Replacing Justice Rehnquist
- Thread starter riverdog
- Start date
- Status
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Nominate me. I will not disappoint you. (Nor will I be confirmed by the Senate 
.)
.)Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
The Republican Senate under Lott and Frist have proven to be utterly unable and unwilling to do what it takes to get conservative judicial nominess past threatened Democrat filabusters.
That's going to have to change if there's to be any hope for a more conservative court.
How did the Dems get the radical leftie Ginzberg onto the court? Where was the threatened Republican filabuster on that one.
That's going to have to change if there's to be any hope for a more conservative court.
How did the Dems get the radical leftie Ginzberg onto the court? Where was the threatened Republican filabuster on that one.
B
boofus
Guest
Justice Ron Paul has a nice ring to it.
Silver Bullet
Member
Third-party advocates -- are you paying attention to this ?
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
If that's a nomination, I'll second it!
Gordon Fink
Member
Damned if we do and damned if we don’t … 
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
Sindawe
Member
Mr. Bush has proven himself to be no friend of our rights and liberties. The way I see it, we have a choice 'tween Lenin, Moussalini or Paine.
Gordon Fink
Member
No. It just doesn’t matter in this case.
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
Obviously, any robe appointed by Bush will fully support the Patriot Act. If we assume that any Kerry nominee will fully support gun prohibitions, that leaves us with a doozy of a choice: black market guns or an ID/surveillance State. Can't say either prospect is appealing, but at least the gun ban will create controversy. There's no popularly understood constitutional block to complete Federal control of the markets through IDs and background checks.
Besides no politician will ever nominate a judge who would consider changing the centuries of precedent already built up. The really core of the problem is way back in the early rulings about the general welfare clause. To upend those would cause such political chaos that it'll never happen (unless the Court mysteriously becomes 51% libertarian - I'm not holding my breath).
Besides no politician will ever nominate a judge who would consider changing the centuries of precedent already built up. The really core of the problem is way back in the early rulings about the general welfare clause. To upend those would cause such political chaos that it'll never happen (unless the Court mysteriously becomes 51% libertarian - I'm not holding my breath).
In Bush's case, the ACLU, along with the NY Times, WA Post et al will be there in force to support the 1st and 4th Amendments. In Kerry's case, the NRA and GOA et al The 1st and 4th have a much deeper case law supporting them than does the 2nd. I'm not too worried about the 1st and 4th under Bush, I'd be very concerned about the 2nd under Kerry.
Silver Bullet
Member
1) Review what we know about Bush’s position on RKBA:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151933
2) Review what we know about Kerry’s position on RKBA:
http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=162
3) Think harder.
------------------------------
My second link is giving me some flak; if it doesn't work, try
http://www.nraila.org/ and then click on "John Kerry wants to ban guns in America"
Look how much good the ACLU, Times, and Post did in the Hiibel case. Case law doesn't matter really, only public opinion. Look at SC decisions over slavery, segregation, or FDR's myriad scemes - without a large and very vocal opposition, government power gets confirmed and upheld. Sadly, that sort of opposition to the ID State simply doesn't exist .
spartacus2002
Member
"Justice Skunkabilly" has a nice ring to it....
carpettbaggerr
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,676
Yeah? Everyone knew which way Souter would vote too, didn't they.
Bush has indicated he would look for a "strict constructionist" as a judicial nominee to the SCOTUS. As I understand the term, it means someone who reads the constitution for what it says rather than for what they would like it to mean. In these times, a "strict constructionist" on the SCOTUS is about as much as you can reasonably ask for; to actually get one would be a blessing.
Brett Bellmore
Member
Yeah, I really believe that Bush is going to deliberately appoint a Supreme court justice who'd reliably vote to strike down as unconstitutional most of Bush's policy initiatives. Which is what any strict constructionist would do...
My take on it is that Bush might screw up, and accidentally appoint one or two good Justices. OTOH, Kerry would be very careful indeed not to appoint any Justice we'd find acceptable.
My take on it is that Bush might screw up, and accidentally appoint one or two good Justices. OTOH, Kerry would be very careful indeed not to appoint any Justice we'd find acceptable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked