It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


NEWS: Bush Nominates Roberts For Chief Justice

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:04 PM

Originally posted by marg6043

I am a woman and I said this man stinks and if you are a man that believe that women rights belong in the kitchen like fundamentalist do then he is a religious poppet.

Boy that was a quick 360 earlier you said he would make a good Chief Justice. Make up your mind already.

If nominating an African American as chief is no even considerate them I have an issue with that also.

What do you have a crystal ball that you know who he is or is not considering?

And as for women rights I guess shots you most like to have women under your foot. Right?

Do not put words in my mouth I never said where I stand on Womens rights so how do you know where I stand? Must be that crystal ball of yours again. Hate to tell you this but it is broken

So is ok for Mr. Roberts that has hold his present position for only a few years to become the “Chief Justice”

psst Roberts has only been on the court for a month or so, not a few years.

Bet you got that info from your crystal ball about how long he has been in office huh?

[edit on 9/5/2005 by shots]

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:54 PM

quote: Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Of the sixteen Chiefs of the Supreme Court, 11, or over two-thirds, first came to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice, and only five were promoted from Associate Justice. What Bush is doing is the rule, not the exception.
You can also see that since 1910 half of the Chief Justices have been on the Supreme court beforehand. Kind of a different slant, no? That makes the move a bit equivocal rather than adhering to concrete precedent dont you think?

Not at all. Face it, subz, you implied that what Bush did was something out of the ordinary, and it wasn't. You were busted.

quote: Originally posted by Off_The_Street
What makes you think they weren't approved of by the Senate?
Nothing, thats not what I was asking. I was asking how many appointments to the Supreme Court, that you listed, were done so without the confirmation of the Senate? Roberts hasnt been confirmed by the senate yet and its likely Bush will appoint him in recess, like he did with Bolton.

None of the appointments to the US Supreme Court were done in recess, which you'd have known if you'd researched the subject rather than having me do if for you. Interestingly enough, one justice was turned down for Associate Justice by the Senate and was later confirmed by the Senate for Chief Justice. Another was confirmed by the Senate for Associate Justice, served for a couple of months, quit to do something else, and was later nominated (and confirmed by the Senate) to be Chief Justice. Another guy went from being President of the United States to being Chief Justice, too.

Bush's yeehaw (do tell, did I spell that colloquialism right?)...

Actually, it's "yee-haw", but I'll let it slide.

...nomination was quicker than he took to respond to Katrina. Rehnquist has only been dead since Saturday and he nominates Roberts on Sunday. He hog-tied this political issue lickity split

And you're surprised? Here's his chance to get a freebie. Who wouldn't play it to his political advantage?

Also he originally nominated Roberts to replace O'Connor but quickly changed his mind when Rehnquist popped his clogs. He did this to avoid the obvious gap between O'Connor's liberalism and Robert's conservatism. Rehnquist's views are closer to Roberts own.

I doubt it. He's going to appoint as conservative a person as he can get away with anyway. But he figured that Roberts is already a shoo-in, so better to concentrate on the new person (whomever that may be) going in as an Associate Justice; there' probably be a bit less questioning that way.

quote: Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Quit being a crybaby, subz. If someone starts pontificating with the sole reason of slamming the administration of the United States, he can be expected to be called on it -- especially if he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Buddy, you are not impressing any one with your insults. You can make your posts without them and the content remains the same Remember, you are not George W. Bush, I never insulted you so save your trolling.

At the risk of being redundant, quit being a crybaby. If someone catching you in a mistake and pointing it out to you is too tough for you to handle, we can change the subject to something safer, like your present Prime Minister George Galloway, whom I think you are treating quite shabbily, just because he divorced Princess Diana and married Camilla Parker-Bowles.

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:23 AM
Off_The_Street, you are the only one enjoying your sparkling repartee. I do think you think a bit too highly of your own opinion.

I said Bush was acting like a "cowboy", not that he was doing anything unprecedented. You can interpret whatever the hell you want into that and you can put 2 + 2 together and get 5. You think you have caught me out in some glaring mistake, you havent. You are not the holier than thou mastermind you think you are so quit being so damn sarcastic, no one is laughing.

I stand by what I said about Bush, you can whine as much and hissy-fit and name call all you like and I really wont budge. Good day

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:46 PM
subz... I'm with OTS on this. With the exception of picking a rookie to be the leader there really is nothing wrong with Bush's appointment process for this justice. I believe it was the federal nominations that he pulled while congress was out of session (for holidays I believe). That was playing a game. Just like the Democrats did when they tried to block the nominations with filibusters. Picking someone with basically no experience to be the top dog was a bad management move. But completely within the scope of a normal appointment.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in