It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rove outed - new SC justice to pack court and get him off?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Now that Karl Rove has been outed as the Plame leak, I started to wonder if O'Connor's resignation and the appointment of a new justice might be designed to pack the court to get him off if he gets prosecuted.

7 of the Justices were appointed by Republicans, but some of them have a tendency to vote toward the left. There could be concern that on such a major issue involving national security, the justices might rule against Rove rather than for him. Following the ruling forcing the press to reveal their sources, the fears would escalate. This might be a special concern with O'Connor because of the fact that she has done just that many times in the past.

Could O'Connor have been forced to resign to allow BushCo to pack the court with someone new who could force a ruling to go Rove's way?

I feel certain that on such an important issue, the justices would have been carefully surveyed to see how they might rule in a 'hypothetical' circumstance ....




posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh


Could O'Connor have been forced to resign to allow BushCo to pack the court with someone new who could force a ruling to go Rove's way?



Of course she could have been forced, very doubtful she was.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   


very doubtful she was.


What is your evidence and reasoning for thinking this?

Her resignation was unexpected, that's for sure. Rehnquist hasn't resigned for some reason, although he has plenty of reasons to.

IMO, the whole thing is pretty odd. Timing, the justice who resigned, the Rove story breaking at the same time ...

Circumstancial evidence looks bad, IMO.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh


very doubtful she was.


What is your evidence and reasoning for thinking this?

Her resignation was unexpected, that's for sure. .



I will give you my reasoning, only if you dont turn it into a debate, I hate bush as much as the next guy, but we cant see everything that happens as his doing, frankly he isnt that smart.

My reasoning, she is old and she wants to be with her sick husban. Who wants to work forever? She is like 80 something? She wants to live the rest of her life as stressless as can be. It may even add years to her life. IMO

[edit on 3-7-2005 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   


I hate bush as much as the next guy, but we cant see everything that happens as his doing, frankly he isnt that smart.


I would tend to agree. The question is - is Rove that smart? Some have said that Bush knew what Rove was doing when he blabbed about Plame, but he gave Rove a free hand. I could envision the same thing happening as Rove tried to keep himself out of jail. I think Rove is more than capable of pressuring O'Connor into quitting, and convincing Bush to appoint Rove's hand picked successor. After all, Bush wouldn't want the scandal going into the 2006 elections any more than Rove would. Especially if it could by some stretch end up pinned on Bush himself.



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Im sorry, I think I am, was confused about who we where talking about.

[edit on 3-7-2005 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   
I have zero faith in anything the Supreme Court rules on since they appointed Heir Bush to the throne. ZERO FAITH!

Related subject:

www.mindtoysrus.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Now that Karl Rove has been outed as the Plame leak, I started to wonder if O'Connor's resignation and the appointment of a new justice might be designed to pack the court to get him off if he gets prosecuted.


Why go to all that trouble when (on the chance that Karl Rove did something wrong, and was convicted) a Presidential Pardon is far quicker? To get a case to the Supreme Court takes years, a pardon is the stroke of a pen, if you were Karl, which would you "take to the bank?"

Occam Monkeys, not just for the simplest explanation anymore...



posted on Jul, 3 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I will give you my reasoning, only if you dont turn it into a debate, I hate bush as much as the next guy, but we cant see everything that happens as his doing, frankly he isnt that smart.


Hate to tell you guys, but young George is only a mouthpiece. Not much of what happens in the Whitehouse is a direct result of something Jr. thought of on his own, because you're right, he isn't that smart. Its just that the buck stops at the prez's desk and he takes the heat.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
Why go to all that trouble when (on the chance that Karl Rove did something wrong, and was convicted) a Presidential Pardon is far quicker? To get a case to the Supreme Court takes years, a pardon is the stroke of a pen, if you were Karl, which would you "take to the bank?"


Come on Mr. Monkey, you know better then this. There is a large problem with a Presidential Pardon, actually there are two. As far as I know (and I did a quick search) Bush has yet to give one and secondly it gets a lot of people to "look" at it. If the public think he is guilty, but the courts let him off this would only cause "minor" friction but if the "President(mouth-piece)" let him off it could cause "major" friction.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I agree with MirthfulMe, plus the Supreme Court wouldn't be the court of original jurisdiction in this case, he'd have to be found guilty by a jury in a district court then have that upheld by a circuit court of appeals before it would ever make it to the Supreme Court. That process could take a decade.




top topics



 
0

log in

join