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.

 

Scared about Bush's Two Picks For Supreme Court

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
I am really scared for America.

We have seen the fiascos of 9/11, the Iraq War, and Hurricane Katrina. How some people can still see Bush as a good president is beyond me. We have lost many basic freedoms. Big brother is watching us everywhere. The Patriot Acts have destroyed our constitution. With Bush being able to select two supreme court justices he will soon have nothing in his way. He can now pick two people that are as right radical as he is. He will have no problem appointing war mongers and people that will help take away our freedoms.

This must stop.




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I don't think he'll nominate "war mongers", but he'll be under a lot of pressure from his core group to nominate a justice who will tend to vote against Roe v Wade. I think Mr. Bush's emphasis for the balance of his presidency will be based on "morality" rather than realpolitik.

I think John Roberts is pretty much of a shoo-in for O'Connor; the real question will be whether the President will nominate a fire-breather like Miguel Estrada or a more centrist Edith Clement or Sonia Sotomayor to replace Rehnquist. My bet is the Bush will nominate either a woman or a Latino, given that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now the only woman on the court, and the most important minority in the United States has none.

Even more interesting is that if Bush nominates a hardline like Estrada, he just might not sustain Senatorial approval. Remember Robert Bork?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Robert Bork wasn't much of a diplomat though according to the pundits.
(I hate to say I'm taking anything from them, but hey, I wasn't even alive at the time so I'm not going to pretend to speak with authority when I don't)

I get the impression that you're basically expected to go to congress and be honest but ambiguous, and kiss as much butt as your lips can possibly accomodate (and be sure to brush so that your mouth doesn't contaminate your assailant's rectum).

I think that a hardliner could have a chance if he was extremely tactful and answered in terms of principles of interpretation and ruling on what the law says as opposed to what you would like it to say.

In a perfect world, a judges opinion on any given issue would be irrelevant, because the judges only have jurisdiction, literally the power to say the law. Frankly I find the term flawed because it shares a root with the word dictate, but in the common understanding of the term it is clear that judges are only supposed to be applying the law- their office is really a formality more than anything else as the law speaks for itself.

Originally (under the articles of confederation) there was no national judiciary. The congress itself resolved disputes between the states which might arise from different interpretations of the law, which at the time was practical because the Federal Government was not at that time overstepping its bounds by legislating on matters where it had no right to do so (see the PTS link in my signature to see what I mean, and forgive the shameless plug).

Here is what my public flogging from the senate would look like if I were a nominee:

Senator: "Would you rule to overturn Roe v. Wade."
Vagabond: "No, unless of course I was presented with a case in which the law as dictated by congress made that necessary"

Senator: "Assuming that the laws are what they currently are then. Was Roe v. Wade decided properly?
Vagabond: (being intentionally amiguous) "An opinion must be formed from careful study of the law. If I were to answer questions like that at the drop of a hat I would clearly not be Supreme Court material."

Senator: "Then I'll simplify the question. Is killing an unborn child murder?"
Vagabond: (feigning a laugh and giving an extremely ambigous answer) "Forgive me sir, but killing anyone is murder. The question would be if causing a child not to be born is infact killing, and again that is something that can not be answered with no study of the law, especially in simple yes or no form. Afterall, if I simply said yes to the question as I understand it, then everybody who isn't have sex at exactly this moment would be guilty of murder, no?"

Senator: "Are you stupid or something?"
Vagabond: "Definately something."



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   
I saw this comming months ago, scared me then. Makes me wonder what next.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Roy Moore or John Ashcroft should be high on the list. President Bush had better not wimp out when it comes to the Supreme Court. Democrats are in such a weakened position there is no need to worry about what they think. Just nominate the most conservative judge, and go for it!



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Carseller4 is the kind of person that scares me most during election time.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
@ GTWill

Educated, Informed and Republican. I can see why that would scare you.

Scared Democrats! That makes my day!



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GTWill
Carseller4 is the kind of person that scares me most during election time.


Carseller4 is the kind of American that voted for the idiot.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Excellent comments vagabond!

However, I'd like to comment on just a few of your points:


I think that a hardliner could have a chance if he was extremely tactful and answered in terms of principles of interpretation and ruling on what the law says as opposed to what you would like it to say.


The problem is that the democrats (and of course, the situation would be reversed if a Democrat President nominated an "activist" to the SCOTUS) have a litmus test, and they will try their best to get the nominee to say how he or she would vote. Bad plan; like you said, if you're going to spout off on your pre-programmed response to a non-existent case, you have no business being on the SCOTUS in the first place.



...but in the common understanding of the term it is clear that judges are only supposed to be applying the law- their office is really a formality more than anything else as the law speaks for itself.

Originally (under the articles of confederation) there was no national judiciary. The congress itself resolved disputes between the states which might arise from different interpretations of the law, which at the time was practical because the Federal Government was not at that time overstepping its bounds by legislating on matters where it had no right to do so (see the PTS link in my signature to see what I mean, and forgive the shameless plug).


The federal government didn't overstep its bounds under the Articles of Confederation because, for all practical purposes, there was no Federal Government.

And don't forget Marbury v Madison (1803), which, although we didn't know it at the time, paved the way for the SCOTUS to "veto" or "sustain" laws simply by determining their constitutionality.


Here is what my public flogging from the senate would look like if I were a nominee:


That's worth the WATS all by itself! Hilarious!!!



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Excellent comments vagabond!


Thanks, it means a lot coming from a member like you
.



The federal government didn't overstep its bounds under the Articles of Confederation because, for all practical purposes, there was no Federal Government.


That's a big part of my point in the thread I have linked in my sig. I contend that the scope of the federal government's domestic responsibility remained virtually unchanged when the Convention to amend the articles of confederation ended up producing a new constitution.
The Federal Government was never intended to govern the conduct of private citizens where the effects were confined wholly to one state, under either the articles or the constitution. The Federal Government was strictly for interstate conflict, commerce, relations, infrastructure, and foreign policy. It's easy to avoid overstepping those bounds, but once you get in the habit of doing it, there's no going back.


And don't forget Marbury v Madison (1803), which, although we didn't know it at the time, paved the way for the SCOTUS to "veto" or "sustain" laws simply by determining their constitutionality.


Marbury versus Madison is a peculiar decision and one that ought to be alarming to American sensibilities. To grant power to ones self is a very supicious thing. Ironically, Wikipedia traces the concept of Judicial Review back to Judge Edward Coke in the early 17th century, who's gave an opinion striking down the statutory authority of a medical licensing organization on the grounds that "no man should be the judge in his own case". Yet the SCOTUS was just that in awarding itself the power of judicial review (as was Coke himself for that matter).

Marbury v. Madison
The Federalist Papers do imply that the Supreme Court was meant to judge conflicts between statutes and the constitution, however they do not make the scope of this power clear.
I would argue that the scope of Federal authority, including the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS, is limited by the objectives stated in the preamble to the US Constitution and further still by the ends to which Congress may legislate as detailed in Article 1, Section 8 (I argue the application of the constraints of section 1 to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Supreme Court's authority is to interpet the law and that said law is passed by the congress and therefore must conform to the limitations of article 1).
That would mean that the Supreme Court only has the power of judicial view in cases where the effects of an unconstitutional law were felt on an interstate or international level. Otherwise state supreme courts would have to excercise judicial review over a statute, which is why our often ignored state constitutions are actually very important documents. Why else would a state really need a consititution, rather than simply adopting the US constitution verbatim for their state as well?

Just my way of seeing it though. I know dang well that if I asked the SCOTUS to take an interest in my opinion, they'd tell me that I'll only find interest in the dictionary between intercourse and intestinal parasites.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I get so tired of hearing about this drivel concerning Roe vs Wade. It has become such emotional claptrap and passes for social excellence and expertise in political seduction.
Anyone who has any kind of lengthy attention span back through the years and watchs any history in the making knows that Roe vs Wade was the litmus test for such a long time concerning any office in the land including dog catcher. The litmus test for so many years was not whether one was qualified to run for any office but ones stance on Abortion.
Abortion and Roe vs Wade has been used to whore out politics and gaurantee by womens emotions which candidate will make public office..especially in high electorial vote states where the left and left media has its monopolys.
It seems that across this country today much of the appeal of Roe vs Wade is weakened. Many of the young women coming up today do not have the zeal concerning this issue as did thier mothers . I suggest to you that this issue may die on the vine given enough time ..not by virtue or non virtue of the whoredom called politics but because the public tires of it and it loses its importance.
Roe vs Wade is nonetheless a issue for which the democrat party is heavily dependent as a issue to galvanize women voters into garuanteed controlable predictable votes. Like puppets on a string. Hence the importance of getting certian people to the courts across this country and particularly to "stack" the correct people onto the Supreme Court of the Land. Failing this they must find ways to keep the competition off the bench. Here they use their fear mongers...the media to sow fear and trembling across the land. This too is whoredom on the part of the media who are shilling for thier respective partys.
Roe vs Wade is about votes..not abortion. Never has been about abortion....ever. Some of you people ought to be smarter than this.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4
@ GTWill



Scared Democrats! That makes my day!



Watching the Republicans explaining about the Katrina response today; they looked like deer caught in the headlights to me.

I may be wrong but The President is going lightweight in the justice appointments.

I'm a Republican but Iv'e lost all faith in the GOP. If they don't care about Americas borders, I don't care about them. Not to mention Government is now much bigger than in any democratic administration. Also NAFTA sucks!!

[edit on 4-9-2005 by whaaa]

[edit on 4-9-2005 by whaaa]

[edit on 4-9-2005 by whaaa]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I get so tired of hearing about this drivel concerning Roe vs Wade. It has become such emotional claptrap and passes for social excellence and expertise in political seduction.


And this is precisely my point. Political seduction. I'm not so sure that the Federal government has any business interfering with abortion laws. My lastest epiphany from my study of American government is that the political machines (more commonly known as parties) are pressing emotional issues which their offices have no constitutional authority over because the ensuing fear and division keeps them in power.

If you ever want to have some extremely entertaining education, rent the movie "The Distinguished Gentleman". It's an Eddie Murphy flick about a con artist who gets into congress on name recognition by assuming the name of a recently deceased congressman from his district. He quickly discovers that no matter what side of a given issue he takes, there's somebody lined up to pay him for taking that position.
I feel that the parties have basically either tacitly or expressly agreed to take opposite positions on issues they dont care about an purposely fail to resolve them once and for all, because the resultant lobbying and division yields enormous money and power to each of them. It doesn't even matter who takes which side theoretically because there are lobbyists and PACs for both sides.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

posted by The Vagabond

And this is precisely my point. Political seduction. I'm not so sure that the Federal government has any business interfering with abortion laws. My lastest epiphany from my study of American government is that the political machines (more commonly known as parties) are pressing emotional issues which their offices have no constitutional authority over because the ensuing fear and division keeps them in power..


Yes, I agree Vagabond. Fear is what keeps them in power. Just like Terrorists.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I am very conservative. I do not however identify with the republican party as being conservative.
My conclusion over years of observing wildlife in its natural habitat...is that the major political partys are out for the partys ...not necessarily the American People. The political partys are what counts not the public.
This is in essence "Feudalism" a royalty operating under the guise of "looking out for the American People" The correct name or this is "Whoredom". It is not much different from the Feudal Paganism which is recorded in many of the kingdoms in historys past. A royalty with entitlements.
The technique most often used is fear. This used primarily by the Democratic party but not foreign to the Republicans either. Fear combined with a generation of overly emotional predictable puppets on a string as a voting base..is what often gaurantees continued political power. We have become conditioned by public schooling/tv education and makeover shows to be overly emotional first and thinking if at all...later. Emotional Jag/entitlements is what passes for excellence today ..not real thinking and work ethic. This is a very effective and powerful tool on people needed for an emotional attention span just long enough to pull a lever in a voting booth. After that ..who cares..not the political partys.
I keep thinking of that famous often repeated speech of former Vice President Al Gore..where he stated... "he played on our fears!!!"
This keeps playing over and over in my mind when I think of this technique...the democrats use it the most but by no means turn your back on the republicans.
I dont have much respect for this kind of whoredom..from anyone. It is intresting to follow the path of this political arena and contrast it with what is known of the political path of Ancient Rome complete with deficits , inflation, conspiracys et al.


Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Keep in mind through this post the power of emotional claptrap/entitlements and how it effects peoples perspectives.

First off...it is long since forgotten about Hurriane Hugo and Hurricane Andrew...since attention spans in this new "enlightened " generation are not much longer that the next sound bite.
Facts are that under these two Hurricanes it took four to five days for help in any sizable amount to arrive and get organized. Remember that this was not under flood conditions as is the case in New Orleans. Most of us have forgotten this history. Hurrican Andrew was also a very powerful hurricane and its effects are still felt in Florida today.
Now contrast this with New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. Remember also that people have been warning for two decades that building heavy populated areas with todays lowered building codes and standards is not a smart idea along hurricane prone coastlines. Has anyone listened.?
Remember also that in those two Hurricanes mentioned Andrew and Hugo there was not the extensive flooding as is the case particularly in New Orleans.
Any natural disaster that occurs..is prime political opportunity for a party out of power..this is a given..and they will whore out public emotions to get political leverage..this is the lowest kind of whoredome possible. On the backs of the public in dire straights.
I doubt that any party in power could have done better and faster . I remember what happened in Hugo and Andrew and how long it took to get aid going and this was not under such extensive flooding.
I was in Boloxi, Mississippi three months after Hurrican Camille in 1969. I remember the trees three months later ..still leaning inland from the winds. I am sure Boloxi, Pas Christian, Pascogula are more heavily built up and commercialized since then. I am also sure that nothing was done to prepare New Orleans for any disaster of this type or scale.
I am waiting to see who is going to buy up New Orleans for pennys on the dollar ..or who/when the prime real estate will be emminent domained for sale to others..once again ..for pennys on the dollar. This is going to be intresting. Nothing has been mentioned yet but you can be sure the vultures are circling.
I hate whining/blaming ...of this caliber....in these kinds of disasters. It is the cheapest type of politics. Cheap sound bite politics.
The task remaining to be done is enormous..you can bet these whining sound bite politicians will not be around when the hard difficult emotional day to day work is being done..they will only be around for the ribbon cutting ceremonies. Sickening!!

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
OT1999

I love bright, insightful ladies that think out of the box! You're right of course.

My dilemma; do I become a whore if I invest in the real estate consortiumns
that are bound to spring up like weeds very soon.
Is it exploitation or business as usual.
Was I a whore when I invested in a security camera company after 911.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I am very conservative. I do not however identify with the republican party as being conservative.


I agree with you. Why is it that a fundementalist muslim is a radical but a fundementalist christian is a conservative? What kind of conservative supports defecit spending outside of Keynesian Economics (where you spend to create jobs and increase tax revenues, theoretically eliminating said defecit eventually)?


My conclusion over years of observing wildlife in its natural habitat...is that the major political partys are out for the partys


Agreed again. The parties are strictly looking out for number one, as I think I've made pretty clear in my recent posts in this thread and related ones.


This is in essence "Feudalism" a royalty operating under the guise of "looking out for the American People" The correct name or this is "Whoredom".


Actually it's called Kleptocracy. Rule by Thieves. There ae dangers of feudalism associated with certain trends in America (especially the growing difficulty of living without heavy debt, and the expanding power of employers over workers) but the government itself is essentially being run by "good ol' boys clubs" which spend most of their time dipping their grubby paws into the treasury, which as I said is generally termed Kleptocracy when it happens in Africa.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GTWill
Carseller4 is the kind of person that scares me most during election time.


And you are the kind of person that scares me - all the time.

I'm not too sure about Ashcroft, I'd hope he'd stick to the constitution a little closer as a judge than he has as AG, but I know that Moore has a good grasp of the constitution and would adjudicate according to it, not contrary to it for political purposes.
Of course, I know that scares the crap out of some people.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
you posted:

"OT1999

"I love bright, insightful ladies that think out of the box! You're right of course.

My dilemma; do I become a whore if I invest in the real estate consortiumns
that are bound to spring up like weeds very soon.
Is it exploitation or business as usual.
Was I a whore when I invested in a security camera company after 911. "

First off...I should clarify My dissappointment with whiners and whores refers to politicians particulary the whining type that seems to be so prevalent in Louisiana. I dispise that kind of blame making when there are bigger issues at hand. That is the crux of my previous post. It did not refer to you. I apologize for any such mistaken inference.

I am very disappointed in the fact that this administration feels the need to kow kow...to the democrat political technique of fingerpointing and blaming as you stated like a deer in the headlights. One look at all the school buses in the lots told me plenty. They are underwater in the parking lots.
I am also aware that under the local charter and emergency preparedness acts ..the local and state governments have the responsibilitys for public safety in these cases and it is written in their proceedures.
Federal help is definitely needed in this case but it is primarily the states responsibility first and foremost. It was very dissappointing to see the response of the state governor when making a inspection tour with the President play politics rather than really working together.

As to "whoredom" this is a term that goes back to ancient times ..biblical times and refers primarily to spiritual whoredom...eventually leading to every other type of whoredom imagineable and practiced by many of the ancients. This continues today in the form of politics
The question is are you a politician ..of the type refered to here or just a buisnessman trying to make a living? This type of emminant domain is often done by politicians to keep their adepts in buisness for pennys on the dollar and keep others out. A concept not known by the general public..for good reason. This has been done aplenty here in this city. "Those seeking for that which was lost."

Thanks,
Orangetom




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join