Justice O'Connor Is Retiring - Page 2

John Galt · 07-01-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

For one, your original premise is flawed, as there are already numerous conservative justices on the court. Weren't at least 6 of them appointed by the GOP?

Actually 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by GOP presidents.

larrymcg421 · 07-01-2005, 03:26 PM

The same reason that conservatives are afraid of liberal justices. I don't agree with their interpretation of the constitution and I think we'll get more decisions like Bush v. Gore, U.S. vs. Morrison, Bowers v. Hardwick, and (ugh) Mickens v. Taylor. These decisions, particularly the last two (at least Bowers was overruled) are frightening to me.

Crapshoot · 07-01-2005, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Ok... but what's the fear? What are they really going to do to make your life so miserable that you're actually afraid of it? Seriously... I want to know.

Well, your brand of conservatism is different from mine. I want libertarian leaning, civil rights favoring, AA opposing and judges who don't let religous nutjobs run unchecked over all civil liberties. You want nut jobs like Janice Brown, who want to have your god be the god for everyone - or else. Also, given that the majority of the supreme court and federal judges have been appointed by the GOP and yet the Christian right whines about "liberal" activists judges (and you're one of them) - I shudder for the crap you want on the court and the further harm this causes to the wings of the GOP that I wish to see succeed.

wbatl1 · 07-01-2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Weren't at least 6 of them appointed by the GOP?

7 I believe.

CamEdwards · 07-01-2005, 03:39 PM

It doesn't have to be Gonzales. It could be Garza.

MrBigglesworth · 07-01-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

It's not about me, but thanks for making it personal.

So you say my views are immoral, I counter by saying that yours are immoral, and I am making it personal?

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Well, your brand of conservatism is different from mine. I want libertarian leaning, civil rights favoring, AA opposing and judges who don't let religous nutjobs run unchecked over all civil liberties. You want nut jobs like Janice Brown, who want to have your god be the god for everyone - or else. Also, given that the majority of the supreme court and federal judges have been appointed by the GOP and yet the Christian right whines about "liberal" activists judges (and you're one of them) - I shudder for the crap you want on the court and the further harm this causes to the wings of the GOP that I wish to see succeed.

So religious people are now nutjobs? And if you are going to refer to god, it's actually spelled "God" but thank you for taking someone'se beliefs and trampling all over it. Freedom for all except those who you opposed. I'm also glad you consider the religion of so many as "crap", another bold and wonderful point making me glad I don't share the same hostile beliefs that you do.

JonInMiddleGA · 07-01-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

... and (ugh) Mickens v. Taylor.

At the risk of a sidetrack ... this seems like an unusual case to get upset about.
Or at least, it isn't one I'm used to seeing mentioned that much.

Not being critical of you, FTR, I'm just surprised to see this one provoke such apparent passion.

(I bet I'm not the only person hear who could make use of this link, so ...
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1465/ )

larrymcg421 · 07-01-2005, 03:51 PM

Religious people aren't nutjobs. Janice Rogers Brown is a nutjob.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Religious people aren't nutjobs. Janice Rogers Brown is a nutjob.

I'll see you one nutjob and raise you the whole lot of those on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

larrymcg421 · 07-01-2005, 03:55 PM

The little description givem doesn't really explain the full issue very well. This is what happened.

Defendant had a court appointed attorney. Defendant was convicted of murder. After conviction, it was discovered that the defendant's attorney had represented the victim up until the time of the murder. The court ruled that this wasn't a conflict of interest. It's really one of the most bizaare and frightening decisions I've read.

Right to effective assistance of counsel is a big issue for me. Gideon v. Wainwright and Powell v. Alabama are probably my two favorite SCOTUS opinions ever. This decision completely bastardized that.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Religious people aren't nutjobs. Janice Rogers Brown is a nutjob.

It was also said more for effect anyways. Can't stand people who campaign for civil liberties except those who they dont agree with

MrBigglesworth · 07-01-2005, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I'm also glad you consider the religion of so many as "crap"...

This is an odd attack on someone for disrespecting Christianity. A lot of Christianity's success is due to their belief that they must spread the word of God and convert the 'heathens', implying that every other religion is 'crap'.

Cuckoo · 07-01-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This is an odd attack on someone for disrespecting Christianity. A lot of Christianity's success is due to their belief that they must spread the word of God and convert the 'heathens', implying that every other religion is 'crap'.

No offense intended, and I usually don't say much in these, but if this is what you think, you are sorely misinformed. And I'm surprised you can't see the difference between "I think that what I believe is the true path, and I want to help people" and "What I believe is right; what you believe is crap."

It may surprise you, but some Christians do actually respect other people and their differing beliefs.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 04:04 PM

I can't speak for every sect of Christianity, but can't really recall too many missionaries or pastors or whoever referring to other religions as "crap". Maybe in your Christian filled life you have, but I can't ever recalling anyone of merit saying that.

Going out and coverting people is hardly the same as saying another religion is crap. Doing something in the name of God hardly means that God wills it.

larrymcg421 · 07-01-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

It was also said more for effect anyways. Can't stand people who campaign for civil liberties except those who they dont agree with

What do you mean by that? I'm all for freedom of religion. Express it as much as you want. As a christian, I will fight for my right to express it. However, I think it should be kept separately from government. There is a sense of pressure by the government, where they want to shove christianity in people's faces. The way that many politicians try to merge religion and politics really worries me, and I think it turns off alot of people away from christianity. Janice Rogers Brown's bizaare opinions will continue that in an even more extreme fashion than most conservatives. That's why I oppose her.

flere-imsaho · 07-01-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Why do liberals freak out at the notion of a conservative justice or two on the Supreme Court?

Are the concepts of moral fortitude and personal accountability really so vile?

No, they are important concepts which form the bedrock of our democracy. Which is why we need liberal judges appointed to the Supreme Court.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No, they are important concepts which form the bedrock of our democracy. Which is why we need liberal judges appointed to the Supreme Court.

Im a big confused to what you were referring to. Did you mean having liberals on there for the sake of keeping the conservatives in check, I'm all for that.

flere-imsaho · 07-01-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Ok... but what's the fear? What are they really going to do to make your life so miserable that you're actually afraid of it? Seriously... I want to know.

I just don't agree with activist judges, and Bush has a tendency to appoint them.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What do you mean by that? I'm all for freedom of religion. Express it as much as you want. As a christian, I will fight for my right to express it. However, I think it should be kept separately from government. There is a sense of pressure by the government, where they want to shove christianity in people's faces. The way that many politicians try to merge religion and politics really worries me, and I think it turns off alot of people away from christianity. Janice Rogers Brown's bizaare opinions will continue that in an even more extreme fashion than most conservatives. That's why I oppose her.

Fair enough. I'm all for people keeping their personal lives out of politics, but when their basis of their campaign is rooted in religion (ie Bush), then saying it has no right to be involved is somewhat off base. Obviously a case where someone is appointed is a special circumstance, but the people selected Bush to represent their beliefs and it is his belief that *such and such* represents his views, it's hard to argue against.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I just don't agree with activist judges, and Bush has a tendency to appoint them.

Would you also oppose someone like Ramona Ripston?

SelzShoes · 07-01-2005, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Obviously a case where someone is appointed is a special circumstance, but the people selected Bush to represent their beliefs and it is his belief that *such and such* represents his views, it's hard to argue against.

Well, people, like me, who voted Nader, think he 'represented their beliefs'. I would really question the logic of someone who voted/selected someone who wanted someone who didn't represent their beliefs.

flere-imsaho · 07-01-2005, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Would you also oppose someone like Ramona Ripston?

Yep.

My idea of a good candidate: Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell

Crapshoot · 07-01-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

So religious people are now nutjobs? And if you are going to refer to god, it's actually spelled "God" but thank you for taking someone'se beliefs and trampling all over it. Freedom for all except those who you opposed. I'm also glad you consider the religion of so many as "crap", another bold and wonderful point making me glad I don't share the same hostile beliefs that you do.

Aha bug, showing your usual intellectual forte. I specified religious nut jobs - ergo, a subset. This may be too complicated for you - I suggest you learn what is being said, rather than whining about what you think has been. I consider Janice Brown to be a nut job - much like Roy Moore. But hey, you probably think Moore makes sense. And I'll be damned if you tell me how to spell god.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 05:06 PM

Well, the god of the Christians is spelled God, not god, so I guess you were referring to some other subset of relgious nutjobs. And Janice Brown probably does not spell God, "god" which makes your statement incorrect.

Young Drachma · 07-01-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It doesn't have to be Gonzales. It could be Garza.

I just read Garza's bio and he seems to be a good, darkhorse candidate. But I doubt he'd pick Garza meaning that Gonzales couldn't get on the court as it seems unlikely to me that both his candidates would be Hispanics.

He's surely going to pick a white male, as it seems that he'll get at least one more pick to put a woman on the court later. As for the calls of a centrist judge, I don't see it happening since the only requirement when Marshall retired was to ensure the person was black, but Clarence Thomas is obviously no Thurgood Marshall in terms of his idealogical slant.

I wonder how the "Gang of 14" - those moderates that averted that filibuster a few weeks ago - will play into this. I still don't see them getting a moderate though.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 05:07 PM

Dola

And thanks for the cheap shot on my intelligence. So much for a bleeding heart eh?

Crapshoot · 07-01-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Dola

And thanks for the cheap shot on my intelligence. So much for a bleeding heart eh?

Yup - but I'm not one. I believe a bunch of us hammered out the differences in the Republican Party- I'm a rockerfeller Republican, libertarian leaning, prefering to keep my nose out of everyone else's lives- free trade, and lots of it.You are the kind of republican that is dominating the party now, and turning it into an object of disgust for me.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 05:33 PM

Just curious, what kind of Republican am I? I'm pretty sure I'm not the one you think I am, but if it gets people like you out of the party, I'm all for making it better

flere-imsaho · 07-01-2005, 05:34 PM

I wonder if this is putting Bush in a tough position?

Here's the premise:

1. We know Bush is exceptionally faithful to those who have served him well.
2. We know that Gonzalez, after being White House General wanted to return to Texas and have things a bit quieter (I seem to recall reading something to this affect), but he returned to Washington at Bush's urging to be AG.
3. Everyone expected Rheinquist (Chief Justice) to step down, creating a Chief Justice vacancy (i.e., not a normal one).

Given this, and given that Bush seems to think highly of Gonzalez, can we postulate that Bush wanted to give Gonzalez the Chief Justice job?

If so, Bush is now in a tricky position. Earlier this week Nina Totenberg (NPR's Judicial Correspondent) mentioned that instead of looking worn out, Rheinquist came back to the bench looking in good shape. So it may no longer be 100% that Rheinquist retires while Bush is in office. If you're Bush, do you nominate Gonzalez now, so that he gets on the court no matter what? Or do you gamble that Rheinquist will retire while you're in office, so that Gonzalez can be CJ?

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 05:35 PM

Before you go further, I'll let you know where I stand.

I'm pro-life, but believe that people have the right to be pro-choice and go along with how things are now.
I'm not really for the homosexual lifestyle, but it's their choice, so be it. Let them marry if they really want to. If love is defined as a tax break, so be it.
I'm against prayer in school

Is that the kind of "Republican" that is driving the party apart? Or do you still classify me as a right wing nutjob?

Crapshoot · 07-01-2005, 05:36 PM

I would be surprised if Gonzales does not end up on the SC, one way or another. I think he fits the demographic and legal needs almost perfectly. Alternatively, someone like Orrin Hatch might be an interesting candidate.

Crapshoot · 07-01-2005, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Before you go further, I'll let you know where I stand.

I'm pro-life, but believe that people have the right to be pro-choice and go along with how things are now.
I'm not really for the homosexual lifestyle, but it's their choice, so be it. Let them marry if they really want to. If love is defined as a tax break, so be it.
I'm against prayer in school

Is that the kind of "Republican" that is driving the party apart? Or do you still classify me as a right wing nutjob?

No - and in that case, I was wrong. But your comments suggesting that calling some of the right nutjobs is akin to calling to all religous people nutjobs set me off the wrong way, and I did go slightly overboard. Also, I make it my principle to dislike Dodger fans.

MrBug708 · 07-01-2005, 05:42 PM

That explains a lot...

I grew up in a Pat Robertson-esque family so I sympathize and understand their logic and can see things from both sides. I consider myself a Republican, but do no tlike the lack of faith that their side exibits on a lot of Christianity issues

ISiddiqui · 07-01-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Well, the god of the Christians is spelled God, not god, so I guess you were referring to some other subset of relgious nutjobs. And Janice Brown probably does not spell God, "god" which makes your statement incorrect.

That's called capitalization, not spelling error, btw

. If I say george w. bush, I'm not misspelling it.

From the list posted before, I'd love to see McConnell or Roberts. Wikinson would be decent as well.

Buccaneer · 07-01-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I could care less whether the judges are liberal or conservative politically, I want a strict constructionist on the Supreme Court.

I fully agree. A Hispanic that is libertarian-minded would be ideal but the numbnuts in Congress (and the media) can't see beyond @%!$# polarization.

BigJohn&TheLions · 07-01-2005, 06:27 PM

From a clear jaw-dropping perspective I would love to see Bush throw a huge curve and nominate his father's pal William Jefferson Clinton!

albionmoonlight · 07-01-2005, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I wonder if this is putting Bush in a tough position?

Here's the premise:

1. We know Bush is exceptionally faithful to those who have served him well.
2. We know that Gonzalez, after being White House General wanted to return to Texas and have things a bit quieter (I seem to recall reading something to this affect), but he returned to Washington at Bush's urging to be AG.
3. Everyone expected Rheinquist (Chief Justice) to step down, creating a Chief Justice vacancy (i.e., not a normal one).

Given this, and given that Bush seems to think highly of Gonzalez, can we postulate that Bush wanted to give Gonzalez the Chief Justice job?

If so, Bush is now in a tricky position. Earlier this week Nina Totenberg (NPR's Judicial Correspondent) mentioned that instead of looking worn out, Rheinquist came back to the bench looking in good shape. So it may no longer be 100% that Rheinquist retires while Bush is in office. If you're Bush, do you nominate Gonzalez now, so that he gets on the court no matter what? Or do you gamble that Rheinquist will retire while you're in office, so that Gonzalez can be CJ?

There is no reason that he could not put Gonzales on the Court and then elevate him to Chief when/if Justice Rehenquist retires. It may make things messy politically, but it may be workable if Gonzales is as likeable a candidate as he seems to be.

Franklinnoble · 07-01-2005, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

From a clear jaw-dropping perspective I would love to see Bush throw a huge curve and nominate his father's pal William Jefferson Clinton!

The "masturbating-under-his-robes judge" gag has already been done...

MrBigglesworth · 07-01-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

No offense intended, and I usually don't say much in these, but if this is what you think, you are sorely misinformed. And I'm surprised you can't see the difference between "I think that what I believe is the true path, and I want to help people" and "What I believe is right; what you believe is crap."

It may surprise you, but some Christians do actually respect other people and their differing beliefs.

The Christian philosophy is to spread the word about Jesus to save everyone else, implying that they are right (obviously, you have to think you are right to be religeous) and everyone else is wrong. Saying it is 'crap' is just more of a rhetorical flourish than saying it is 'wrong'.

MrBigglesworth · 07-01-2005, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I can't speak for every sect of Christianity, but can't really recall too many missionaries or pastors or whoever referring to other religions as "crap". Maybe in your Christian filled life you have, but I can't ever recalling anyone of merit saying that.

Going out and coverting people is hardly the same as saying another religion is crap. Doing something in the name of God hardly means that God wills it.

As an apropos analogy, in Paradise Lost Satan did not take the form of a snake and then say God was crap. He used other motivational methods. However, he still thought God was crap. You aren't going to persuade someone to turn away from something that you approve of. And Christianity isn't the only religion like that, every religion is to a certain extent. Religion isn't like college football where you can root for this team a lot, then this team over here a little. You can take religeous beliefs from different places, but then you aren't really following that religion anymore. Believing cows are sacred and not to be touched and believing cows are put on the earch by God to provide food and clothing are two mutually exclusive ideas.

Cuckoo · 07-02-2005, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Saying it is 'crap' is just more of a rhetorical flourish than saying it is 'wrong'.

I think you need to read the last line of my post again. You call it a "rhetorical flourish." I call it disrespect, and my contention is that Christianity never teaches disrespect.

But from reading some of your posts on this board, I seriously doubt you'll listen to me about it. You seem to have an opinion of religion and Christianity that you'll argue to the end. I vehemently disagree with you about that opinion. I suppose that's as far as we'll go here.

clintl · 07-02-2005, 10:57 AM

My understanding is that Bush wants to elevate Scalia to Chief Justice when Rehnquist retires, so I don't see how that would affect Gonzales anyway. The torture memo is what makes Gonzales' nomination problematic.

clintl · 07-02-2005, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Religious people aren't nutjobs. Janice Rogers Brown is a nutjob.

Yes. Even California Chief Justice Ronald George (who was appointed to the Court by the same Republican governor, Pete Wilson, as Brown was) said as much in a concurring opinion he wrote once.

HomerJSimpson · 07-02-2005, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

From a clear jaw-dropping perspective I would love to see Bush throw a huge curve and nominate his father's pal William Jefferson Clinton!

That would be awesome! Not as much politically as the complete shock of it.

HomerJSimpson · 07-02-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clintl

My understanding is that Bush wants to elevate Scalia to Chief Justice when Rehnquist retires, so I don't see how that would affect Gonzales anyway. The torture memo is what makes Gonzales' nomination problematic.

That an a some what pro-abortion stance. I can't see him winning from either side of the aisle.

clintl · 07-02-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerJSimpson

That an a some what pro-abortion stance. I can't see him winning from either side of the aisle.

Well, yes. His nomination would be a disappointment to the right. However, by all accounts, he is a Bush loyalist and favorite, and I don't think that would stop Bush from nominating him. Without the torture memo, he would be the type that could easily get confirmed. The moderate Republicans would love him, and the Democrats would view him as the best they would be likely to get. And as for me, if he would just disavow the torture memo, and admit it was a mistake, I think he could still be about the best we could hope for from a Bush nominee.

Well, the best we could hope for unless Bush screws up, and in trying to select a stealth nominee, ends up with another David Souter.

MrBigglesworth · 07-02-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I think you need to read the last line of my post again. You call it a "rhetorical flourish." I call it disrespect, and my contention is that Christianity never teaches disrespect.

But from reading some of your posts on this board, I seriously doubt you'll listen to me about it. You seem to have an opinion of religion and Christianity that you'll argue to the end. I vehemently disagree with you about that opinion. I suppose that's as far as we'll go here.

What about gays? Promiscuity? Abortion? And saying 'your religion is no good you should switch to mine' is de facto disrespect.

ISiddiqui · 07-03-2005, 01:14 AM

The NY Times is reporting that a lot of conservative groups are saying Bush better not nominate Gonzales because they'll be highly disappointed. With his approval rating in the dumpster, I think he may heed them.

MrBug708 · 07-03-2005, 01:32 AM

So the conservatives are going to abandon him if he nominates Gonzalez? I hughly doubt that, unless you think 50% of America is that conservative

07-01-2005, 03:26 PM	#52
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	The same reason that conservatives are afraid of liberal justices. I don't agree with their interpretation of the constitution and I think we'll get more decisions like Bush v. Gore, U.S. vs. Morrison, Bowers v. Hardwick, and (ugh) Mickens v. Taylor. These decisions, particularly the last two (at least Bowers was overruled) are frightening to me. __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

07-01-2005, 03:39 PM	#55
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	It doesn't have to be Gonzales. It could be Garza. __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

07-01-2005, 03:51 PM	#59
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	Religious people aren't nutjobs. Janice Rogers Brown is a nutjob. __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

07-01-2005, 03:55 PM	#61
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	The little description givem doesn't really explain the full issue very well. This is what happened. Defendant had a court appointed attorney. Defendant was convicted of murder. After conviction, it was discovered that the defendant's attorney had represented the victim up until the time of the murder. The court ruled that this wasn't a conflict of interest. It's really one of the most bizaare and frightening decisions I've read. Right to effective assistance of counsel is a big issue for me. Gideon v. Wainwright and Powell v. Alabama are probably my two favorite SCOTUS opinions ever. This decision completely bastardized that. __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

07-01-2005, 06:27 PM	#87
BigJohn&TheLions College Benchwarmer Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: New York	From a clear jaw-dropping perspective I would love to see Bush throw a huge curve and nominate his father's pal William Jefferson Clinton! __________________ In the immortal words of a great alcoholic, "Can't we all just get along?"

07-01-2005, 04:04 PM	#65
MrBug708 Head Coach Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Whittier	I can't speak for every sect of Christianity, but can't really recall too many missionaries or pastors or whoever referring to other religions as "crap". Maybe in your Christian filled life you have, but I can't ever recalling anyone of merit saying that. Going out and coverting people is hardly the same as saying another religion is crap. Doing something in the name of God hardly means that God wills it.

07-01-2005, 05:06 PM	#75
MrBug708 Head Coach Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Whittier	Well, the god of the Christians is spelled God, not god, so I guess you were referring to some other subset of relgious nutjobs. And Janice Brown probably does not spell God, "god" which makes your statement incorrect.

07-01-2005, 05:07 PM	#77
MrBug708 Head Coach Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Whittier	Dola And thanks for the cheap shot on my intelligence. So much for a bleeding heart eh?

07-01-2005, 05:33 PM	#79
MrBug708 Head Coach Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Whittier	Just curious, what kind of Republican am I? I'm pretty sure I'm not the one you think I am, but if it gets people like you out of the party, I'm all for making it better

07-01-2005, 05:34 PM	#80
flere-imsaho Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chicagoland	I wonder if this is putting Bush in a tough position? Here's the premise: 1. We know Bush is exceptionally faithful to those who have served him well. 2. We know that Gonzalez, after being White House General wanted to return to Texas and have things a bit quieter (I seem to recall reading something to this affect), but he returned to Washington at Bush's urging to be AG. 3. Everyone expected Rheinquist (Chief Justice) to step down, creating a Chief Justice vacancy (i.e., not a normal one). Given this, and given that Bush seems to think highly of Gonzalez, can we postulate that Bush wanted to give Gonzalez the Chief Justice job? If so, Bush is now in a tricky position. Earlier this week Nina Totenberg (NPR's Judicial Correspondent) mentioned that instead of looking worn out, Rheinquist came back to the bench looking in good shape. So it may no longer be 100% that Rheinquist retires while Bush is in office. If you're Bush, do you nominate Gonzalez now, so that he gets on the court no matter what? Or do you gamble that Rheinquist will retire while you're in office, so that Gonzalez can be CJ?

07-01-2005, 05:35 PM	#81
MrBug708 Head Coach Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Whittier	Before you go further, I'll let you know where I stand. I'm pro-life, but believe that people have the right to be pro-choice and go along with how things are now. I'm not really for the homosexual lifestyle, but it's their choice, so be it. Let them marry if they really want to. If love is defined as a tax break, so be it. I'm against prayer in school Is that the kind of "Republican" that is driving the party apart? Or do you still classify me as a right wing nutjob?

07-01-2005, 05:36 PM	#82
Crapshoot Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Dec 2003	I would be surprised if Gonzales does not end up on the SC, one way or another. I think he fits the demographic and legal needs almost perfectly. Alternatively, someone like Orrin Hatch might be an interesting candidate.

07-01-2005, 05:42 PM	#84
MrBug708 Head Coach Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Whittier	That explains a lot... I grew up in a Pat Robertson-esque family so I sympathize and understand their logic and can see things from both sides. I consider myself a Republican, but do no tlike the lack of faith that their side exibits on a lot of Christianity issues

07-02-2005, 10:57 AM	#93
clintl College Starter Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Davis, CA	My understanding is that Bush wants to elevate Scalia to Chief Justice when Rehnquist retires, so I don't see how that would affect Gonzales anyway. The torture memo is what makes Gonzales' nomination problematic.

07-03-2005, 01:14 AM	#99
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	The NY Times is reporting that a lot of conservative groups are saying Bush better not nominate Gonzales because they'll be highly disappointed. With his approval rating in the dumpster, I think he may heed them. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

07-03-2005, 01:32 AM	#100
MrBug708 Head Coach Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Whittier	So the conservatives are going to abandon him if he nominates Gonzalez? I hughly doubt that, unless you think 50% of America is that conservative

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)