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.

 

Rehnquist Consistency

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
When Sandra Day O'Conner announced she would be stepping down, many people on the left demanded someone of the same principals, the swing vote, should replace her in order to maintain balance in the Supreme Court. Does this balance mentality exist for Judge Rehnquist, too? Does the left advocate a hard line originalist be put in to replace one that just left us?




posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
Well, considering Bush ignored us, I'd say the answer is no.

If he nominates another hardline conservative, the chances of Roe being overturned increase dramatically. And if it happens, it also effectively kills the conservative movement for decades, because it's not what the majority of women, and the majority of Americans want.

I'm torn.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   
That's not entirely true; Bush nominated Roberts to fill Rehnquist's position. So now O'Connor's spot is open. Would Roberts get a full thumbs up, now, in the name of balance?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
That's not entirely true; Bush nominated Roberts to fill Rehnquist's position. So now O'Connor's spot is open. Would Roberts get a full thumbs up, now, in the name of balance?


Yeah, but John Paul Stevens is like 85. The guy could keel over any minute. A cool breeze and the guy is pushing up dazies.

I'm all for Bush nominating a hard right conservative to fill Renquist's position, but does that mean you support Bush nominating a moderate, pro-choice judge to fill O'Connor's shoes?



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
I'm all for Bush nominating a hard right conservative to fill Renquist's position, but does that mean you support Bush nominating a moderate, pro-choice judge to fill O'Connor's shoes?


No, I don't, but then I never made the demand when Clinton was appointing Supreme Court nominees. That's why I'm asking. It just seems understood, in my logic, that the president would choose someone who is in line with his (or her, hopefully someday soon) political ideology. I can't fathom expecting anything else, though I've seen the mentality.

So this thread is a combination of two things. Partly to understand the mentality of "balance", but also to call out hypocrites. I applaud you (literally, I'm no mod
) for responding, it seems no one else will. Believe you me, your input is very much appreciated, and more information is better. As I said, part of the purpose here is to call people on a claim made just month(s?) ago, but also to understand the mentality of those who truly believe what they said.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join