- Joined
- Jan 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23,580
- Reaction score
- 12,388
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
AlbqOwl said:I just read the President Bush has nominated John Roberts to be the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
I am personally disappointed as I thought Thomas or Scalia would be the heir apparent, but this was a good and shrewd move on the part of the President. It keeps the very liberal Justice Stevens, ranking member on the Court, from being interim Justice--the Chief Justice assigns the order that cases will be considered by the Court and Stevens would not be a good choice for that.
It also keeps Sandra Day O'connor's seat vacant and she has agreed to stay on until her replacement is confirmed.
The President has asked Congress to confirm Judge Roberts so that he can be on the job on opening day in four weeks.
vauge said:Well, Roberts did indeed work under him years ago.
There have been no real dissonance in congress about him - it's almost a done deal.
AlbqOwl said:That's what I thought and that's why I phrased it the way I did. But I'll leave it to you Mods if you think the title should be changed.
By the way, how do you bold face a thread title? The same way you bold face all or part of a post?
vauge said:Titles are bolded by default. I agree with cnredd, will change the title.
AlbqOwl said:I just read the President Bush has nominated John Roberts to be the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Nice choice if you want to send our country back to the old days and ways.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The President has asked Congress to confirm Judge Roberts so that he can be on the job on opening day in four weeks.
AlbqOwl said:Would it be possible to keep this thread on topic? There are other threads re relief efforts where you can go to bash the president on that score.
AlbqOwl said:Would it be possible to keep this thread on topic? There are other threads re relief efforts where you can go to bash the president on that score.
[I think Roberts is more moderate than people think./QUOTE]
In your dreams my friend....I think that President Bush knows exactly how conservative Roberts is...That is why he nominated him for Chief Justice instead of His favorite Justice Scalia or Thomas........
Navy Pride said:You are expecting miracles my friend.............
I think it is a great move by the President to nominate Roberts for Chief Justice.He is young, very conservative and will hold the postion for 25 or 30 years......His confirmation should be a shoo in.......
Now if we can get a Conservative who is pro life like Janis Rogers Brown for the vacant seat that would be the icing on the cake............
I am still hopeful that Roe V Wade will be overturned before I kick the bucket and the decision on abortions left with the states where it belongs......
MasterDebater06 said:I think Roberts is more moderate than people think.
danarhea said:I think you are right on that. My only problem with Roberts is that we would have to recuse himself at various times due to a couple of conflicts of interest, but if he does that, I am open to his nomination. However, I believe Scalia would have been a more appropriate choice.
AlbqOwl said:Well we've had discussions on that and, while we share the same opinion of abortion, there is room for differences of opinion on how the government should handle it. I wouldn't mind if Roe v Wade was amended to allow the possibility of abortion within the Roe v Wade opinion itself, but leave the decision re abortion to the states or, better yet, individual communities. I think that alone would go a long way toward stopping the slaughter.
I think Roberts is anti-abortion but not anti-Roe v Wade. I don't have a clue how Thomas or Scalia would vote on that. As the President applies no litmus test to his appointments other than that they be qualified and constructionists, the chances that Roe v Wade be overturned seem pretty slim to me. But I've been surprised before.
AlbqOwl said:Hurricane Katrina has certainly bumped the Supreme Court controversy off the radar screen for the moment. What do you want to bet the opposition is using the lull to regroup their forces for a fresh attack once this issue is put back on the table? (They'll surely wait until whatever political advantage they think they're getting from the disaster slows down though.)
Honestly, it's not, but that is not the point and it really had no point in your post other than to make you feel great about yourself and your supposed great posistion.Navy Pride said:I think it begs for the question.......Why didn't the President nominate Scalia....Could it be that he knows that Roberts might even be more conservative then he is...........Lets hope so...........
One thing for certain..Its a great time in this country to be a Conservative........
No? She hasn't been shut up, and I will gladly give info on planning session, info sessions, tour stops and the like if they would like it from me about what Cindy is doing right now, so...If you want it, Pm me.Navy Pride said:That is very true.......I personally think the dems in the senate are between a rock and and a hard place in that nothing of the crap thy have thrown up against the wall against Roberts has stuck....He should be confirmed easily..I would say with about 75 votes......Replacing Rehnquist does not really change the court..........Now Oconnor's replacement is another matter, it could be WW3 when it comes to her replacement..............
Not only has Katrina put the news about the justice appointment on the back burner is has also shut up Cindy Sheehan which is a good thing.........
ShamMol said:The problem is that now Roberts is now nominated to fill the spot of another conservative justice thus cancelling out any chance that he would change the dynamic of the court. Now, with the next apppointment Bush could pull a complete nobody out of his hat that is very conservative and thus truely tip the balance, or pick a moderate who is a friend or who has served with his administration (which he has tended to do before).
I think it is quite split evenly at the current moment and I am a moderate liberal...so.cnredd said:Since when did "balance" become an issue?
Tell me "where" in the Constitution it mentions how the Supreme Court should be "balanced"...That is nothing more than public perception...
Currently, many people believe the "Field of 9" is Liberal...Others believe it is Conservative...It can only be referenced by their own opinions.
Just as you say that a "very Conservative" nominee could "tip the balance", there is someone out there that says a "very Conservative" nominee could "make it more balanced because it was already tipping"...
ShamMol said:Honestly, it's not, but that is not the point and it really had no point in your post other than to make you feel great about yourself and your supposed great posistion.
The problem is that now Roberts is now nominated to fill the spot of another conservative justice thus cancelling out any chance that he would change the dynamic of the court. Now, with the next apppointment Bush could pull a complete nobody out of his hat that is very conservative and thus truely tip the balance, or pick a moderate who is a friend or who has served with his administration (which he has tended to do before).
Gonzales is what is known as both porven and unproven commodity because he has definite stances on very conservative issues, but still is known to be wavering on many of them. Basically, he could become moderate if he was appointed to the court as so many conservatives before him (Which for you navy would mean that it is not a good time to be a conservative).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?