F**k, F**k, F**k, Just Great...

[Marblehead]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5304454/

[Shamu]

Well, crap! How many is that this year?
It really is too bad though. My condolences to his family.

[nice gaijin]

I hate it when Pat Robertson's prayers come true

[Scapegoat Handy]

Your prayers are always answered... only in the order they're recevied.

[Joe]

SHIT! GOD DAMMIT! FUCK THIS IS BAD! Dammit dammit dammit. DAMN. Oh hell.
You know, before I was ok, I thought we'd get through this, but now I'm starting to get a little panicky. You know? This dictator has everyone in his pocket now, or will soon... Just when things get really bad, you think it's over, but it's not.

[ejones28]

Only Jack Bauer can save us now.

[ejones28]

Well, crap! How many is that this year?


umm...just one

[CNagy]

Unless she means open spots on the Supreme Court, in which case it is two.

[Saitou Hajime]

Only Jack Bauer can save us now.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1636/orlyjack7eu.jpg



Seriously, though, this isn't the best of news to hear, bleh.

[Pierrot le Fou]

A conservative justice dies to get replaced with a conservative justice (most likely). Things could be worse.

[Joe]

But this guy LIMITED Govt. power. And since modern day conservatism is more about a giant govt. with more power, I think he will be missed.

[Jay]

He looks almost dead in that picture.

I read the article and everyone's comments on here, and I must admit I don't understand what the conjecture is all about. Is this something only Americans would automatically understand?

[Marblehead]

A justice's position is for life. So we could have someone with Bush's same a agenda for the next thirty years. While some people say he's just replacing a conservative with a concervative, not all conservatives are alike. With Bush in power, it leaves left-thinking individuals like myself very depressed.

[Shamu]

Unless she means open spots on the Supreme Court, in which case it is two.
That's what I meant. I know Justice O'conner retired earlier. So this is a big deal as there are two spots that President Bush gets to appoint. And yeah, it's for life and it's a big deal because the Supreme Court makes alot of final desisions regarding court cases that effect our laws here in the US. (i.e. Rowe vs Wade, ect..)

[Pierrot le Fou]

Save the fact that neither O'Connor nor Rehnquist ruled in the majority on Roe v. Wade (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113) (Rehnquist joining in the dissent, and O'Connor not having been appointed to the court yet). Worrying about the replacement of O'Connor may be prudent, perhaps, considering that she replaced Stewart, who was in the majority on the decision, but worrying about the replacement of Rehnquist is a lost cause. Toss in the fact that even a Congressional minority can cause trouble in the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, and I wouldn't get overly worried about it.

And anyway, considering the fact that the dumbass 'liberal' justices of the court ruled that us private citizens have no property rights in Kelo v. New London (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108&friend=washingtonpost), I'm not so sure that Bush appointing a conservative justice is a bad thing. Whereas overturning abortion is bad, I'm far more concerned about the current court making more dumbass legal decisions like the Kelo case.

[KujiInRetsu]

... If only he'd held out until 2006, when the public would act on their disgust of the Bush administration and purge the Radical Republican congress for a Moderate Republican and Democratic congress. Now Bush has two vacanies he can fill... it's times like these I curse the name of Sandra Day O'Connor for retiring, it almost seems selfish that she did that.

@nice gaijin- Pat Robertson is blind. I don't mean in his eyes (though he deserves that), but in his faith. He would wish death on someone just to advance his own agenda, not thinking of anyone else in the process. Like I said before in another topic, what the hell happened to "Love Thy Neighbor"?

[Citizen]

Put a little more depth and work into GD threads than just posting a link.

Try using titles that actually pertain to the topic as well.

This goes for everyone.

[Jay]

<-- gets in before the close.

[Citizen]

I lock threads before I put the final post in.

Don't spam. :(

[Jay]

...Awwwwwwwwww

[Mittens]

So... why is this bad? If someone could explain oO

[JudoPorkChop]

He won't see this 'cause I'm a dummy to be ignored, but...

And anyway, considering the fact that the dumbass 'liberal' justices of the court ruled that us private citizens have no property rights in Kelo v. New London, I'm not so sure that Bush appointing a conservative justice is a bad thing. Whereas overturning abortion is bad, I'm far more concerned about the current court making more dumbass legal decisions like the Kelo case.

Actually, the ruling turned jurisdiction to the states to allow them to make their own rulings to disallow overturning seized land to the private sector to shore up the tax base. Lo, the dumbass Liberals made it a state's rights issue. Odd that Conservatives used to care about states' rights when they didn't run the show....

Anyways, Rehnquist's replacement can damn well get worse. G. W. is not a conservative by any sense of the word, and Rehnquist was a staunch conservative. I hate to jump into tinfoil hat land, but history has shown him giving jobs to only those who have shown some kind of allegiance to him, qualifications be damned. World Bank, anyone? Bolton to the U.N.?

This is not as bad as it looks. First and foremost, William Rehnquist was the fellow who defined the modern term of "strict constructionist" (in an attempt to distance the phrase from its previously well established reputation for racism, sexism, and pro-business). When he was AAG for Richard Nixon in 1969, this is what he had to say:

"A judge who is a "strict constructionist" in constitutional matters will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffsthe latter two groups having been the principal beneficiaries of the Supreme Court's "broad constructionist" reading of the Constitution."

And it's not in question that Rehnquist was defining himself, as shortly thereafter Nixon announced his intention to nominate a "strict constructionist," and named Rehnquist.

George Bush will have a hard time finding someone else who can so deftly advance the causes of racists, sexists, and the wealthy while concealing the agenda.

The reason why he's going to have such a hard time finding someone else to fill those fine Italian leather shoes is because the President is going to be darned near fresh out of racist sexist rich guys to nominate, because very soon, most of them are going to be under investigation for fraud and election theft.

When Jack Abramoff was orchestrating the Brooks Brothers Riot in Florida in 2000, he was acting at the direction of virtually every prominent arch-conservative lawyer with personal ties to the future President. And the President won't nominate anyone he doesn't already know, because he demands people who have demonstrated personal loyalty to him.

As we speak, the Justice Department--under Supreme Court short-lister Gonzales--is trying everything it can to delay its investigation of Abramoff. Abramoff, who desperately wants to go free so he can spend the millions of dollars he ripped off of American Indian tribes, has reputedly offered to start naming names, which is the last thing the Bush Administration wants him to do. Abramoff is a sociopath, and sooner or later he's going to realize that his only route to safety is to align himself with the people who want to go after the bigger fish.

When he does start naming names, much of Bush's short list is going to have to explain what they were doing in Florida in November and December of 2000. And when they do, evidence of a criminal conspiracy to stop the counting of votes in Florida will come to light.

Usually, the President skirts this problem by appointing the people who are already so deeply involved in the crimes of the Bush Administration that their loyalty isn't in question, even if their qualification for the job at hand is. Paul Wolfowitz being nominated to the World Bank is an excellent example. But he can't get away with that this time because he needs to nominate someone who has a record of upholding the law, rather than subverting it, which is what the President does best.

So in short, the President has actually lost the most accomplished protector of the core Republican ideals of racism, sexism, and easy money. Compounding the President's problem, virtually everyone else he would care to name could (if subjected to an honest Senate approval process) potentially advance the criminal case against his own Administration. He'll have trouble nominating one of his co-conspirators, and he doesn't dare risk nominating a Jimmy Stewart-type boyscout who could turn against him.

So what would Jesus do? Start framing, defaming and intimidating Democratic members of the Senate Judicial Committee, but that's a formidable list of people to burn: Pat Leahy, Ed Kennedy, Joe Biden, Charles Schumer, and Diane Feinstein, to name a few. They'll fight back and, as dirty as they may be, not even Chappaquiddick compares to stealing an election, lying in a State of the Union Address, starting a war under false pretenses, and incompetently gutting the government for personal gain.

Don't want to believe me? Just watch Fox News in the next couple of weeks and see each one of those Democratic Senators getting slimed. I guarantee it. But it will be the first major sign of desperation and a signal of the beginning of the end of this shameful era in our nation's history.


I'm just starting to read up on all the info here, and if Abramoff rolls and actually has the info implied above, that could be a VERY bad thing for W. But that is an "if". While I believe his penchant for hardballing the Democrats will guide him to nominate some Fundie fruitloop, the downsides that come from doing that have severe repercussions for the party.

[KujiInRetsu]

Basically, the travesty of incompetence that is President Bush gets to appoint a CHIEF JUSTICE of the United States Supreme Court, which means he'll probably pick someone who agrees with himself on most constitutionally disputed issues. In turn, laws that are proposed by the more logical, forward-thinking members of our Congress (McCain and his moderate cohorts, more recently possibly Frist due to his support for stem-cell research) can be declared unconstitutional by a Court that comes in line with Bush's agenda.

If you don't find that bad, then, well, I guess you've got nothin' to worry about. :D

EDIT: See JudoPorkChop's post, just five seconds faster than mine. :confused:

[StormShadow]

[QUOTE=KujiInRetsu] In turn, laws that are proposed by the more logical, forward-thinking members of our Congress (McCain and his moderate cohorts, more recently possibly Frist due to his support for stem-cell research) can be declared unconstitutional by a Court that comes in line with Bush's agenda.

QUOTE]

The issue of stem cell research does not lie in the legallity of it. If you haev the money you could do it in your basement, if you felt like it and had the bills. What the issue is is whether the government should give money to the people that due this research.

[Pierrot le Fou]

Basically, the travesty of incompetence that is President Bush gets to appoint a CHIEF JUSTICE of the United States Supreme Court, which means he'll probably pick someone who agrees with himself on most constitutionally disputed issues. In turn, laws that are proposed by the more logical, forward-thinking members of our Congress (McCain and his moderate cohorts, more recently possibly Frist due to his support for stem-cell research) can be declared unconstitutional by a Court that comes in line with Bush's agenda.

If you don't find that bad, then, well, I guess you've got nothin' to worry about. :D

EDIT: See JudoPorkChop's post, just five seconds faster than mine. :confused:
Uh, you mean like Rehnquist? Who's pretty-much voted about as 'anti-Democrat' as one can over his Supreme Court career? Really, you can't do much 'worse' than him. People are over-reacting.

[Mastiker]

I agree that Bush being able to elect one member of the Court is a bad thing, and two is not any better. However, we're just going to have to deal with it. It's not as if it's going to majorly screw up our lives any worse than they already are.

With a new Chief Justice, we still have a war on Iraq.

With two former members gone, it is still four bucks a gallon in some areas.

Inflation isn't getting any smaller people!

The way I see it, the Republicans can have our democracy. It's not going to make a difference, because pollitics will still be corrupted, and Bush is still our president for THREE MORE YEARS. And I'm sure the next guy (or girl depending if Miss Clinton... *shudders at the thought*) will not be that much better than Bush.

EDIT: Which guy is Pat Robertson? If it's who I think it is, than I know why we hate him...

[Kaji]

Robertson's one of the Christian Coalition leaders. Frankly, even I'm not particularly fond of what he has to say half the time. Take Sunday's Doonsbury and replace the Jane Fonda references with Pat Robertson and it's about the same deal.

Regarding the justices, you people should be grateful it's Rhenquist. Me, I'd rather we have lost Souter or Ginsberg...

[Pretentious]

Hey! He's not even been made a Justice yet and already, Bush is promoting John Roberts up to Chief Justice! BRAVO!

[Kaji]

Link?

Personally, I'm hoping Scalia gets the job

[Pretentious]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/index.html

Granted it's a nomination but still...

[Alphonse v.2]

... I missed something big didn't I?

[JudoPorkChop]

Eh, it's not like you have to have a lot of experience to be Chief Justice. Not a lot of the former ones had great deals of federal experience before assuming the post.