Bush nominates Roberts as chief justice..
 

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Moving quickly to fill the vacancy left by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's death, President Bush on Monday nominated Judge John Roberts to the nation's top judicial post."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/...ion/index.html


I have no idea if this is good or bad.. But the slot has been filled.

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned.

Canada will become an abortion mecca for those who can afford to travel.

Obsenity will be more aggressively enforced. The adult biz will run for cover.

Good luck.

What exactly would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned, Paul?

Bush moves fast :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh


when it fulfills his interest and beliefs. :2 cents:

Please !!!!!!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh
Was it faster then the uricane reaction ?

An abortion would no longer be a matter between a woman and her doctor.

They may become illegal, with a return to the the back alley days.

Why do all you foreign asshats think that abortion would be illegal in the US if Roe v. Wade were overturned?

About 5 days faster.

Well.... Roe vs Wade was the landmark Supreme Court decision that made an abortion a matter between a woman and her doctor.

Before that, the state was passing laws making them illegal.

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, the states could make abortions illegal again.

I think that some american asshats think the same ...


Maybe the " Terry Schiavo v Katrina " gives an insight in the politics of this administration ...

But I could be wrong .. show me!

I doubt it.

It's a lot more difficult to overturn a case that's set 20 years of precident then it is to make a decision like that in the first place. Not to mention you're thinking to much along conservative judges vs liberal judges lines, I believe of the judges that originally voted on that case only scalia is still in office; but more importantly conservative doesn't necessarilly mean pro-life.

Not to mention that overturning that case doesn't necesarilly make abortion illegal.

Doesn't make them an less of an asshat...

Prior to Roe v. Wade; Colorado, California, Oregon, New York, Hawaii, Washington, Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina all allowed abortion. Thirty one state allowed abortion in the case of possible maternal peril.



From the USA Today (and it's "conservative" leader)...

USA Today conducted a state-by-state analysis. Their analysis expects 11 "conservative states" to immediately pass laws prohibiting abortion. But those "conservative states" only had 122 abortion providers in 2000, less than 7 percent of the nation's 1,819 abortion providers. "Most of those 122 providers (65) are in Texas," writes USA Today. "If pro-choice forces can hold on to Texas (not unlikely, given the feisty Democratic minority's tendency to flee to Oklahoma to deny the Legislature a quorum when its members are miffed) we're down to 57 providers. If the Democrats controlling the Alabama and Arkansas legislatures decided to act like Democrats, not Dixiecrats, that total could fall to 36."

That leaves eight "conservative states" with only 36 abortion providers between them ? an already difficult proposition for any woman seeking an abortion in those states. In six of them ? Mississippi, Kentucky, the Dakotas, Missouri and Nebraska ? a woman cannot find an abortion provider in 97-98 percent of those states' counties. In other words, as it stands now, conservative states reduce abortion to almost non-existence, so a post-Roe world, at least in those states, changes little.

The slot has been filled? Do you know what the word "nominate" means?

the dude is not even confirmed and he nominates him chief justice?!

Yeah, it means they nominated someone to fill the slot..

Almost all Chief Justices are Nominated from outside the Supreme court, not from within it.

So how do you figure the slot has been filled? There is still a confirmation process to go thru.

I would nominate myself to fill the slut ....

How ignorant are you?

If the Bush admin wants someone in a particular office, rest assured that person is in.

Nomination means nothing. Bush will force his ass into office like he did the other guy that ended up pissing everyone off.

Roberts referred in one memo to the "abortion tragedy" and helped write a legal brief that argued for overturning

But again, I am just an uninformed foreign asshat ... I wish, if re-incarnation exist, to be you when I come back ... :1orglaugh

I'll ask again...

What exactly would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned, directfiesta?

Don't really have the time ... going out :winkwink:

But, if it is nothing or nothing important, why would they want to overturn it ????

Makes you go hummmmmm

Before i hop in the shower:

end of legal abortion in the United States. That might be the best thing to ever happen to the pro-choice movement in this country.

I'm just wondering if you realize that he was HIRED to write that brief.... it was not an opinion of his, it was brief that he was paid to write as an attorney.

But prehaps that distinction is lost on you?

If there is anything we've seen in the last week, it's that the federal government is too bloated and incompatant to handle state matters, do you really wish to give the "federalize" all encompassing power over the states?

You didn't answer the first question... I don't expect you to answer this one either.


Roe was one of the first steps D.C. used to consolidate power in the modern era.

Is it enough to say that Americans deserve the government that 23% of them elect?

Is it enough to say that even the most well travelled Americans get tired of constant criticism of people that are neither shareholders nor stakeholders?


Well -- I guess stakeholder could be disuputed, so carry on....

The best part is I haven't seen one single AMERICAN (you know the people most effected by the appointment) in the thread whine or complain about the nomination on merit.

Carry on Canadians...

WTF are you ... French ... ans Spermbonzo Italian ???? ( or whatever ) ....


And, yes I answered the questions... Now keep asking new one...

Nope -- you posted an article (that proved my point)... you've personally offered NOTHING other than:

"Don't really have the time ... going out "




The post you quoted wasn't a question.