Pacridge
DP Veteran
shuamort said:But why? I'm still trying to figure that out!
Could've been she was just waiting to give a really bad decision (emminent domain)? She's still there til October '06 if I read correctly. Get ready for the rumble next year (a la Nuclear Option).Pacridge said:Tired of the whole mess?
He also loves to quote the founders intent if I am not mistaken.shuamort said:Michael Luttig: A bit of Scalia (Mini-me). Voted that South Carolina’s “Choose Life” license plate violated the first amendment because it didn’t offer a pro-choice option as well.
Yeah, so another anti-abortion person who likes to attack civil liberties...I think we will se a trend here.shuamort said:John Roberts: Denied the civil rights claim of the 12 year old girl who ate a French fry in DC. She was handcuffed and arrested for violating the law. Argued that high school graduations can have religious ceremonies. Helped argue that doctors and clinic on the federal dole may not talk to patients about abortion.
Hey, hates abortion but realizes the legal ramifications...well, that is a start.shuamort said:Emilio Garza: Has concern about the death penalty. Agreed to strike down Louisiana law as unconstitutional because it criminalized abortion except for rape, incest et al.
Wow, alright then. Who here thinks that we should still have that....that is what I thought. So anti-civil liberties.shuamort said:Michael McConnell: Argued for school segregation saying that it was right under the 14th amendment.
Anti-civil liberties, anti-abortion, anti-a whole list of things. But dammit, he is qualified like hell.shuamort said:Alberto Gonzalez: Looks like a liberal in comparison to all of these freaks. Has supported things that borderline torture for the g-bay prisoners.
That is unfortunately the trend of this Congress as well, so I don't know...she could go through. I wanna know what she thinks about abortion though...shuamort said:Edith Clement: Seems to be for tort reform as she’s drastically lowered damage awards.
So are a lot of members of that court already. Anti-choice.shuamort said:Samuel Alito: Was for allowing a manger scene on public property and in a case that was thrown out, he wanted it to go forward. This man is a judicial activist for the Christians.
Great choice of the ones that are avaliable. I actually knew that he had done this and I was kinda happy when I heard his name being floated around.shuamort said:JH Wilkinson III: Was against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on the basis it violated the equal protection clause. (Yeah for him!) Voted that South Carolina’s “Choose Life” license plate violated the first amendment because it didn’t offer a pro-choice option as well (with Luttig)
Well, the reigning theory going is that the republicans will put up someone that has no chance of making it, the democrats will whine about that candidate while the real candidate walks in through the proverbial back door.Squawker said:It isn't going to be interesting, it is all predictable. Democrats will appose and destroy the reputation of anyone President Bush nominates. It is going to be a disgusting display of partisan politics.
You know what Squawker, stop with it. We all know that you hate partisan politics, but wait, are one of the biggest perps in the us vs. them mentality.Squawker said:It isn't going to be interesting, it is all predictable. Democrats will appose and destroy the reputation of anyone President Bush nominates. It is going to be a disgusting display of partisan politics.
shuamort said:Well, the reigning theory going is that the republicans will put up someone that has no chance of making it, the democrats will whine about that candidate while the real candidate walks in through the proverbial back door.
Completely agree. The Democractic leadership at this point realizes that they can't block every person they don't agree with. But they may realize this and try other methods.vauge said:I would not doubt that one bit. It's a good plan actually. Considering the blocking and filibustering the dems have done thus far it is probably the only successful plan of action.
Stop with giving my opinion? I don't think so. I hate the rhetoric that comes with partisanship. The hate Bush just because he exists mentality. Who ever Bush nominates the left will demonize and the rest of the puppets will follow suit. The left wants someone who will side with what they want, and won't tolerate anything less than that. There is no big surprise here ShamMol.You know what Squawker, stop with it. We all know that you hate partisan politics, but wait, are one of the biggest perps in the us vs. them mentality.
You think that conservativs should get anything they want without a fight. Well, let me tell you that is not the way politics work.
No, we want someone who is highly respected within the court. We want someone with high qualifications. We want someone that is not blinded by ideaology. We want someone who will not use their personal opinion when deciding cases. As Justice Kennedy once said (not exactly, but the idea), Don't put your personal opinion on others.Squawker said:Stop with giving my opinion? I don't think so. I hate the rhetoric that comes with partisanship. The hate Bush just because he exists mentality. Who ever Bush nominates the left will demonize and the rest of the puppets will follow suit. The left wants someone who will side with what they want, and won't tolerate anything less than that. There is no big surprise here ShamMol.
More unsubstantiated and more importantly prejudicial attacks against Democrats, how rare.Squawker said:It isn't going to be interesting, it is all predictable. Democrats will appose and destroy the reputation of anyone President Bush nominates. It is going to be a disgusting display of partisan politics.
Yet you seem to do so quite quickly in this thread. No, I agree, a free and independent of ideaology judicial system is what we need.GPS_Flex said:What’s really sad here is the way some of you seek to politicize the only branch of government that shouldn’t be political.
I am looking for them to interpret the consitution without political influence and to do what is right.Some of you are looking for judges to overrule congress and the people and want to give the judges unchecked power.
If the law is unconstitution, and thus bad, then it is gone, no questions asked.Judges are supposed to uphold the law, not rewrite it for the sake of fairness, evil vs. good or to stop terrible flaws in the laws we have on the books. That’s the job of Congress.
You just politicized it. Congrats. she isn't liberal by any fricking means. She voted what was legally right. Under the 1st, 5th, 9th and 14th amms. a person has the right to be secure in their own body.O’Connor was wrong on Roe. She should have told you pro-choice people to go amend the Constitution. Instead, she and other liberal judges legislated from the bench.
The constitution is a living document that must always be changing to fit the new needs of society and usually the Supreme Court has seen fit to do this. I don't give a frick about what is fair and unfair, I care about what is legally right and what is needed.The US Constitution and the laws aren’t that difficult to understand. I’m not sure why any of you want judges who won’t rule solely based upon the law unless you are expecting judges to fix all the things that are unfair and wrong with said laws.
Is that what you want?
How can anyone take someone seriously when in the same paragraph they bitch about how hating partisan politics and in the very next sentence this guy practices partisan politics?Squawker said:Stop with giving my opinion? I don't think so. I hate the rhetoric that comes with partisanship. The hate Bush just because he exists mentality. Who ever Bush nominates the left will demonize and the rest of the puppets will follow suit. The left wants someone who will side with what they want, and won't tolerate anything less than that.
GPS_Flex said:What’s really sad here is the way some of you seek to politicize the only branch of government that shouldn’t be political.
If I said I seek Judges whose main issue is strict interpretation of constitutional law only need apply, would that work? The Supreme Court is no place for activists of either side. In other words. What were the founding fathers thinking? Simple. Worked so far.
teacher said:You know, in all fairness, it wasn't the founding farthers who said the court was to interpret law...that was the Marbury court....though some people in the judicial system think they did enough to be considered founding fathers.If I said I seek Judges whose main issue is strict interpretation of constitutional law only need apply, would that work? The Supreme Court is no place for activists of either side. In other words. What were the founding fathers thinking? Simple. Worked so far.