<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/01/oconnor.resigns.ap/index.html' target='_blank'>Supreme Retires</a>

Hokey Smoke! Wasn't expecting her to be the first one off the bench.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Hokey Smoke! Wasn't expecting her to be the first one off the bench.

bill kristol has been predicting that for a while.

the previous judicial appointment fights will be nothing compared to this one; she's been the swing vote for a long time.

president bush, please keep in mind lady thatcher's admonition: "this is no time to go wobbly."

Okay, let's start the speculation about the next appointee

I say Bush will go for Ashcroft.

Lets just hope someone moderate is chosen so we can move on and get this country going again. If this drags out a long time everybody loses.

This is going to get ugly and is why democrats backed down on the other appointments, knowing this day was coming. I have to give them a lot of credit for that. It was really forward thinking.

RobertN Wrote:Lets just hope someone moderate is chosen so we can move on and get this country going again. If this drags out a long time everybody loses.

sorry but i disagree.

i'm tired of the nonchalant incoherence which characterizes so many of the SCt's 5-4 decisions.

the only thing approximating a judicial philosophy comes from rehnquist, scalia and thomas. the rest of it is just wishy-washy, unprincipled babble.

This is gonna be fun! Think they may filibuster this one? :laugh:

i agree with you and i disagree with blah.

i think the dems have set themselves up for a fall with the filibuster compromise.

they should sell tickets for this one.

gruehls Wrote:

RobertN Wrote:Lets just hope someone moderate is chosen so we can move on and get this country going again. If this drags out a long time everybody loses.

sorry but i disagree.

i'm tired of the nonchalant incoherence which characterizes so many of the SCt's 5-4 decisions.

the only thing approximating a judicial philosophy comes from scalia and thomas. the rest of it is just wishy-washy, unprincipled babble.

I just think there are more important things to deal with than arguing how "right" this country country should move. There is the war, Social Security, terrorism and the economy etc. I like it in the middle. Not too much crap from either side but some of both.

RobertN Wrote:I just think there are more important things to deal with than arguing how "right" this country country should move. There is the war, Social Security, terrorism and the economy etc. I like it in the middle. Not too much crap from either side but some of both.

this country wasn't founded upon the quicksand of convenient accommodation. and it has not been sustained in that fashion either.

in the aftermath of this last session of the Supremes, we know:

that no personal property is sacred;

that the Founding Fathers' guidance by Scripture in carving out our most fundamental liberties and rights may have been unconstitutional and unrecognized as such by them as they wrote the Constitution;

that the Supreme Court still has multiple references to the 10 Commandments prominently featured throughout its own building while insisting on restricting the use of them elsewhere; and

that lukewarm water does not make for a flavorful anything nor does it prove particularly effective in the cleansing process.

"give me liberty or give me death" is not a concept which the majority of this court would condone.

i want a new majority.

gruehls Wrote:i want a new majority.

Just as long as it's yours, right?

JTiger Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:i want a new majority.

Just as long as it's yours, right?

i'll settle for a majority for the majority.

you know, the majority that keeps voting in the elections?

if you missed it, google the election results from november 2004.

gruehls Wrote:i'll settle for a majority for the majority.&nbsp;

you know, the majority that keeps voting in the elections?

if you missed it, google the election results from november 2004.

Dude, it was 51% to 48%. I guess 3% makes it your MAN-date, but SCOTUS is different because once they decide that's it. Would you say this if it were four years later and a democrat happened to get elected? I would think not.

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/</a>

JTiger Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:i'll settle for a majority for the majority. 

you know, the majority that keeps voting in the elections?

if you missed it, google the election results from november 2004.

Dude, it was 51% to 48%. I guess 3% makes it your MAN-date, but SCOTUS is different because once they decide that's it. Would you say this if it were four years later and a democrat happened to get elected? I would think not.

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/</a>

You can throw around the 3% to make the election seem like it was close all you want. The fact remains that Bush won by 3 million votes even though the American electorate was told over and over agin by the other side that Bush would stack the SCOTUS with conservative judges. 62 million voters were ok with that.

JTiger Wrote:

gruehls Wrote:i'll settle for a majority for the majority. 

you know, the majority that keeps voting in the elections?

if you missed it, google the election results from november 2004.

Dude, it was 51% to 48%. I guess 3% makes it your MAN-date, but SCOTUS is different because once they decide that's it. Would you say this if it were four years later and a democrat happened to get elected? I would think not.

<a href='http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/</a>

the use of "dude" adds credibility to everything you said.


what's your real question J?

would i still say this country wasn't founded on the "quicksand of easy accommodation?" you bet.

would i still say that the bogus crap coming out of the Supremes and now passing for jurisprudence is simply dressed up bogus crap? you bet.

i don't know you and i don't know your values. i suspect our values are different. but if the stuff that formed this country wasn't there at the beginning and didn't persist over time, we'd not be having this discussion.

what passes for thoughtful evaluation of the law of the land these days is lukewarm water. as noted above, you can't even make decent tea with that. and i reference tea for historical reasons.

There you go gruehls, sounding like an attorney again. J/K. I agree with everything you said.

JTiger, that's how it works. People elect leaders that are going to represent them. In that representation lies the duty to appoint people to the judicial system that hold the same values as they do.

A little document that can help you can be found here:

<a href='http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution.html' target='_blank'>Helpful Document</a>


The Supreme Court, here recently, has been a detrimental element to our rights and what this country was founded on.

RebelKev Wrote:There you go gruehls, sounding like an attorney again. J/K. I agree with everything you said.

JTiger, that's how it works. People elect leaders that are going to represent them. In that representation lies the duty to appoint people to the judicial system that hold the same values as they do.

A little document that can help you can be found here:

<a href='http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution.html' target='_blank'>Helpful Document</a>


The Supreme Court, here recently, has been a detrimental element to our rights and what this country was founded on.

This may be a bit naive of me, but I do remember from my civics class that the supreme court is supposed to be non-partisan, which is why the get a lifetime appointment and they are the final authority. It seems that some on this board want to do away with SCOTUS and leave everything in the hands of the executive and legislative branch. If it's about a "majority." Like I said, what if the shoe was on the other foot and Kerry had won by 3%? I don't think I would be hearing you talk about how you would like to see a majority for a majority. I'd like to see a moderate take O'Conner's spot. The good thing about a moderate is that it pisses both sides off so we have something to argue about on message board and flex our e-brains.

What part of the private property ruling was "moderate"? The only way I can see it as "moderate" is the fact that it pissed everyone off from Free Republic to Democratic Underground. IMO, everyone that voted on that should resign. They are supposed to uphold the Constitution. With that task comes interpreting the law as it was written. They "added" to an already existing amendment, THEN interpreted it. That word? Private. With that, rights were lost.

RebelKev Wrote:What part of the private property ruling was "moderate"? The only way I can see it as "moderate" is the fact that it pissed everyone off from Free Republic to Democratic Underground. IMO, everyone that voted on that should resign. They are supposed to uphold the Constitution. With that task comes interpreting the law as it was written. They "added" to an already existing amendment, THEN interpreted it. That word? Private. With that, rights were lost.

I completely agree with you on that ruling. The only winner in that was big business.