary tactic that allowed a senator to prevent any nominee from their state from getting beyond the nomination process (Jesse Helms used this to block all 3 of Clinton's black nominees from NC, for instance). Naturally, once Bush entered office Hatch proposed to rescind the blue slip rule and other such parliamentary tricks, leaving the filibuster the minority party's last option to keep the crazies off the bench.

But hey, no need to hear it all from me. Let's let Chuck Hagel (R-NE) do some talking:
"The Republicans' hands aren't clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton's nominees - about 62 of them - we just didn't give them votes in committee or we didn't bring them up."
The Dems have plenty of possibilities, and they've recommended a number of judges for the SCOTUS who are conservative but passable. Many on the right are crying out in opposition to a consensus candidate. Perhaps you should focus your ire on those conservatives who want a Bork-like extremist on the bench rather than a judge who all can agree will reasonably interpret the Constitution (if not always in the way the left would like, of course).

I recall not so long ago (during the Gay Marriage Period) hearing a lot of people complaining about how the Judicial Branch was trying to make law and enforce a particular way of thinking upon everyone.

I really don't see how stacking the court with people who will let political pressure or religious dogma instead of the Constitution shape their rulings is any different.

Nuclear option was being considered why?

I'm a moderate bud, as far as I can tell both parties are rife with bs.

Fandros

I wonder what percentage of people out there think that if Roe is overturned that abortion becomes illegal nationwide. I bet its a hight number.

In any case, I am an originalist. I think the right person is the one who looks at the case at hand, judges it agains the Constitution and decides accordingly. I am sick of seeing new "rights and priveleges" show up in the Constitution that somehow evaded over two hundred years worth of legal scholars. See: Eminent Domain, regarding foreign law against our own laws etc...

Seriously , this is the ultimate check and the final balance.


Actually, this is an equal third of the government. It is not the be-all-and-end-all of American Law. Given that power is not divvied up in realistic thirds, this *SHOULD* be the *LEAST* powerful of the three branches simply because it is not an elected branch of government and is virtually unaccountable to We the People in its decisions.

If you don't like the laws that get passed, write your congressman / senator. Even if it sounds like a good idea, legislating from the bench is not the American way.

Nuclear option was being considered why?
Because the Repubs were under pressure by the religious right to nominate social conservative judges, and they didn't get every single judge confirmed.
I'm a moderate bud, as far as I can tell both parties are rife with bs.
Yes, both parties have their share. But currently one party is in charge, and even that's not enough for them. One of the great facets of the Constitution is its protection of the minority. I think it best to keep that feature intact, even when we're protecting people from the other side of the tracks (or other side of the moon, with the loonier crowd).
I am sick of seeing new "rights and priveleges" show up in the Constitution that somehow evaded over two hundred years worth of legal scholars. See: Eminent Domain...
Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying, but eminent domain is part of the Constitution, from the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I'm not terribly excited about the Kelo case result, but eminent domain is constitutional, and there were solid precedents in place from which to draw the majority's conclusion.

Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying, but eminent domain is part of the Constitution, from the 5th Amendment:

I'm not terribly excited about the Kelo case result, but eminent domain is constitutional, and there were solid precedents in place from which to draw the majority's conclusion.

Yeah, I was not clear enough there. I was referring to the Kelo decision specifically, not eminent domain in general.

Doesn't eminient domain derive from people living on land at the king's sufferance? Maybe one of the true history buffs here can enlighten us as to the origin of eminient domain?

"One of the great facets of the Constitution is its protection of the minority."

Huh?

Protection of the minority is not a "facet" of the Constitution. It wasn't really embodied in the Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment.

Even then, protection of the minority under current jurisprudence did not really originate until the 1930s with the following footnote in an otherwise boring case:

"It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-const?amendmentxiv) than are most other types of legislation...Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, or national, or racial minorities, whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry." (citations omitted).

That footnote shepharded in the idea that the Supreme Court should more carefully review statutes which prejudice "discrete and insular minorities" -- the now-called strict scrutiny standard, a relatively recent .

Outside of that correction, your idea of applying "protection of the minority" to protection of a minority party in power is wholly misplaced. Where has the Constitution ever protected a minority political party? The Whigs?


Comparing Democrats use of the filibuster to Republicans operation under Clinton is also misguided. When Clinton was President, the Republicans were in the majority in Congress. Republicans, as the majority party in Congress, should obviously wield greater power in deciding judicial appointments. Currently, the Democrats are not the majority party in Congress, a fact they seem to not be able to grasp. The Democrats have lost and lost big in some cases in practically every Congressional election since '94 and the last two Presidential elections. It may actually be every Congressional election since '94; I'll see if I can confirm. Despite that overwhelming democratic evidence, the Democrats still believe they should have an equal say in appointment of justices. They should not if the democratic process means anything at all.

"One of the great facets of the Constitution is its protection of the minority."

Huh?

Protection of the minority is not a "facet" of the Constitution. It wasn't really embodied in the Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment.
Never mind that that pesky First Amendment thing was designed to protect the minority opinions in the nation (did you know the freedom of religion was majorly included because of the massive movement of protestants to force their beliefs on catholics?)

Protection of the minority is not a "facet" of the Constitution. It wasn't really embodied in the Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment.
The fact that the "minority" (however you define it) has the right to freely speak their views -- as embodied in the First Amendment -- aptly demonstrates my point.
Outside of that correction, your idea of applying "protection of the minority" to protection of a minority party in power is wholly misplaced.
My point wasn't the protection of a minority party, but allowances in the system that preserve the relevancy of those not in the majority. The filibuster is a traditional part of the system, adopted as part of the "advise and consent" role of the Senate. Neither party likes it when they have control, but I favor keeping it in place. Currently, a number of Republicans and their supporters do not.
Comparing Democrats use of the filibuster to Republicans operation under Clinton is also misguided. When Clinton was President, the Republicans were in the majority in Congress. Republicans, as the majority party in Congress, should obviously wield greater power in deciding judicial appointments.
And they do, by virtue of their greater voting power. But the current crop crying for "up or down votes on all nominees" are ignoring -- as you are -- parliamentary procedures like the blue-slip rule they voted in while Clinton was President then voted out when Bush took over. Calling hypocritical abuse of power for what it is is hardly misguided.
Despite that overwhelming democratic evidence, the Democrats still believe they should have an equal say in appointment of justices.
No, they simply wish to retain the same parliamentary abilities that the minority party has enjoyed since Washington. And the truth of the matter is that they have passed 95% of the nominees, but that last 5% has some conservativesfurious. They couch it as part of the "war on people of faith" and other such nonsense. Cry me a river.

The filibuster may be a real pain in the ass for the majority, but it's a Senate tradition. If the Dems' numbers ever fall to a point where they can't muster the 40 votes to block a vote, then they're shit out of luck, and the President will be able to appoint whoever he wants.

"First Amendment thing was designed to protect the minority opinions"

Are you kidding me with this ignorance?

The first ten amendments were "designed" to protect everyone from the FEDERAL government -- it had nothing to do with whether an opinion or a person was in the majority or a minority. The framers were very worried about a powerful centralized government. Notice the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." It didn't apply to state, county, or local governments -- those entities could abuse "minority" opinions all they wanted. Answer this though, today it would be unlawful for state, county, or local governments to restrict free speech -- why is that?

"The filibuster is a traditional part of the system, adopted as part of the "advise and consent" role of the Senate....No, they simply wish to retain the same parliamentary abilities that the minority party has enjoyed since Washington."

What nonsense. The filibuster is not a "tradition" in the system, has not been in use since Washington, and its use regarding judicial appointments is anything but traditional.

"[T]he filibuster as a device, not merely to delay, but to prevent action is a modern institution which has no support or sanction in early Senate history and practice." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy quoting and discussing a Congressman's statements from 1959.

The filibuster itself has been modified numerous times since it first came into use in the mid to late 1800s. It wasn't even a term of art around Washington's time. Using a filibuster against judicial nominees is so "traditional" that it has only been used regularly as a blocking measure by the Democrats in the last 5 years. Outside of the Democrats frequent use of it, it was invoked one time in 1968 and not by a minority party in Congress bent on preventing a President's nomination on idealogical grounds.

Do some research before spewing Democrat "talking points".

Since Washington (and via the Constitution), the Senate has an "advice and consent" role in Presidential appointments and treaty making. That the filibuster hasn't "traditionally" been used with respect to judicial nominees doesn't invalidate it as a parliamentarian tactic. The fact is, that a sufficient majority can override a filibuster. Could the same be said for the blue-slip rule? Your concern for majoritarianism seems to end when a single Republican senator could prevent a nominee from leaving committee.
Outside of the Democrats frequent use of it, it was invoked one time in 1968 and not by a minority party in Congress bent on preventing a President's nomination on idealogical grounds.
Frequent? 10 uses?
And what is wrong with differing with a justice on ideological grounds? Some of those nominees have rather bizarre legal reasoning reminiscent of Bork. Quoth Washington, "Just as the President has a right to nominate without assigning reasons, so has the Senate a right to dissent without giving theirs."

But all this ignores what I was actually going for earlier: the Republican "crying points" are laughable. 95% of Bush's nominees went through (and several more since the filibuster compromise), the Repubs blocked far more nominees during the Clinton years ("no up or down vote for you!"), and the Dems are willing to pass a number of conservative judges, but the pressure from the extremists may kill such an option (still, Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election now).

"the Repubs blocked far more nominees during the Clinton years"

The Republicans were the majority power in Congress. They could have blocked 100% of Clinton nominees and your comparison would be just as meaningless. It was not the act of a minority party which had been voted out of power. Your comment on the losing party as "willing" to allow the President and majority party in Congress to exercise their Constitutional duties is ludicrous.

Once more, slowly, from the top:

The Senate performs an advice and consent role.
60+ votes moves a proposition to vote.
40+ votes can prevent cloture.
The Dems can prevent cloture, if they so choose.
All of this is part of the parliamentary system of the Senate.

So you can whine about it and call it names, but it's meaningless. And ludicrous (especially condoning the veto power of one man over any sort of majority). And someday when the Repubs are the minority party, they'll sing the praises of the filibuster as surely as they damn the system now (assuming the nuclear option doesn't happen).

The Repubs need to get over it.

More on topic, word is that Bush is looking at a female judge, or perhaps a minority. The far right isn't fond of Gonzales (specifically, his abortion views), and it seems a little soon to put Jance Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen through the confirmation wringer again. Between this, Rove, and the possibility of a recess appointment for Bolton, there's a lot to watch out for.

Bush selected John Roberts for the vacancy. He's reputed to be quite intelligent, conservative of course, and not so far out on the right wing as to raise major red flags. He's argued for giving the President virtually unchecked authority in terms of treating American citizens as prisoners of war (not a plus in my book), and as solicitor general he's argued against pro-choiceness a couple times (in his role representing the President, rather than providing his own legal analysis).


At first glance, it doesn't seem to be a bad choice, given it's Bush making the decision.

Bush selected John Roberts for the vacancy. He's reputed to be quite intelligent, conservative of course, and not so far out on the right wing as to raise major red flags. He's argued for giving the President virtually unchecked authority in terms of treating American citizens as prisoners of war (not a plus in my book), and as solicitor general he's argued against pro-choiceness a couple times (in his role representing the President, rather than providing his own legal analysis).


At first glance, it doesn't seem to be a bad choice, given it's Bush making the decision.
I'm sure he won't get the 99-0 vote he got in 2003, but I think he will be confirmed because he's actually not a bad choice, although i'm rather surprised due to his real lack of "high end" for lack of a better term, expierence as a judge.

although i'm rather surprised due to his real lack of "high end" for lack of a better term, expierence as a judge.

I think that was intentional. My guess is that Bush wanted someone with as small of a 'paper trail' as possible, in the hopes that he would be able to get through the confirmation process someone who (he hopes, given his past work for Bush 1) will be a harder-line conservative than the folks with longer records he would be able to get through.

At least he's widely recognized as intelligent and competent on the bench, and writes his own opinions, unlike Bush 1's cynical choice of Clarence Thomas...

Regards,
Nydia

He's argued for giving the President virtually unchecked authority in terms of treating American citizens as prisoners of war (not a plus in my book)...
My source was incorrect on this point; it was a different attorney. From comments I've read, Roberts comes across as similar to Clarence Thomas in his style of conservatism and seems well respected as a legal mind even by those scholars on the other side of the ideological aisle.

Of course, he's also endorsed by whackjob Jim Dobson, but that's not necessarily Roberts' fault.

Ann Coulter is against this pick

Therefore I endorse it

Ann Coulter is against this pick

Therefore I endorse it

ROFLMAO:D

Was thinking the same thing.

Hell, for the sheer entertainment purpose of her Congressional hearings...

I nominate Ann Colter herself for consideration!!!

Fandros

If the "hate crime in high heels" opposes Roberts, it can only be a good thing.

Roberts' lawyer wife, interestingly, is in a leadership position of "Feminists for Life," a group devoted to overturning Roe v. Wade.

I wish they'd just explicitly amend the Constitution regarding abortion and make it a function of the lawmakers, not one of the courts.

"I wish they'd just explicitly amend the Constitution regarding abortion and make it a function of the lawmakers, not one of the courts."

Why would you amend the Constitution for something it already says? Passing laws has always been the province of lawmakers. Surprise. I also assume (at least hope) by lawmakers you're referring to state lawmakers and not the clowns in Washington D.C. (the whole Art. II, Sect. 8 thing).

I think he means he'd rather see an explicit amendment saying "No the Federal or State governments can not pass laws restricting the right of individuals to undergo medical procedures" (or vice versa) or however they'd phrase it to be as unreadable as possible while also making it illegal to give birth to copyright infringers that support terrorism.

Esbat, do you mean you'd rather take "lawmaking" away from the judicial branch, and make it entirely congressional?

Esbat, do you mean you'd rather take "lawmaking" away from the judicial branch, and make it entirely congressional?

The Judicial branch does not "make" law, but rather they enforce and interpret law.

Congress writes the law, but other than the occasional circus like the Whitewater hearings (where the folks spent more money trying to find something to nail Clinton with then they spent on investigating the 9/11 attacks) enforcement is left to the courts.

If you think laws aren't being "made" from the bench, you're all insane.

http://www.google.com/search?q=legislating+from+the+bench

There's a fair deal of "he said / she said" argument on those pages, people bitching about it, people bitching about the people bitching about it; but while judges don't make laws, they decide which ones are enforcable, and which ones are. They even "decide" if the things I voted for are right - because they know better than people.

Federal judges know more about medical marijuana than (a) doctors, and (b) the voting public... [One of many...]

I was speaking of a direct amendment of the sort Malse mentioned- using expicit language. Of course, the odds of that happening at all are very slim.

It's bushes turn, he can pick anyone he wants and he should be confirmed. If Ginsberg (she openly admited she like to ban all male and female restrooms and have unisex restrooms) isn't extreme, then I don't know what a extremist is then. Plus Clinton said he only apoint pro-abortion Supreme court justices so Bush can can apoint pro-life justices. That only seems fair if your a fair-minded person and not a liberal nut-job!.

If Ginsberg (she openly admited she like to ban all male and female restrooms and have unisex restrooms) isn't extreme, then I don't know what a extremist is then.

I can think of one person in particular. :(

I can think of one person in particular. :(
Who?:confused:

If Ginsberg (she openly admited she like to ban all male and female restrooms and have unisex restrooms) isn't extreme, then I don't know what a extremist is then.

Well, that specific example isn't really that 'extreme'. It's more 'stupid-hippie.'

Well, that specific example isn't really that 'extreme'. It's more 'stupid-hippie.'

She also has been qouted as saying the like to dismantle all male only soports like the NFL etc and have women put on the teams!

She also has been qouted as saying the like to dismantle all male only soports like the NFL etc and have women put on the teams!
You're dumb. She never said she wanted to dismantled them, she said she wished there was a way to "break the invisible gender-barrier in pro sports" or something to that effect.

Ginsberg couldn't be all bad from a conservative perspective. She was recommended to Clinton by Orrin Hatch. From Hatch's autobiography:
Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.

I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.

In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.

She also has been qouted as saying the like to dismantle all male only soports like the NFL etc and have women put on the teams!

Well, even though that's apparently bullshit.. That's more "overreacting feminist" then extreme. What talid said the quote actually was made good sense.

You're dumb. She never said she wanted to dismantled them, she said she wished there was a way to "break the invisible gender-barrier in pro sports" or something to that effect.

Dumb? Au Contaire montair.

No I dount know if thats spelled right, nor do I care.:D

"Dumb" barely scratches the surface...

So, ignoring Elren's obvious forrays into water far too deep for him, what's everyones take on Roberts atm?

One thing I find interesting is Sen E. Kennedy raising question to Roberts Civil rights views...http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/28/roberts.nomination.ap/index.html

Wasn't Kennedy legal claim to fame being a National class Ambulence chasing attorney?

Fandros

I think it's awesome that Elren cannot spell "don't". Hey, Boy Genius, we will worry about your spelling in a second language once you master the first.. K?

Anyway,
Roberts is a good choice because he is a compromise choice. Bush went for the easy confirmation because the White House no longer has the political capital to spend on a more right wing judge.
Its fun watching the neo con media machine spin this as such a big win. Its like having to kick a field goal from the 5 yard line. This guy is a choice everyone can live with. The only genius here is how easily the Republican base swallows whatever is given to them.

He's not as polarizing as other possible choices would be, which is nice. But part of this is due to his limited time on the bench. He's reputed to be brilliant and of good temperament, but for all the talk of his qualifications:

He has never tried a case before a jury
He has never presided over a trial as a judge
He has little criminal law experience or expertise
He has almost no experience practicing before state courts
The sum total of his appellate experience is arguing 65 cases in 17 years.
I don't know how all that compares to other Supreme Court justices, but it strikes me as light. And the White House -- in what has become SOP (Bolton, Rove/Plame, etc) -- is resisting the release of information that might help the Senate (Dems, at least, as the Repubs will likely give him the free pass) make a more informed decision.

I expect the Dems to query Roberts over some of the major 5-4 decisions of the past few years to gauge how he might have voted. They may -- and should -- also ascertain Roberts' view of stare decisis (the following of precedents). And they may ask about his membership in the Federalist Society: Roberts claims never to have been a member, but is listed in a Federalist Society Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory for 1997-1998 as a member of the Steering Committee of the Washington chapter (the denial of of which is more interesting than the fact itself).

I don't expect a filibuster, and unless Roberts is found to have provided abortions for a harem of anti-war meth dealing lesbian teenage concubines that voted for Kerry, he'll be our next SCOTUS justice (and, perhaps, the next Chief Justice).

"Dumb" barely scratches the surface...

Oh, no's thormir great logical fallacies. Please entreat us more with your great fallacies of wisdom.:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Lleauric]I think it's awesome that Elren cannot spell "don't". Hey, Boy Genius, we will worry about your spelling in a second language once you master the first.. K?

Has nothing to do with that moron. I simply didn't spell check my work before I posted. But thats probably beyound your logic anyways.

So, ignoring Elren's obvious forrays into water far too deep for him, what's everyones take on Roberts atm?

One thing I find interesting is Sen E. Kennedy raising question to Roberts Civil rights views...http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/28/roberts.nomination.ap/index.html

Wasn't Kennedy legal claim to fame being a National class Ambulence chasing attorney?

Fandros

I actually like most of what I have seen, albeit scarce in substance. I would like to see a vote taken, but I think Bush and company are actually doing more to sabotage his appointee than to help him, considering the commercials running before any attacks were ever made, and the Bush administration refusing to turn over the IRS documents that all other appointees in the last couple decades had to share. If Bush would stop trying to change the rules to suit his purposes and play by the same ones everyone else has had to for the past 20 odd years, he might get a lot more done with his second term.

Bush has a lot of folks that actually would like to work with him to get some things done, but he keeps stepping on his dick and leaving folks with a sense of being pushed away rather than included.

Hopefully, we will be able to learn more about Roberts and give him a shot; he may be a stealth Rehnquist, but odds are just as good he might be an O'Connor leaning justice.

Sure. First, point out the fallacy.

But I suspect that you don't know what "fallacy" means, any more than you know what "irony" is, are able to spell out basic English (much less basic French), or would understand the faintest hint of wisdom if it wafted like intestinal gas through your empty noggin'.

Oh, but it does. Most people here don't even have to check their spelling before posting since it's usually very readable anyway. How do you manage to misspell 'don't' into 'dount' anyway?

Sure. First, point out the fallacy.

But I suspect that you don't know what "fallacy" means, any more than you know what "irony" is, are able to spell out basic English (much less basic French), or would understand the faintest hint of wisdom if it wafted like intestinal gas through your empty noggin'.

You attacking me personally is a logical fallacy.

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:
The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.


Examples:
(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)
Proof:
Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.
References:
Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80

26 May 1995 / 06 January 1996

Who is the moron now? Hahahahaha:rolleyes:

Oy vey, surely you don't think that by Cutting and pasting ( dates included mind you) that you are some sort of savant...

Please, stick to the thread at hand bud. NAG is up above...

Fandros

You attacking me personally is a logical fallacy.
Only if I present my attack as the substance of my argument against your own position. But I and others already destroyed what mediocre threads of substance you presented earlier. Then Talid noted that you are "dumb" (understatement of the year), you mangled French almost as badly as you mangle English, I mocked your pathetic existence, and here we are.

You were first shown wrong. Then we all laughed at you. There is no fallacy. My prediction holds.

Only if I present my attack as the substance of my argument against your own position. But I and others already destroyed what mediocre threads of substance you presented earlier. Then Talid noted that you are "dumb" (understatement of the year), you mangled French almost as badly as you mangle English, I mocked your pathetic existence, and here we are.

You were first shown wrong. Then we all laughed at you. There is no fallacy. My prediction holds.

Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the
person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked.
Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to
gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be
attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
(1) ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion,
the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
(2) ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an
assertion the author points to the relationship between the
person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
(3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the
person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.
Examples:

(i) You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just
following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
(ii) We should discount what Premier Klein says about
taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad
hominem circumstantial)
(iii) We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they
are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem
circumstantial)
(iv) You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for
more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)
Proof:

Identify the attack and show that the character or
circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth
or falsity of the proposition being defended.
References:

Barker: 166, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 155, Copi and Cohen: 97, Davis: 80

26 May 1995 / 06 January 1996

Since you are doing this you are in a logical fallacy still. Since you still deny this we must conclude that you are simply dishonest.

Meds wear off Elren? You're stuttering...

Well, stuttering on top of you being a blithering idiot...

Fandros

In my latest contribution to the study of invertebrates...

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the
argument itself.
You haven't presented an argument that hasn't already been shown meritless. Hell, and even your original argument was fallacious ("John Roberts should be approved because Ruth Ginsberg is really liberal."). That's what we in the biz refer to as a non sequitur.

So, you can try to talk about the subject of the thread in some substantive manner -- assuming your capable of it -- or you can run off to NAG/Sandbox and continue serving as the forum's punching bag/inside joke.

This is notice that I must, sadly, put on my moderator hat and send any more off topic posts to Sandbox. Please keep on the topic of the Supreme Court nominee. Further off topic stuff will be excised (yes, even my own).

I think it's awesome that Elren cannot spell "don't". Hey, Boy Genius, we will worry about your spelling in a second language once you master the first.. K?

Anyway,
Roberts is a good choice because he is a compromise choice. Bush went for the easy confirmation because the White House no longer has the political capital to spend on a more right wing judge.
Its fun watching the neo con media machine spin this as such a big win. Its like having to kick a field goal from the 5 yard line. This guy is a choice everyone can live with. The only genius here is how easily the Republican base swallows whatever is given to them.

Is the compromise choice such a bad one L2? Must everything Bush does be so absolutely polarizing? Or perhaps he realizes that this guy is merely a good fit period?

I think you might be trying to fit a comfy round peg in a square hole on this one old friend. Left and Right don't have to fight over everything...honest ;P

Fandros

I don't know that he's a compromise choice so much as the "most far right choice available that has the best chance of passing." And part of the reason he has the best chance of passing is, as I noted before, due to his lack of experience and time on the bench. (There's also evidence that Bush rushed the selection process in the hopes of getting Rove off the front pages, though it didn't work.)

Bush's base wants polarization. They want a fight, and were spending money on adds condemning attacks on the President's choice before any "attacks" (such as they were) emerged.

Bush wanted another Scalia/Thomas on the court, and so far as I can see with what little information has been provided (yay, we got memos from the Reagan era), that's what Bush is getting.

Actually, personal attacks indirectly attack the credibility of whatever that person has said. It's not logically fallacious to attack the veracity of the assertions made in an argument, even if the logic of the argument is flawless. And make no mistake, that's exactly what personal attacks are doing.

Who is the moron now? Hahahahaha:rolleyes:

Still you


Anyway. I like this guy and can live with this choice. As can most people.
More and more Bush = Clinton = Blinton = Cush

Lets talk about Roberts again. Hopefully without the distractions above.

I have a problem, but I don't know what it is. My wife or children will never have abortions. I am Jewish so I approve of the ten commandments. I am intelligent enough to be able to teach my children the types of sciences I think they should know and dispell any myths the public school may attempt to propagate. So, why then does it bother me when Bush appoints a judge like Roberts. I cant figure it out. I wish I was able to not care about things that don't affect me. The war bothers be but in reality it has no real effect on my life. I guess Roberts would be ok, but the thing that scares me is that he has little more experience than Mike Brown in his respective field and already he is going to be the top judge in the nation. People have tried to shape the image of Roberts as a regular guy who worked his way to the top and is the most qualified for the position. I hardly think that someone who goes straight from Harvard to being a clerk in the office of Rehnquist is a regular guy who worked his way up to the top, and is without an agenda and did not get where he is today without special favors and consideration.

I think your issue arises from the perception of what a "clerk" for the Supreme Court does. The term "clerk" brings to mind images of a mindless bureaucrat shuffling papers and filling out forms in triplicate.

We are not talking about a secretary here. The clerks we are talking about do most of the case research for the Justices and can in effect subtly influence their decisions based upon what case studies they dredge up and which ones they ignore. They have to be aware of the issues involved in order to perform that function.

Many Supreme Court Justices filled that position prior to their becoming Justices. It's actually a very good indication of his competance because the less able don't last long in the position.

Maybe your dislike of him is because he is a Bush nominated Conservative justice. I for one have spent some time reading up on the guy, listening to his q/a with congress and havent found any reason to not vote for his nomination except( see there is always a way out) the fact that I dont personally believe that the man has enough experience to be the Chief Justice. I am a firm believer in the idea of promotion from within not without( which is why my superiors hate me).

Just a thought for you phel.

Rev

Thus far, his answers regarding privacy rights (what Roberts previously referred to as the "so-called right to privacy") and stare decisis are favorable -- whether due to "confirmation conversion" or not is impossible to say. He's also been quite forthcoming with answers, from what I've read thus far.

For the most part he has, he did get into a snit with Kennedy. KEnnedy asked him about something from 23 years ago, and he replied, senator do you remeber what you said 23 years ago or remeber every paper you wrote 23 years ago.

Kennedy said well no, Roberts said neither do I.

Rev

I think your issue arises from the perception of what a "clerk" for the Supreme Court does. The term "clerk" brings to mind images of a mindless bureaucrat shuffling papers and filling out forms in triplicate.

We are not talking about a secretary here. The clerks we are talking about do most of the case research for the Justices and can in effect subtly influence their decisions based upon what case studies they dredge up and which ones they ignore. They have to be aware of the issues involved in order to perform that function.

Many Supreme Court Justices filled that position prior to their becoming Justices. It's actually a very good indication of his competance because the less able don't last long in the position.

Well spoken.

While I am thoroughly against Bush on almost everything he has touched just because he makes messes of everything, I must say I like this choice, and think the move to making him Chief Justice is also a good one, based on his age and potential to occupy the office and provide stability to the Court for some time to come. I watched some of the hearings today on my lunch hour and was impressed by his demeanor and responses. Poor Sen. Feinstein was trying everything she could to make him look less than desirable and he continued to answer as I would hope someone with a deep respect of the law and the Court would.

One of the problems I have with the Supreme Court is that once you are in, you are not held accountable. They can sit here and say whatever they want in front of this group of Senators, and then turn right around and vote any way they choose. There is not a check and balances, other then when they decide to leave office, and what President is currenty in power. After all is said and done, the court will have a right slant to it, and if I agree that is good or not, it is not a good thing when these individuals decide what is constitutional or not without fear of making a bad decision.


But sometimes I do get fustrated when I see stuff like this. It is not the premise of the arguement (that is a whole different discussion), but on how it has already been to the Supreme Court, and it was not a closed subject. Just keep looking until you find a judge that agrees with you .... All and all, I think it is a waste of resources..

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/14/D8CK6SOO2.html

The Tenth Justice by Brad Meltzer is a really good book and gives a fairly accurate portrayal of a Supreme Court clerk.

They can sit here and say whatever they want in front of this group of Senators, and then turn right around and vote any way they choose.


Pretty much like our elected Senators and Congressmen(women) make promises during campaigns, and then vote differently once elected; or, kind of like how our Presidents take one position during an election campaign and then do the opposite once elected.......

We have three branches of government: the Executive, which provides leadership; the Legislative, which enacts laws; and the Judicial, which interpret the laws. That is the system put into place by the founding fathers to provide checks and balances against one another and to ensure that there would never be too much power in one branch. I am sure the founding fathers would be flabbergasted to see what a cumbersome beast our government has become.

But, I do not consider these hearings to be a waste of time and resources in that they do allow folks like you and me to see how this individual responds to the questions put to him, and get some sense of the kind of person he is; this with the understanding that we will most likely see very little of the nominee once sworn in and doing the business of the court, so we should try to learn what we can now.

Yes, he can say one thing and then do the opposite once sworn in and seated. Traditionally, however, the people who have been sworn in as Supreme Court Justices have shown a much higher degree of personal integrity than our politicians have, and the flip-flop has not been a widespread problem.

to see how this individual responds to the questions put to him,

This is the modern world. You mean how he has been coached to respond. All of this stuff is coming from coaches, dude, and is orchestrated to hide his views (good or bad) on controversial subjects.