O'Connor retires!
- Thread starter rick_reno
- Start date
- Status
Waitone
Member
Gonzales may be Bush's bud but he also the guy Democrats demonize as writing the legal opinion which allows the US to torture, enslave, etc our poor innocent middle and far eastern types.
How can Democrats explain trying to save the world from a torturer then turn around and vote him to SCOTUS.
Beside that, Bush's base will have a meltdown. I can't wait to see how he will ***poof*** himself outta this one.
How can Democrats explain trying to save the world from a torturer then turn around and vote him to SCOTUS.
Beside that, Bush's base will have a meltdown. I can't wait to see how he will ***poof*** himself outta this one.
FNFiveSeven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2003
- Messages
- 538
Who cares? The recent rulings of the SCOTUS declared that the feds can regulate home grown weed and "relocate" people out of their privately owned homes. Clearly the SCOTUS is degraded into a political side show, a pathetic joke, and another sad testement to the gradual destruction of our once great nation. Don't believe me? Just ask Ruth Bader "I think we should consider the laws of foreign governments in our legal decisions" Ginsburg. 
peacefuljeffrey
member
Scalia may be good in certain areas, really good in others, but *** was up with his siding with the police in that case about searching cars for drugs?! He (and others) essentially upheld warrantless searches. If I am stopped for speeding, and there is NO other reason to suspect that I have drugs, IT IS A WARRANTLESS SEARCH TO BRING A DOG AROUND WHOSE ONLY PURPOSE AS A POLICE DOG IS TO SEARCH FOR DRUGS!
*** was up with the justices in that case? Are they SOOOO conservative that the bu!!????? war on drugs means so much to them that they will back away from their 4th Amendment protective stances?!
:banghead: -Jeffrey
peacefuljeffrey
member
That itself should be grounds for the impeachment and removal of a Supreme Court justice.
To state outright that anything other than the Constitution of the United States of America should guide the decisions of the Supreme Court seems, to me, tantamount to treason.
-Jeffrey
thorn726
Member
a View from the far Left-
well here's a quote from something posted on tribe.net about the court issue=
{personally i am not a fan of Bush, and am more liberal than conservative, but they totally lost me here, so hard to be me. (heheh) i agree with them on most issues, but this below is garbage, i hardly want the kind of judge they are looking for=} quoted=
Sensible Gun Control
The rights and safety of Americans: In the past decade, 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court have struck down a federal law prohibiting firearms in the proximity of schools and quashed a part of the Brady Act pertaining to background checks on handgun practices. Right-wing justices could seal the fate on these and other gun control measures that protect the rights and safety of all Americans.
Second Amendment challenges: Since 1939, the Supreme Court has refused to revisit the question of the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Recently, the Court dealt a blow to the NRA and other pro-gun lobby groups by refusing to review two cases that the gun lobby believed could nullify many existing gun control laws. Both of these challenges were based on a belief that the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of individuals to carry weapons. During John Ashcroft’s tenure at the Justice Department, the department reversed its long-standing opposition to this interpretation, embracing the view that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to carry guns. New right-wing justices could agree with this interpretation and join the Supreme Court with pivotal votes that would overtun many federal and state gun control laws. Indeed, Justice Clarence Thomas has already argued that Congress has no authority to pass gun control laws.
here's the full page link-
http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.839269/k.67D9/The_Stakes_Issue_by_Issue.htm
well here's a quote from something posted on tribe.net about the court issue=
{personally i am not a fan of Bush, and am more liberal than conservative, but they totally lost me here, so hard to be me. (heheh) i agree with them on most issues, but this below is garbage, i hardly want the kind of judge they are looking for=} quoted=
Sensible Gun Control
The rights and safety of Americans: In the past decade, 5-4 rulings by the Supreme Court have struck down a federal law prohibiting firearms in the proximity of schools and quashed a part of the Brady Act pertaining to background checks on handgun practices. Right-wing justices could seal the fate on these and other gun control measures that protect the rights and safety of all Americans.
Second Amendment challenges: Since 1939, the Supreme Court has refused to revisit the question of the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Recently, the Court dealt a blow to the NRA and other pro-gun lobby groups by refusing to review two cases that the gun lobby believed could nullify many existing gun control laws. Both of these challenges were based on a belief that the Second Amendment guaranteed the rights of individuals to carry weapons. During John Ashcroft’s tenure at the Justice Department, the department reversed its long-standing opposition to this interpretation, embracing the view that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals to carry guns. New right-wing justices could agree with this interpretation and join the Supreme Court with pivotal votes that would overtun many federal and state gun control laws. Indeed, Justice Clarence Thomas has already argued that Congress has no authority to pass gun control laws.
here's the full page link-
http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.839269/k.67D9/The_Stakes_Issue_by_Issue.htm
RealGun
Member
Looking over the list of supposed candidates, I figured that Senator John Cornyn, from Texas no less, would be a stategic choice for Bush. He favors Bush's issues and would get less resistance from the Senate during confirmation. I don't see this as a minority opening or that there is any particular female quota on the Court. Creating an opening in Texas for the Senate could be interesting.
Another good one, who I expect would not be ferociously attacked during confirmation by other than the usual prosecutorial, partisan suspects like Boxer, would be Larry Thompson.
J. Harvie Wilkinson looks like the moderate to fill O'Connor's balancing role, if that's a priority, which I doubt.
In my opinion, Gonzalez has no chance and wouldn't make sense. Getting an AG was tough enough, and they will leave well enough alone there.
I would think that Scalia would be promoted to CJ ultimately. He is young enough to be around for awhile, theoretically, and being a known quantity would instill some confidence in the court. He frequently aligns with Rehnquist, so no big disturbances there. Scalia has made himself unpredictable, which could be an asset.
Another good one, who I expect would not be ferociously attacked during confirmation by other than the usual prosecutorial, partisan suspects like Boxer, would be Larry Thompson.
J. Harvie Wilkinson looks like the moderate to fill O'Connor's balancing role, if that's a priority, which I doubt.
In my opinion, Gonzalez has no chance and wouldn't make sense. Getting an AG was tough enough, and they will leave well enough alone there.
I would think that Scalia would be promoted to CJ ultimately. He is young enough to be around for awhile, theoretically, and being a known quantity would instill some confidence in the court. He frequently aligns with Rehnquist, so no big disturbances there. Scalia has made himself unpredictable, which could be an asset.
longeyes
member
Never underestimate Bush's stubbornness. Once he gets that vision thing revved up it's no stopping him. If he's sweet on Gonzalez it will be Gonzalez no matter what anyone else thinks, no matter how politically destructive or downright nutty. Is there a 12-step program for Stubbornness?
Waitone
Member
And to what vision do you refer?
A North American Community?
Free flow of labor unhindered by things like borders and national sovereignty?
Americans greeted as liberators in Iraq?
How 'bout this one? Compassionate conservatism.
Maybe free and unfettered political campaigns in the US.
Here's one. Fiscal responsibility.
And my personal favorite----judiciary restrained by the constitution.
Bush goes through life like someone going to an all-you-can-eat buffet. Pick a little from here and little from there. Pretty soon you have a big mess on your plate and all you can do is leave the mess for someone else to clean up.
Bush has said a lot of things about what kind of justices he wants on SCOTUS. He also said a lot of things about what he wanted in a Campaign Finance reform bill. He settled for nothing of what he wanted and with extreme cowardice punted his responsibility to the courts. He got everything he deserved. American citizens were the ones who took it in the end. We'll see what he really is based on what he does.
A North American Community?
Free flow of labor unhindered by things like borders and national sovereignty?
Americans greeted as liberators in Iraq?
How 'bout this one? Compassionate conservatism.
Maybe free and unfettered political campaigns in the US.
Here's one. Fiscal responsibility.
And my personal favorite----judiciary restrained by the constitution.
Bush goes through life like someone going to an all-you-can-eat buffet. Pick a little from here and little from there. Pretty soon you have a big mess on your plate and all you can do is leave the mess for someone else to clean up.
Bush has said a lot of things about what kind of justices he wants on SCOTUS. He also said a lot of things about what he wanted in a Campaign Finance reform bill. He settled for nothing of what he wanted and with extreme cowardice punted his responsibility to the courts. He got everything he deserved. American citizens were the ones who took it in the end. We'll see what he really is based on what he does.
RealGun
Member
I don't follow the fixation on Gonzalez except re an AWB. All Bush will do is bring more Texans to Washington, directly or by creating openings moving people around.. In addition, minorities definitely are considered, but probably not for this Court opening. The minority that really resonates in Texas in Mexican heritage.
If there is going to be a big fight over religion and related issues like abortion, this will probably be it. The filibuster issue could be dealt with by Bolton's nomination, ruling out filibusters in all executive sessions, whether or not judicial nominations. The compromise would be allowing nominations to be held in committee, dealing with that bottleneck as a separate rules issue and different dynamic.
If there is going to be a big fight over religion and related issues like abortion, this will probably be it. The filibuster issue could be dealt with by Bolton's nomination, ruling out filibusters in all executive sessions, whether or not judicial nominations. The compromise would be allowing nominations to be held in committee, dealing with that bottleneck as a separate rules issue and different dynamic.
Last edited:
RevDisk
Member
If Gonzales gets nominated, oh boy. We're in trouble. He's the guy that thought up the brilliant idea to attempt to gut the Geneva Convention, using Gitmo to store any prisoners without civilian court oversight, the "coercive interrogation" thing, exemptions to the US Code Title 18 Chapter 118 Section 2441 (war crimes statute), etc etc. Mind you, he has not just applied these to "unlawful combatants" but also US citizens. Ask Padilla. Gonzales also spends a healthy amount of time trying to expand the PATRIOT Act and other liberty gutting legislation. Etc etc.
Sorry, anyone that actively supports arresting US citizens and holding them indefinitely without trial should never even be considered for the Supreme Court.
To keep it RKBA, Gonzales has not shown himself to be exactly pro-RKBA. At best, he's more interested in simply maintaining the status quo. This is not bad, of course, but it's not exactly good either. His singular pro-RKBA measure was stating that the 2A is an individual right.
With a stroke of the pen, Gonzales could effectively put the ATF in a cage. More favorable definitions of "sporting purpose", removing 7.62x39mm from the armor piercing pistol round catagory (not sure the official terminology, basically the steel core 7.62), and dozens of other pro-RKBA measures. Small things individually, but they'd add up.
Sorry, anyone that actively supports arresting US citizens and holding them indefinitely without trial should never even be considered for the Supreme Court.
To keep it RKBA, Gonzales has not shown himself to be exactly pro-RKBA. At best, he's more interested in simply maintaining the status quo. This is not bad, of course, but it's not exactly good either. His singular pro-RKBA measure was stating that the 2A is an individual right.
With a stroke of the pen, Gonzales could effectively put the ATF in a cage. More favorable definitions of "sporting purpose", removing 7.62x39mm from the armor piercing pistol round catagory (not sure the official terminology, basically the steel core 7.62), and dozens of other pro-RKBA measures. Small things individually, but they'd add up.
RealGun
Member
The Geneva Convention doesn't apply. What do you want to do, send them to a country club? Osama's buddies from Afghanistan are lucky to be alive.
He doesn't actively support any such thing. Next question.
There is no point here. You are trying not to give him credit. His AWB position would be of more concern.
Ha! A lot of people could do a lot of things. Dream on, if you are saying that a Supreme Court candidate has to be a pro-gun favorite.
Let's face it: Bush could nominate Ted Kennedy and the Liberals would scream about it. So to heck with them. Pick the best-qualified guy, make sure there are no skeletons in his closet, and push it with the "nuclear option" always available. Let the Dem cry foul and get on with life.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked