Rehnquist is dead

Who'd have thought W would get to appoint 2 justices.

Any thoughts?

cry dam

[quotef67a090d9d="slease"]Who'd have thought W would get to appoint 2 justices.[/quotef67a090d9d]
i think this could only mean disaster. Just think, they might even overturn Roe vs Wade.

The whole checks and balance system is way out of whack in our government.

dang, sad thing that he died. u know it was someone big if he's one of the questions on the Citizenship Test...

[quote35ebe54c39="Peinecone"][quote35ebe54c39="slease"]Who'd have thought W would get to appoint 2 justices.[/quote35ebe54c39]
i think this could only mean disaster. Just think, they might even overturn Roe vs Wade.

The whole checks and balance system is way out of whack in our government.[/quote35ebe54c39]
Rehnquist is already pretty conservative so there probably won't be a big change with the Supreme Court.

I hate how it has to be that way...where does there need to be two diffrent groups like come on it would be nice to to have people as people and they dont act more one way then the other.

[quotef871e494dd="JuG"]I hate how it has to be that way...where does there need to be two diffrent groups like come on it would be nice to to have people as people and they dont act more one way then the other.[/quotef871e494dd]
Our government is dominated by a two party system and a two political ideology system so all politicians has to be labeled one or the other but that doesn't mean all conservatives actually feel the same about all issues. We knew President Bush is gonna nominate conservative judges to fill the empty spot. The more interesting question is which current justice would Presient Bush make the new chief justice. It's probably gonna be one of the conservative judges though. roll

[quote9cc0dbaaea="climed"][quote9cc0dbaaea="Peinecone"][quote9cc0dbaaea="slease"]Who'd have thought W would get to appoint 2 justices.[/quote9cc0dbaaea]
i think this could only mean disaster. Just think, they might even overturn Roe vs Wade.

The whole checks and balance system is way out of whack in our government.[/quote9cc0dbaaea]
Rehnquist is already pretty conservative so there probably won't be a big change with the Supreme Court.[/quote9cc0dbaaea]

Agreed, but I think we might see Bush try and place a hard right conservative in his place, he wouldn't vote much differently than Rhenquist though.

The checks and balances system works pretty fine, it's just that republicans control the federal government this term.

Holy shit thats insane omg my con law class is gonna have a field day on this

when's the new guy appointed?

im not sure but this is not good for the constitution if we have 2 new conservative justices then our constitution is fucked i hope our congress makes a good decision when approving new justices

[quoteae9d311619="xXHasek99"]when's the new guy appointed?[/quoteae9d311619]

Bush has to nominate someone and then the senate has to approve that person. Don't hold me to it but I don't believe they have even finished with O'Conners replacement yet.

Chief justices really don't do that much so it doesn't matter who Bush appoints, they have the same power as all the other judges. It's just a figurehead role. If he choses someone already on the court to be chief than they have to be confirmed by the senate again, which would mean 3 total confirmations this year. My bet is he'll just make the newest justice Chief justice.

The question is, who...

[quote11d20e1de8="slease"][quote11d20e1de8="xXHasek99"]when's the new guy appointed?[/quote11d20e1de8]

Bush has to nominate someone and then the senate has to approve that person. Don't hold me to it but I don't believe they have even finished with O'Conners replacement yet.

Chief justices really don't do that much so it doesn't matter who Bush appoints, they have the same power as all the other judges. It's just a figurehead role. If he choses someone already on the court to be chief than they have to be confirmed by the senate again, which would mean 3 total confirmations this year. My bet is he'll just make the newest justice Chief justice.

The question is, who...[/quote11d20e1de8]
i highly doubt that they will make the new appointee the new chief justice imo Justice Scalia will be the new chief justice he fits with the Bush mind frame he is very conservative. And the Chief Justice does have a big role in the decisions of the court although alot of it is very figurehead yet the chief justice is very important. The Rehnquist court was very important in alot of supreme court decisions although the Rehnquist court was very conservative alot of important decisions came from this court and i hope that the new court will be fair and will give a good interpretation of the constitution.

Think Bush would make a catholic chief justice?

Anyways, polls are saying that the public would like to see a female as a new justice, I'm thinking that we won't see that happening and if we do then we are going to see some kind of crazy facist female like Condi Rice.

[quote79bf7af92d="slease"]Think Bush would make a catholic chief justice?[/quote79bf7af92d]

I think that would be amazing.
Doubtful, but amazing.

[quote961facbbbf="slease"]Think Bush would make a catholic chief justice?

Anyways, polls are saying that the public would like to see a female as a new justice, I'm thinking that we won't see that happening and if we do then we are going to see some kind of crazy facist female like Condi Rice.[/quote961facbbbf]

<...something about seperation of church and state...>

<...something about not a chance in hell of Rice anywhere near the Bench...>

<...and now look for NO to fall off the radar of public interest...>

[quote03a1876636="doylnea"][quote03a1876636="slease"]Think Bush would make a catholic chief justice?

Anyways, polls are saying that the public would like to see a female as a new justice, I'm thinking that we won't see that happening and if we do then we are going to see some kind of crazy facist female like Condi Rice.[/quote03a1876636]

<...something about seperation of church and state...>

<...something about not a chance in hell of Rice anywhere near the Bench...>

<...and now look for NO to fall off the radar of public interest...>[/quote03a1876636] A persons personal beliefs should not affect wether he/she should be chosen for a position only wether they use their personal views in interperting the constitution. So thats no seperation of church and state.

[quote38805cb386="Stroid"][quote38805cb386="doylnea"][quote38805cb386="slease"]Think Bush would make a catholic chief justice?

Anyways, polls are saying that the public would like to see a female as a new justice, I'm thinking that we won't see that happening and if we do then we are going to see some kind of crazy facist female like Condi Rice.[/quote38805cb386]

<...something about seperation of church and state...>

<...something about not a chance in hell of Rice anywhere near the Bench...>

<...and now look for NO to fall off the radar of public interest...>[/quote38805cb386] So thats no seperation of church and state.[/quote38805cb386]

not sure what you're saying?

He's saying that just because he is Catholic doesn't mean there is going to be a breach of the C. vs. S. arguement...

[quote97c4f285e7="wood"]He's saying that just because he is Catholic doesn't mean there is going to be a breach of the C. vs. S. arguement...[/quote97c4f285e7]

I agree, I misread Slease's original post (to which I responded) and my comment re C vs S is irrelevant.

im saying that the seperation of church and state isnt that they cant elect someone thats catholic...all it is saying is that the State cannot do things that connect it or affliatte it to one church (get what im saying?). It doesnt or shouldnt matter what religion the justice is aslong as he/she interprets the constitution in a fair and none church related manor.

[quote39e8e7204d="Stroid"]im saying that the seperation of church and state isnt that they cant elect someone thats catholic...all it is saying is that the State cannot do things that connect it or affliatte it to one church (get what im saying?). It doesnt or shouldnt matter what religion the justice is aslong as he/she interprets the constitution in a fair and none church related manor.[/quote39e8e7204d]

It shouldn't, but presidents haven't been known for their diversity loving when it comes to selecting justices. When Scalia was added in 1990 he was the first Italian American in the Supreme Court... but times have changed so who knows.

i stand corrected Bush has nominated Roberts to be the new Chief Justice which surprises me a bit...i wonder how this will turn out

Yeah, I was a bit surprised by that too. I agree that in terms of replacing Rehnquist it won't make much of a difference, he was already pretty damn crazy. But I was disappointed that O'Connor retired, now Bush gets to fill a swing vote with some crazy right-winger. Oh well, what's new, just more reactionary crazies.

If he gets aproved he'll probably be chief justice for the next 30 years. He's a young guy.

Noooooo.

Bush gets one of his convervatives a spot.

( +1 for Republicans, -1 for Democrats.

(still, we are ahead +229303 points)

^_^

bush is a retarded president.. but he's probably better than kerry would have been.

Yeah, it's really gonna be Roberts for the long-haul. I read today that he'd be the youngest chief justice since like the 1900s.

And there's no way Bush is better than Kerry would have been. Hello, have you been paying attention to the news at all the past week, this place called New Orleans? Though I'm not saying Kerry would have been much better overall.

umm i dont think New Orleans is Bush's fault ( i voted Kerry) this is one of the worst disasters in US history and i think the US gov is doing all they can. There is no one solution for this and its gonna take time to fix the problem. i mean people looting and shooting at cops how can that possibly be blamed on Bush how can any of this be blamed on Bush?

I agree a lot of the lawlessness can not be blamed on the administration. But how can you possibly NOT blame the abyssmal response, or should I say non-response, of the administration?

I mean it was incredible the lack of response and how long it took for there to be any kind of response. This is absolutely one of the worst disasters in US history, but it could have easily been prevented, or the damage dampened. For example, for decades LA/the city of NO have been asking for money to strengthen the levees, but it has consistenly been cut, and from this last budget money over $100 million for that was slashed and diverted to fund an immoral and illegal war.

I think it is absolutely Bush, and the entire administration's, fault for how this has been handled. Impeach 'em all.

[quote00d0a7dc20="sbollag"]I agree a lot of the lawlessness can not be blamed on the administration. But how can you possibly NOT blame the abyssmal response, or should I say non-response, of the administration?

I mean it was incredible the lack of response and how long it took for there to be any kind of response. This is absolutely one of the worst disasters in US history, but it could have easily been prevented, or the damage dampened. For example, for decades LA/the city of NO have been asking for money to strengthen the levees, but it has consistenly been cut, and from this last budget money over $100 million for that was slashed and diverted to fund an immoral and illegal war.

I think it is absolutely Bush, and the entire administration's, fault for how this has been handled. Impeach 'em all.[/quote00d0a7dc20]
i agree the levees did need to be fixed before this happened but those things have been needed to be repaired well before the bush admin...although the cut funds which prolle did go to the war effort are bullshit but previous administrations prolle did the same thing. Yet i dont know enough about the funds that have been cut to give a fully educated opinion. I think the response after the hurricane have been done to the best of the Bush administration.

IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!!

jesus christ learn something about what you're talking about before you spout off on a message board like you know what you're saying. how about a topic for everyone's 8th grade social studies class

Levels of Government!

Why didn't the mayor of NO use the city and school buses to evacuate the poor and invalid from the city? It was written in the mandatory evacuation plan for the city that this should be done.

Why did the governor of LA wait 24 to ask Bush for federal aid? He said he preferred to wait 24 hours to assess the damage before making any decisions on federal aid.

Every liberal on the internet is sitting here screaming for Bush's head when they don't even understand the systems that were in place. Now don't get me wrong, the system is FUBAR but what we're seeing is the lack of response from the state. Then all of a sudden it's "where is bush?" and "Bush hates black people!" (thanks Kanye - maybe you should wire your mouth shut again).

I feel for the people down there, i really do - it's a terrible terrible tragedy. but what makes me sick to my stomach is reading all this complete shit that people have been putting on the internet, in papers, etc. trying to use this tragedy as political gain.

flame on.

i couldnt agree more Engrdawg preach on brother

I say impeach the entire administration and shove depleted uranium bullets up their asses so that they know how the civilians in Iraq, Bosnia, and Serbia feel.

Rock on Jake.

Think of how fast the US (Bush) reacted when the tsunami hit Sri Lanka/Indonesia, etc. But they/he cant even help Americans in a decent amount of time?

[quote51542e3180="Jake"]I say impeach the entire administration and shove depleted uranium bullets up their asses so that they know how the civilians in Iraq, Bosnia, and Serbia feel.[/quote51542e3180]

lmao

IMPEACH EVERYONE!!! damn way to make me sound smart man, thanks.

[quote676d1f5d3f="ENGRDawg"][quote676d1f5d3f="Jake"]I say impeach the entire administration and shove depleted uranium bullets up their asses so that they know how the civilians in Iraq, Bosnia, and Serbia feel.[/quote676d1f5d3f]

lmao

IMPEACH EVERYONE!!! damn way to make me sound smart man, thanks.[/quote676d1f5d3f]

writes the guy who has misspelled retarded twice in this ( http//forum.freeipodguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=21260&viewall=1 ) thread alone.

good grief, get a clue.

[quote0992fb5e21="doylnea"][quote0992fb5e21="ENGRDawg"][quote0992fb5e21="Jake"]I say impeach the entire administration and shove depleted uranium bullets up their asses so that they know how the civilians in Iraq, Bosnia, and Serbia feel.[/quote0992fb5e21]

lmao

IMPEACH EVERYONE!!! damn way to make me sound smart man, thanks.[/quote0992fb5e21]

writes the guy who has misspelled retarded twice in this ( http//forum.freeipodguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=21260&viewall=1 ) thread alone.

good grief, get a clue.[/quote0992fb5e21]

awesome. grammar police. Any more ad hominem attacks or does the fact that i misspelled "retarded" (woohoo! i knew i could get it right) nullify any valid arguments i had on any subject?

i'm sure you've never misspelled anything or made a mistake have you?

any more personal attacks or do you actually have an opinion on the subject?

Z - also, this is exactly why i didnt (if i dont use an apostrophe because i'm lazy are you going to crucify me as well) want to post anything in the first place.

[quotef45d77dcec="ENGRDawg"][quotef45d77dcec="doylnea"][quotef45d77dcec="ENGRDawg"][quotef45d77dcec="Jake"]I say impeach the entire administration and shove depleted uranium bullets up their asses so that they know how the civilians in Iraq, Bosnia, and Serbia feel.[/quotef45d77dcec]

lmao

IMPEACH EVERYONE!!! damn way to make me sound smart man, thanks.[/quotef45d77dcec]

writes the guy who has misspelled retarded twice in this ( http//forum.freeipodguide.com/viewtopic.php?t=21260&viewall=1 ) thread alone.

good grief, get a clue.[/quotef45d77dcec]

awesome. grammar police. Any more ad hominem attacks or does the fact that i misspelled "retarded" (woohoo! i knew i could get it right) nullify any valid arguments i had on any subject?

i'm sure you've never misspelled anything or made a mistake have you?

any more personal attacks or do you actually have an opinion on the subject?

Z - also, this is exactly why i didnt (if i dont use an apostrophe because i'm lazy are you going to crucify me as well) want to post anything in the first place.[/quotef45d77dcec]

No, I make mistakes all the time and admit to them (and in fact did so in the thread), but when I call someone an idiot (I don't use the term retarded as a derogatory), I at least spell idiot correctly.

Further, I didn't attack your argument (you know the other part of an ad hominem attack) - though I could poke 5 holes in it without batting an eye. My comment is based solely on the fact you consider yourself not "retarded" enough to comment on the situation, but then misspell it twice. Moreover, why are you preaching about NO, in a thread about SCOTUS and judicial nominations?

If the president can do his job with his verbal skills the way they are... allow ENGRDawg to make his opinion known and don't laugh at it because he mispelled one word.

[quotefa8980520e="slease"]If the president can do his job with his verbal skills the way they are... allow ENGRDawg to make his opinion known and don't laugh at it because he mispelled one word.[/quotefa8980520e]

edit nah, no reason to fan the flames.

Doylnea your comments are stupid and had no relavance to what Engrdawg wrote so thats just retarded. This a forum people randomly type shit and dont always notice their grammar (i know i suck at grammar) i know im not writing a paper here just getting whats on my mind out on the forum. Way to flame him for something thats not even relevant.