Another Supreme Court Appointment for President Bush?

[gocolts 300]

a link that gave me hope

 

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, a Gerald Ford appointee, who will turn 87 in April.

 

Here's hoping for Bush to final get something else right.

[wiffleball 4,790]

He mentioned that some justices think they have the unbounded authority to tell "you yahoos" what to do. "No justice who holds this view should sit on the court," he added.

 

Absolutely. Why would we think the highest court in the land should be able to tell anyone what to do?

Would that particularly warped view include telling women they can't have abortions?

[Doyle Redland 0]

let me get this straight...even though there is already a conservative majority on the supreme court, you're still holding out hope that a sitting judge will die in order to what?

[gocolts 300]

let me get this straight...even though there is already a conservative majority on the supreme court, you're still holding out hope that a sitting judge will die in order to what?

Not die. I said nothing about that. Retiring, not die. Retire.

[Frank M 181]

Not die. I said nothing about that. Retiring, not die. Retire.

 

Hey, did you take your stupid Ford post down or was it taken down for you, poosay?

[gocolts 300]

Hey, did you take your stupid Ford post down or was it taken down for you, poosay?

It's gone???

 

Ah. It lokks like it is gone. Not to sure why.

 

here is another pretty screwed up story I posted

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Here's hoping for Bush to final get something else right.

 

Please let us know when he gets the first thing right and we will all give a

 

TIA

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Good. The Republicans' legacy will live on long past their party, as the morons they've appointed in the last 20 years (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) will still be embarassing this nation long after Darth Cheney's ticker gives out.

[Fumbleweed 547]

This was the main reason I voted for Bush in 2004 and it is the reason I generally vote the more conservative candidate for president most years. I like a conservative court. It is very high on my list of important issues. I was pleased with the first two new choices under Bush, so I have no reason to think a third wouldn't be a good choice as well.

[Korben Dallas 0]

If he doesn't retire in the next 5 months, it is unlikely that Bush will get to do the appointing. Unless Bush stops being a complete tool (next to impossible), he won't have the votes to get his nomination through before he and his 9% approval rating is shown the door.

[stosher1 0]

Please let us know when he gets the first thing right and we will all give a

 

TIA

 

Hang in there JP! For at least another year.

[Frank M 181]

Antonin Scalia

 

This burger boy is going to drop dead of a heart attack soon. Hopefully he holds on until the Democrats take over in 08.

[GobbleDog 997]

Supreme Court Justices shouldn't have lifetime terms. Decades after Bush is gone, America is stuck with the conservative judges he selects. And he's already selected two. I'd say that's enough.

 

I understand that the reason they have lifetime terms is so the court doesn't have to re-hear cases over and over again. That makes sense, but I'd rather them re-hear cases instead of allowing the same judge to rule the bench for decades. 10 or 15 year terms is enough IMO.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Supreme Court Justices shouldn't have lifetime terms. Decades after Bush is gone, America is stuck with the conservative judges he selects. And he's already selected two. I'd say that's enough.

 

I understand that the reason they have lifetime terms is so the court doesn't have to re-hear cases over and over again. That makes sense, but I'd rather them re-hear cases instead of allowing the same judge to rule the bench for decades. 10 or 15 year terms is enough IMO.

 

I think that the reasoning behind a lifetime term is so that they are not influenced by politics.

[GobbleDog 997]

I think that the reasoning behind a lifetime term is so that they are not influenced by politics.

Ok, I can buy that. But that still doesn't justify a judge ruling the bench for 50+ years.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Ok, I can buy that. But that still doesn't justify a judge ruling the bench for 50+ years.

 

I used to think the same thing. However, their wisdom increases and the political influence fades over the years. As long as they have a sound mind, they should sit on the bench.

 

If you want to get into a debate about when they stop having a sound mind, then you have a point. However, I am not sure that some of the Bush appointees came in with a sound mind

[stosher1 0]

I used to think the same thing. However, their wisdom increases and the political influence fades over the years.

 

Then explain Scalia & Thomas

 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Then explain Scalia & Thomas

 

 

The same way that you explain Roberts and Alito. They are still young and still trying to flex their muscle. All of those folks will become less political over time.

[phillybear 366]

Absolutely. Why would we think the highest court in the land should be able to tell anyone what to do?

Would that particularly warped view include telling women they can't have abortions?

 

I was reading an article in the newspaper about a week or two ago. A pro-abortion group was talking about how, much to their frustration, the feelings on abortion in this country have really changed, where now 52% of the nation supports banning abortion.

 

I thought that was interesting.

[stosher1 0]

The same way that you explain Roberts and Alito. They are still young and still trying to flex their muscle. All of those folks will become less political over time.

 

I'll buy that on Clarence, but Scalia's 70 with 20 years on the court! He's still the most conservative member.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I'll buy that on Clarence, but Scalia's 70 with 20 years on the court! He's still the most conservative member.

 

Just because someone is conservative, does not mean that they are wrong or that he should be more moderate. These folks are not all going to be more towards the middle than when they started.

 

My point is that the further these folks are removed from the political process, the more that their core beliefs will shine through. Bear in mind that before they were seated on the SCOTUS, much of what they have done (whether we like it or not) had political implications. Everything that they do afterwards has essentially no political implications.

[Frank M 181]

I was reading an article in the newspaper about a week or two ago. A pro-abortion group was talking about how, much to their frustration, the feelings on abortion in this country have really changed, where now 52% of the nation supports banning abortion.

 

I thought that was interesting.

 

That is not true. As recently as January 21st of this year, 62% of Americans would not favor Roe v Wade being overturned, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

 

And in January of last year, 53% of Americans identified themselves as pro choice according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

 

Link

[gocolts 300]

I was reading an article in the newspaper about a week or two ago. A pro-abortion group was talking about how, much to their frustration, the feelings on abortion in this country have really changed, where now 52% of the nation supports banning abortion.

 

I thought that was interesting.

I have seen lots of articles that have been saying they same thing for over a year now. The interesting thing to me about it is how little it is talked about by the TV pundits. They really don't want this to get out much.