View Full Version : O'Connor retires
kenwoodallpromos
07-01-2005, 11:59 AM
I hear this this morning.
Any guesses as to replacements? I suppose Bush wants Reed.
OP'connor quitting!
No chance of an All in the Family reunion now!
D'oh!
so.cal.fan
07-02-2005, 11:12 AM
I wish you were on the supreme court, Tom.
Kreed
07-03-2005, 09:22 AM
I think Sandra was very wise & Bush could pick a great replacement. I just
want a very bright, reflective mind on that bench because many more complex
issues are bound to come up soon --- more so than in the past few years.
Lefty
07-03-2005, 11:58 AM
We don't need any more moderates or libs on the court. We need a conservative who will interpret the constitution and stick with it and not make new law that's against it.
Topcat
07-03-2005, 12:56 PM
I think Sandra was very wise & Bush could pick a great replacement. I just
want a very bright, reflective mind on that bench because many more complex
issues are bound to come up soon --- more so than in the past few years.
That would be Michael McConnell of the 10th Circuit Court. He is widely acknowledged in academia as perhaps the brightest judicial mind on the bench. But becasue is a strict constructionist he will be oposed by the Democratic Senators.
I heard that in preliminary moves, a decent list of candidates, including at least one Hispanic was suubmitted to Senator Harry Reid and he was asked which he could support and he said none of them.
I believe the Democratic elite will oppose anyone who is not a liberal judge.
Kreed
07-03-2005, 01:19 PM
Like most things you type I have really NO idea what you mean by conservative
who interpets the constitution etc etc. While those words are English words
they mean anything anyone wants them to. If anyone INTERPETS anything, it implies that a brain imposes order & meaning to a circumstance. You wont ever be happy unless a Supreme does what you like, period. Your defintion of whats right is what you agree with ... no imagination, no nuance.
We don't need any more moderates or libs on the court. We need a conservative who will interpret the constitution and stick with it and not make new law that's against it.
Would you be talking about the recent case where 3 republican appointees agreed to allow the gubermint to confiscate your castle?
Interpet the cosntitution like it was meant to be...unlike the recent decsion to not allow person property rights anymore. A judge who would sit with dignity and accountablility, not like 5 of the bottom feeding bozos we have sitting there right now.
Lefty
07-03-2005, 07:38 PM
kreed, yep, i want the constitution to be upheld and youse guys, the libs, want anything ya want, like abortion upon demand and secularism.
lbj, exactly what i'm talking about, no more moderates to appease the loser dems. More like Scalia, Rhenquist and Thomas. Yep, that's the ticket.
Thomas is good, but don't ever take a Coke from him! :D
Lefty
07-03-2005, 08:02 PM
Topcat, you can rest assured the dems won't back anyone Bush wants and will attempt their filibuster. They can't stand to be losers and will whine and smear and trash and whine. The truth is just a word in the dictionary to them.
Lefty
07-03-2005, 08:11 PM
Tom, at least not unless you're prepared to follow him around for 10 yrs like Anita Hill did. LOL!
Buckeye
07-04-2005, 02:08 AM
Interpretation is where it all starts. Application would be better.
Just my opinion.
Bush is stubborn. Don't know if this is caused by ignorance or bull headedness but he is stubborn and will nominate a right wing radical. Senate fight will be fun to watch. Tune up your C-Span.
Lefty
07-04-2005, 08:10 PM
What's stubborn about winners wanting to nominat people of like mind? The dems have packed the court with libs in the past and now it's our turn. Maybe it's you and your fellow dems who are the ignorant ones. Could be, hmmmm?
46zilzal
07-04-2005, 10:36 PM
Bush is stubborn. Don't know if this is caused by ignorance or bull headedness but he is stubborn and will nominate a right wing radical. Senate fight will be fun to watch. Tune up your C-Span.
This guy has an opportunity to IMPRESS even his detractors by doing what is right rather than what BOLSTERS reactionary politics....Given that historical step, one would THINK that a rational person would look down the line at doing what is best for all the people (you know, the ones he CLAIMS TO REPRESENT??) NOT the $1000 a plate political hacks.
Lefty
07-04-2005, 11:41 PM
46sk, Bush will do the right thing and the right thing is no liberal and no moderate but a conservative. It's the libs and mods who do crazy things like take away private property rights and the roe vs wade debacle.
The libs lost and Bush gets to choose. Pigsimple!
Talk about stubborn! What are YOU guys????
46....Bush will nominate a person who is qualified and will know his role is to interpret the constitution and not legislate from the bench. This is what the majority of Americans want, so he is doing what we think he should to represent us. I speak from the majority - RED folks.
You guys had a chance to put a dem in office and blew it with that FOOL and his side kick, Robin. You are what is called the minority. You don't get represented. :lol: :jump: :lol:
46zilzal
07-06-2005, 09:58 PM
46....Bush will nominate a person who is qualified and will know his role is to interpret the constitution and not legislate from the bench.
Bet he nominates somone echoing his reactionary agenda NOT what the people care about.
Bet he nominates somone echoing his reactionary agenda NOT what the people care about.
Read my lips......WHAT the people care about. WE elected him. WE care about what YOU don't.
How about nominating Bolton? :jump:
Lefty
07-06-2005, 11:33 PM
46sc, got a bit of news fer ya. Bush ran on the principle that one of the things he would do would be to nominate a scalia "type" to the Supreme Court and guess what 46sc, he won and now he gets to choose.
BTW, better take care of your own govt in Canada and not worry about this one cause I just heard there are 50 terrorist groups operating in Canada. Watch your head, you may be participating whether yuh wanta or not.
46zilzal
07-07-2005, 01:59 AM
BTW, better take care of your own govt in Canada and not worry about this one cause I just heard there are 50 terrorist groups operating in Canada. Watch your head, you may be participating whether yuh wanta or not.
Send up the troops!!!! quickly!!! so the MccCarthy types can start ANOTHER witch hunt:different Name (terrorits vs. commie) but same idea of the Salem witch trials. I don't care what the neighbors do, because like anywhere on earth, I can't change things.
P.S. I am not part of ANY gubb'ment
Lefty
07-07-2005, 11:25 AM
46sc, if you're a dr. i wouldn't wanta be a patient. You are very dense.
BTW, you ARE part of the government. You're just too dense to realize it.
Bobby
07-07-2005, 11:49 AM
I'd be shocked to see Bush nominate a moderate. His dad nominated Souter and look what happened to him - he's sides with left. So Lessons learned I believe.
The republicans are scoffing at Gonzales b/c he ain't tough enough on abortion. Do I hear a bork or clarence thomas coming?
Lefty
07-07-2005, 12:22 PM
yep, G.H. Bush nominated Souter, you see, the repubs don't put nominees to the litmus test that dems do. Happily, he also nominated Thomas, so he's batting .500.
Big Bill
07-07-2005, 11:38 PM
I enjoy your serious posts, but I think it is time for a little Jay Leno humor:
"As you know, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner is stepping down. She didn’t want to resign — she just wants to make sure she’s home so nobody can seize her house."
Big Bill
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.