During the re-election campaign he said he would nominate judges along the lines of Scalia and Thomas.

those of us that held her as one of our heros as a child...that's who

She will stay on until a replacement is confirmed. I would think they would also let her finish any cases that are past the evidentiary stage and are being deliberated.

but during HIS childhood she resigned, so he doesnt give a shit...

thx for the info

It is going to get even more nasty than it was.

this should turn into a major knock down dragout type of fight. You know GW is going to nominate a reactionary conservative and the dems in the senate are going to have a fit. This may actually help the democrats if they use this fight to show the country what they stand for.

One by one they go :Oh crap

thats my hope as well - if the Dems are cool about it and don't act like idiots - in the end it could really backfire on the Republicans and turn into a massive shift back to the Dems

Trust me, you do not want a liberal Supreme Court. Liberal judges are the ones that do not follow the letter of the law. They want to make names for themselves. They like to interpret laws differently than they were intended.

Liberal judges are not a good thing, make no mistake about it.

This is what I'm talking about. From the Associated Press.
Reading is the pathway to knowledge. You might want to catch up. :winkwink:

Nowhere was O'Connor's judicial reasoning more widely studied than when it related to abortion _ an issue that divides the court as it does the country.

She distanced herself both from her three colleagues who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion _ and also from others who argue the right is a given.

O'Connor initially balked at letting states outlaw most abortions, refusing in 1989 to join four other justices who were ready to reverse the landmark 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Then in 1992, she helped forge and lead a five-justice majority that reaffirmed the core holding of the 1973 ruling. Subsequent appointments secured the abortion right.

I think GW may hedge his bets and save the extreme right-wing judge for the next nomination he is almost certain to get to make. Gonzales would actually be a smart nomination politically since he leans enough to the right on most issues but they can call the abortion issue "compromise". This will be backed up by right-wing right-to-life groups bitching about the nominee. Then again once on the bench Gonzales could go to the other side on the abortion issue and with other Bush nominees be a 100% knockout for the Bush administration.

One thing I've already seen some talking heads talk about on tv is that voters knew when they cast their ballots last November that whoever they elected would likely get to nominate for the supreme court. (lol, okay sure)

In other words, whoever Bush nominates, the majority of Americans already approve of, lmao. It's brilliant really. If only they would use their powers for good ;)

I dont think we want a "liberal" or "conservative" court system. It's a seperate branch and party politics *shouldnt* play into it..
We want a court that will deliberate fairly on disputed issues. Pretty simple. Best way to do that is nominate someone down the middle.

Here is an interesting read on most likely candiates:

http://slate.com/id/2121270/?GT1=6666

Obviously you have never held an elected position. Of course any elected official is going to presume that the masses are behind them, otherwise they would not have been elected.

And yeah, anyone that did not know that someone from the SC would die or retire in this term was uninformed.

This is precisely why conservative is better than liberal.

The thing that scares me the most is during Bush's speech he says he will be "deliberate and thorough" in his choice, and he can not keep from smiling when he says those words.

I have noticed a pattern that whenever he uses the phrase "deliberate and thorough" he smiles. I don't know if it is because of some agenda or just that he was able to pronounce the words without fucking it up.

lol.

he does have that 'look what I can do!' attitude at times. like a little kid showing off.

Now all he has to do is declare a state of emergency and he could be in power indefinitely, non?

I saw that as well - they already know full well who they plan on submitting for nomination - now they are going to work on strategy to get whom ever it is through as quickly as possible

were in trouble now, lets just hope the democrats can stop some ultra conseravtive from getting in there. This could be really bad news for our industry

100........

He wouldn't have to do that if the Republicans who have their bill out there to repeal the 22nd amendment can get enough people behind them...

sign this MoveOn.org petition people...
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=487490

Moveon.org online petition:

FULL TEXT OF THE PETITION

TO: (Your senators)
FROM: (Your Name and Email)
SUBJECT: Protect our rights
__________

Dear senator,

(Your personal note)

The Senate must stand up to President Bush and demand a Supreme Court nominee who will protect the rights and freedoms of the American people.

____________________________

I'm sorry but I just don't see where a generic form letter mass mailed like this will do a whit of good. This just sounds like 15 seconds from the lives of 250,000 people that they will never get back.


That being said, I filled it out and submitted it in nonetheless. It probably wont help a lick but then maybe it will.....

ya same here sucked 15 seconds of my life away but what is that really when you look at the HOURS that some people spend cruising GFY :1orglaugh

Wasn't there a bit of talk a while back that Ash****t resigned because he was being groomed for nomination to SCOTUS?


scary

I know I'm a hippie liberal but I would be damned happy if Dubya nominated Lindsey Graham. I like that guy.

The bill you are speaking about is sponsored by Democrats...and it will go no where.

Again, you want an ultra-conservative rather than an ultra-liberal judge

When did Hoyer & Sensenbrenner become Democrats? :eek7

My error on Hoyer.

12345678