Time for a New Conservative Supreme Court!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
what are you saying? Are you saying that it would be crazy to nominate a conservative? I've had a few beers. Sorry if I need a little more 'splainin.




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
what are you saying? Are you saying that it would be crazy to nominate a conservative? I've had a few beers. Sorry if I need a little more 'splainin.


Boy what a way to open a can of worms.

Appoint a modrate consertive but avoid anybody who wants to regulate society there like commuisnts the only differnce being commuinsts aim to create there verison of a utopia thou redistrubation of wealth. The other kind of nut case wants to create a utopia by imposing there morals on society.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Boy what a way to open a can of worms.

Appoint a modrate consertive but avoid anybody who wants to regulate society there like commuisnts the only differnce being commuinsts aim to create there verison of a utopia thou redistrubation of wealth. The other kind of nut case wants to create a utopia by imposing there morals on society.


So, what is worse?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


So, what is worse?


Gee thats a tough question.
There both as bad as each other the future you go along the political spectrum the more the left/right have in common. Its really only the modrates and middle roaders that provide any genuine differnce in political ideals.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   
You know, I used to despise moderates.. like God said in the Revelations.. Are ye hot or cold; choose, lest I spew you out of my mouth. That's pretty hot rhetoric.

But these days, I find myself taking the more moderate ground. And being well with that. As a Republican. The thing is, I don't get my marching orders from Ralph Reed, Karl Rove, D. James Kennedy or James Dobson. I formulate my own opinons based on what I see and what I know.

Screw the huxters among us!



[edit on 7/4/05 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Gonzales is the only smart choice.

He courts Hispanic voters, and doesn't lose women. He protects the rear guard of the GOP on 06, and Roe stays in tact. Gonzales sails through the confirmation hearing, with limited Democratic surface wrangling - all for show of course, and everybody talks about Washington's new spirit bi-partisanship.

If Bush nominates a hardline conservative, I bet a case of beer that his popularity numbers drop into the thirties, and the nominee fails in the senate, because moderate senators jump ship. The extremism dam is bursting, because people are just plain sick of it.

Regardless, there're gonna be a whole lot of upset people come October.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Good call brimstone.


Yup, Luntz has fumbled the past few test ballons out of his focus groups. Nobody bit on the manufactured "Constitutional Crisis" of Schiavogate, nobody buys the "Nuclear Option" as "Constitutional" and nobody besides the hardline 30 percenters support anything this [p]resident wants to do or has done.

If he doesn't go for a moderate smooth sailing nominee the mainstream GOP will divorce themselves from Bush's reality to save face for '06.

I've never seen it this bad for any party supposedly in power. I kind of hope they go hardline though. Let's just end the false notion the GOP caters to process or moderate conservatives at all.

It's a social conservatives religious club now. They should stick to tongue clucking, knitting and bingo in the Church basement. The light of day exposed them for what they are. Moonies.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by RANT]



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I personally would like to see a "Mid to hard-Line" Conservative, after the elections, things could get nasty either way and I would like to see a right leaning judge on the bench now and not later.

Look the tulipwalkers are going to cry foul no matter who Bush appoints, and if he is anything like his father he will cater to the middle not wanting to pick a fight.

Well, the 2004 election gave Bush the right and now he should appoint a good constitutionalist and not a legislative judge, notice by saying that, that means not anyone near a leftist judge.

He either does it now or he dont..If he gets a second appointment then great, that would be the time to get a moderate, but for now....not that time...


crap I got to go.....



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Ed Prado is the smart choice instead of a hack like Gonzales... but Dobson would literally launch nuclear missiles at the White House. He still might if Bush nominates someone who isn't clearly for overturning Roe vs. Wade.

Bush really only has two options. Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen.

If he picks a "moderate" (and who are we kidding? Gonzales is no moderate. Torture. Pro-business/anti-individual rights. And a serious lack of ethics, especially when it comes to taking bribes from Halliburton. Other than having a dubious position on Roe vs. Wade based on the one parental notification case where he didn't rule in favor of informing the parents and a comment he made in support of the ability of the Supreme Court to interpret existing abortion laws, he is as conservative as Owen), rather nominates someone who may uphold Roe vs. Wade, he will save face with the country, but the partnership with the evangelicals will be over. You can imagine the marches, petitions, preaching and tent revivals that will follow. And the smears, the name-calling, the deceit, the finger-pointing...

While I would enjoy watching some crazy-on--crazy action, I can't see Bush biting the hand that elected him. If he nominates an ultra-conservative "Constitution-in-Exile" activist, he will meet his overdue commitment to Dobson, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins and all the other American Taliban that are now running (over) the country.

Brown or Owen fit the bill. Both are pro-life right-wing lunatics dead set on ensuring that every American will be living on a nuclear waste dump and working 90 hours a week in a sweat-shop. However, because they just went through successful confirmation hearings, Dems will come off looking like obstructionists if they block the nominations. By the time the new court starts destroying the country, it will be old news that can easily be diverted by another Siamese twin separation...or they can have Jeb let a serial killer escape or whip up a hurricane in Florida.



posted on Jul, 5 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Ed Prado is the smart choice instead of a hack like Gonzales... but Dobson would literally launch nuclear missiles at the White House. He still might if Bush nominates someone who isn't clearly for overturning Roe vs. Wade.


Luckily for Bush, Dobson is completely irrelevant. A defection to the left by Christian Conservatives is every bit as unthinkable (if not more so) than a defection to the write by gay african americans. The left has nothing to offer Dobson's followers as far as they are concerned- they have to keep voting conservative no matter who Bush nominates.



If he picks a "moderate" (and who are we kidding? Gonzales is no moderate. Torture. Pro-business/anti-individual rights. And a serious lack of ethics, especially when it comes to taking bribes from Halliburton. Other than having a dubious position on Roe vs. Wade based on the one parental notification case


By Bush's standards, he's a moderate. Corruption isn't necessarily extremist anyway, and of course he's corrupt. Let an honest senator be the first man to vote against him and he gets a unanimous confirmation. He's sure as heck no John Ashcroft, and he hasn't publically stated that the New Deal is incompatible with democracy and the US constitution, unlike Janice Brown.
He's not nearly as attackable as a "constitution in exile" judge, and his skin is brown, so it's less likely that the democrats will force the Republicans into the nuclear option over him.


While I would enjoy watching some crazy-on--crazy action, I can't see Bush biting the hand that elected him. (snip)
and all the other American Taliban that are now running (over) the country.


I love religious and secular fanatics- they each think eachother is running the country. The only thing they can agree on is that Christan Conservatives elected Bush, which I don't believe is true.
In my humble opinion, Bush was elected by the likes of Milosevich, Lewinsky, and Gore. Americans just wanted the White House to stay out of the news and lower their taxes and gas prices. He was re-elected by John Kerry, who did a better job of rallying the nationalist base of the Republican party than any Republican candidate short of the reanimated corpse of Patton himself could have ever done. Seriously- which are democrats more commonly called: Sinners or Tulip-walkers?
Even if they had elected him though, they didn't vote FOR him, they voted AGAINST his opponents.


Brown or Owen fit the bill. Both are pro-life right-wing lunatics dead set on ensuring that every American will be living on a nuclear waste dump and working 90 hours a week in a sweat-shop.


You ignored one other thing that those nominees promise: a fillibuster, followed by a nuclear option, possibly followed by a 6-3 defeat of the Nuclear Option in the Supreme Court, ultimately followed by a Democrat controlled Senate in 2006 and a high probability of a Democrat controlled White House in 2008.
You can paint Republicans as a bunch of fascist lunatics all day long, and I may or may not agree with you on every point, but they're not politically inept (for the most part).

I strongly stand by my belief that we're looking at either Gonzalez or John G. Roberts.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You ignored one other thing that those nominees promise: a fillibuster, followed by a nuclear option, possibly followed by a 6-3 defeat of the Nuclear Option in the Supreme Court


There's absolutely no way that the Nuclear Option would be even heard by the Court. The Constitution clearly gives plenary power to the houses of Congress to develop their own rules, and if the majority of the Senate votes to get rid of the filibuster of judicial nominees, the Court will not and can not do anything about it even if they wanted to.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
There's absolutely no way that the Nuclear Option would be even heard by the Court. The Constitution clearly gives plenary power to the houses of Congress to develop their own rules, and if the majority of the Senate votes to get rid of the filibuster of judicial nominees, the Court will not and can not do anything about it even if they wanted to.


True in theory, but who has the authority to "interpret" (read, alter by judicial activism) the scope and intent of constitutional law?



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
True in theory, but who has the authority to "interpret" (read, alter by judicial activism) the scope and intent of constitutional law?


That would unprecedented if they ever took a case...who would sue anyway? I guess a Senator could sue the Senate in Federal Court, but I just don't see even the most activist judges taking that one...if they did we could kiss the Republic goodbye and be ruled totally authoritatively by the 9 justices of the Supreme Court.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I think it will depend a great deal on public opinion, and the view of the justices themselves.

Suppose for a minute that the Senate rules were ammended in a truly incredible way that was patently designed to push through laws that could never pass in a truly democratic vote. The Supremes would HAVE to step in and make an unprecedented move to save our democracy in the face of an unprecedented attempt to circumvent democracy in the Senate.

I'm not saying that's what the nuclear option is- I'm just saying that while perception is not reality, perception does dictate reaction to reality.

It's out there I grant you- maybe not even remotely probable- so I could easily be wrong. (although I feel that I am dead right on the issue that the nuclear option means losing the senate and probably the white house)
I don't see it as impossible though.

Bush would have to totally screw the party (and his brother) to nominate Janice Rogers Brown, unless he had some kind of insurance that there would be no fillibuster.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I strongly stand by my belief that we're looking at either Gonzalez or John G. Roberts.


Hmm, there was something I meant to say... I can't remember what it was exactly. Give me a minute and it will come to me. I think it started with an "I". I... I... dangit... hmm... oh yeah, I remember. I told you so.

Next step is for Rehnquist to suddenly reconsider his promise not to resign, citing unexpected deterioration of health (rather real or imaginary), and for Bush to either put up Janice Rogers Brown or a hispanic- probably Gonzalez in that case.
Chances of Rehnquist resigning go WAY up if the Democrats take the senate in 2006. They'd have to replace him with a big time moderate in that case, and frankly I think the democrats would keep killing nominees until 2008 in that case unless Bush sent them a pro-choicer, but Rehnquist and the Republicans would have to try to put a moderate in if they were looking at the prospect of a Democrat President sending a liberal nominee to a Democrat senate at some point between 2008-2012 if Rehnquist waited.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join