cya sandy

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » July 1, 2005, 11:25 am

word on the street, street being cnn headline news, is that justice o'connor is retiring.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2005, 11:37 am

its official.

[color=red][b]CNN[/b][/color].com wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.

O'Connor, 75, said she will leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or when the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor

Jeff Toobin (CNN Legal Analyst) disagreed with one point in the quoted piece above. Abortion was last voted on in like 1993, and was 6-3, not 5-4 (Roe v. Wade was 5-4 so there was a swing vote).

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 1, 2005, 11:44 am

there goes the neighboorhood

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 1, 2005, 12:16 pm

God I fear what a neocon could do to the SCOTUS. EVERY democrat in the house and senate better be linking arms to prevent what could be the worst thing to happen to the Supreme Court in a long, long time.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » July 1, 2005, 12:47 pm

this country is going under faster than a gay guy at a pride after party

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 1, 2005, 12:58 pm

This is the making of some quality Daily Show fodder for a good while now!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » July 1, 2005, 1:00 pm

Leading candidate to replace O'Connor:

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 1, 2005, 1:25 pm

Alex Kozinski!

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » July 1, 2005, 2:05 pm

scotus is such a stupid acronym

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » July 1, 2005, 3:20 pm

Renquist is on the outs as well, that'll be two for this fall.

If Bush is having this much push back on the lower courts, sweet Jesus, these nominees are gonna be lambasted.

If he can find someone that both sides of this VV forum don't completely hate, then he's done his job.

Good Luck wiuth that.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 1, 2005, 3:40 pm

masteen wrote:God I fear what a neocon could do to the SCOTUS. EVERY democrat in the house and senate better be linking arms to prevent what could be the worst thing to happen to the Supreme Court in a long, long time.

Are you fucking joking? Even the Democrats are hoping Bush appoints 2 non-retarded republicans so they can overturn this bullshit property seizure horseshit those liberal morons upheld.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 1, 2005, 4:16 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
masteen wrote:God I fear what a neocon could do to the SCOTUS. EVERY democrat in the house and senate better be linking arms to prevent what could be the worst thing to happen to the Supreme Court in a long, long time.
Are you fucking joking? Even the Democrats are hoping Bush appoints 2 non-retarded republicans so they can overturn this bullshit property seizure horseshit those liberal morons upheld.

not even close.

the property seizure thing will be taken care of by state legislatures as well as Congress. Tom Delay is already on the warpath about it, and there will be wide ranging bipartisan support.

the ENTIRE point of all of this talk about "The Nuclear Option", the "Filibuster, and "Activist Judges" over the past several years is about one single, solitary word:

Abortion

People knew Bush would have at least one appointment to make this term, and the evangelicals turned out on this issue. If Bush has a mandate, it is for this solitary purpose to appoint a pro-life nomine.

That is the "extreme circumstances" that the "Gang of 14" Senators was alluding to with regards to the Filibuster.

So the battle lines will be drawn soon, and this is the defining moment of Bill Frist's career. Has he been rendered impotent by McCain and the group of 14 moderates, or will the Republicans do the president's bidding?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 1, 2005, 5:36 pm

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 1, 2005, 5:59 pm

Voro, Gang of 14? I'm not down with the politico lingo, so care to share some info with us plebs?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 1, 2005, 6:48 pm

I think he is referring to the "agreement" by 14 not to bring the filibusters in, or allow up-or-down votes.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 2, 2005, 12:45 am

yeah specifically 7 Republican senators led by John McCain and 7 democrat senators. Basically 14 moderates who came to a compromise and realized they could act as a "swing vote" to block any candidate or allow any candidate.

basically the compromise was this, let the Republicans have some of their Federal Appeals Court nominees that the Democrats had been blocking for several years, and .... well we arent sure what the Democrats get....maybe a few more weeks of breath...hehe

but possibly assistance from moderate Republicans in allowing a Fillibuster to take place if a hard line conservative Supreme Court Justice nominee was before the Senate.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 2, 2005, 4:02 am

What's interesting is McCain still seems to have Presidential aspirations and if he shows up to cockblock Bush (all past bad blood aside), the party will remember come nomination time in 2007/8.

That said, I like McCain - I wish he would have got the nod in 2000.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 2, 2005, 11:00 pm

Ashur wrote:What's interesting is McCain still seems to have Presidential aspirations and if he shows up to cockblock Bush (all past bad blood aside), the party will remember come nomination time in 2007/8.

That said, I like McCain - I wish he would have got the nod in 2000.

McCain would win by a landslide if he ran independent.

he would have a real opportunity to create a meaningful third party. a moderate party. one that actually represents a very large segment of the population that has economic muscle, but lacks a political voice.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 3, 2005, 12:57 am

Voronwë wrote:McCain would win by a landslide if he ran independent.

He would have a real opportunity to create a meaningful third party. a moderate party. one that actually represents a very large segment of the population that has economic muscle, but lacks a political voice.

Have to disagree on him winning by a landslide, Voro. The two parties-that-be have too much skin in the game to allow for an independent president and the gloves would come off (heh, like they are ever on...).

It would just a question of which party has more moderates that would throw thier vote away on him giving the other party the election.

I'm not saying IMPOSSIBLE, I'm just saying statistically unlikely, although I'd love to inflict an Independent president on Washington. I actually voted for Perot...

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » July 3, 2005, 1:35 am

Voronwë wrote:
Ashur wrote:What's interesting is McCain still seems to have Presidential aspirations and if he shows up to cockblock Bush (all past bad blood aside), the party will remember come nomination time in 2007/8.

That said, I like McCain - I wish he would have got the nod in 2000.
McCain would win by a landslide if he ran independent.

he would have a real opportunity to create a meaningful third party. a moderate party. one that actually represents a very large segment of the population that has economic muscle, but lacks a political voice.

I also got burnt on Ross Perot. You're sadly mistaken that this country would elect a 3rd party candidate, even one as compelling as McCain.

I think Bush is going to nominate a clearly conservative white male with impeccable legal credentials. Then just let the Democrats beat themselves to death trying to block the nomination. After Ted and Howard and Nancy and Hillary go on record opposing this "extremist", then the original nominee will withdraw and Bush will put forth someone like Janice Rogers Brown. Bait and switch.

My secret wish would be that Bush throws down the guantlet and nominates Judge Robert Bork.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 3, 2005, 1:49 am

Perot had a legitimate chance before he dropped out and came back.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 3, 2005, 11:19 am

If I remember right, Perot was leading a lot of polls before he dropped out.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » July 3, 2005, 11:45 am

Yeah, it's sad that his insanity kept his from being President

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » July 3, 2005, 8:19 pm

masteen wrote:Yeah, it's sad that his insanity kept his from being President

Insanity... and the little green men!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 4, 2005, 12:58 am

my money is on justice Falwell and justice Robertson, why cant we take a page out of the Asians book and leave religion as a fucking private practice, Its sick how hypocritical the conservatives have been on attacking moderates like arlen specter now for allegedly threatening to veto any “pro life” candidates, when they would do the same if bush was open minded enough to consider nominating a pro choice one

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 4, 2005, 1:02 am

Ashur wrote:What's interesting is McCain still seems to have Presidential aspirations and if he shows up to cockblock Bush (all past bad blood aside), the party will remember come nomination time in 2007/8.

That said, I like McCain - I wish he would have got the nod in 2000.

yeah, mccain would sure as hell have been better then gore leiberman, i would vote for him except for the fact that i think we need a strong social liberal canidate to counter some of the extremist changes of the bush admin

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » July 5, 2005, 9:09 am

You do realize that not every republican is a right wing fundie don't you? I would say a good 80% of people who voted for Bush are actually moderates who didn't have a candidate that they really wanted. Now....while I can say I don't think Bush has done a terrible job, he has not done a great one either. Things would be worse with Kerry in office and that is the only two choices we had.

Bush came in on a recession, had the WorldCom and Andersen fiascos hit that had been festering for years, had terrorists hit the biggest center of trade in the U.S., and 2 hot daughters in college.....all in his first year in the White House. Just having kept the country from sliding deeper into that recession and doing things to spur the economy made him far far superior to what Kerry would have done to us.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 5, 2005, 7:05 pm

yeah.. because we really want 14 crooked asses holding the reigns to scotus and the federal judicial circuits...

at least in the normal process it is a 100 man vote. the real joke is those 14 people are supposed to be voting for their constituency, not on survivor alliances.

Part of being the minority, is respecting the majority.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 5, 2005, 7:09 pm

Fash wrote:
Part of being the minority, is respecting the majority.

huh?

since when?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 5, 2005, 7:15 pm

Since forever. You vote, and the majority wins.. the laws and appointments still count whether you like it or not.

or... you fix the game, because you know you're going to lose, and you have no respect for the majority.

if the majority wanted to vote down these appointments, the democrats wouldn't hesitate to vote on them. sore losers.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 5, 2005, 7:21 pm

Fash wrote:Since forever. You vote, and the majority wins.. the laws and appointments still count whether you like it or not.

or... you fix the game, because you know you're going to lose, and you have no respect for the majority.

if the majority wanted to vote down these appointments, the democrats wouldn't hesitate to vote on them. sore losers.

That's one of the single most pathetic leaps of logic I've seen for some time on this board from someone whose name isn't Midnyte. I'll refer you to Kilmoll's post just before yours (am I seriously referencing Kilmoll?)

You do realize that not every republican is a right wing fundie don't you?

Seems to me these 14 are probably doing what their constituents want. Being moderates, which is probably what got them elected. Why are they crooked asses? Because they are exhibiting shreds of thought independant from party lines?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 5, 2005, 7:27 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:Why are they crooked asses?

Because they're changing the rules of the game and stopping the system from working as intended... these people are supposed to be voted on by the full senate... 100 people representing 50 states.. not 14 people representing less than 14 states. That's crooked asshattery.

It's only happening because the minority is unwilling to accept reality, but willing to go behind the back of the constitution.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 5, 2005, 7:39 pm

so let me get this straight. You think it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for senators to vote in any way other than in the strict party line?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 5, 2005, 7:59 pm

*throws hands up in the air*

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » July 5, 2005, 8:05 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You do realize that not every republican is a right wing fundie don't you? I would say a good 80% of people who voted for Bush are actually moderates who didn't have a candidate that they really wanted. Now....while I can say I don't think Bush has done a terrible job, he has not done a great one either. Things would be worse with Kerry in office and that is the only two choices we had.

Bush came in on a recession, had the WorldCom and Andersen fiascos hit that had been festering for years, had terrorists hit the biggest center of trade in the U.S., and 2 hot daughters in college.....all in his first year in the White House. Just having kept the country from sliding deeper into that recession and doing things to spur the economy made him far far superior to what Kerry would have done to us.

2 hot daughters? damn dude, im spanish and i can even say you have some low standards

Referring to your previous comment your right, 85% of registered republicans (at least the ones I know) are not right wing fundies by any means, but 85% of republican politicians currently in office are.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 5, 2005, 8:11 pm

Voronwë wrote:so let me get this straight. You think it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for senators to vote in any way other than in the strict party line?

No... I don't think that, and haven't said that.... nice try?

Voronwe wrote:Basically 14 moderates who came to a compromise and realized they could act as a "swing vote" to block any candidate or allow any candidate.

I do think THAT is unconstitutional, however.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 5, 2005, 8:50 pm

haha, you guys are arguing with Fash.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » July 5, 2005, 8:54 pm

So a filibuster, a time honored tradition in the Senate to protect a minority party, is also unconstitutional?

And if I do recall, the full senate will vote on these people if the branch decides to move ahead with a candidate. All 100 Senators will vote, we just have different teams this time. How is 14 bipartisan senators teaming up any different than 55 senators from the republican party teaming up and 45 from the democrats? I'm seriously failing to see the logic jump here, I guess. The Senate has always been split into teams since 1791. Are you saying that grouping together to protect your interests is unconstitutional?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 5, 2005, 9:36 pm

Is the existence of the 435th member of the House of Representatives UNCONSTITUTIONAL if he gets to cast a vote on an issue deadlocked 217 to 217?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 5, 2005, 11:16 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:That's one of the single most pathetic leaps of logic I've seen for some time on this board from someone whose name isn't Midnyte. I'll refer you to Kilmoll's post just before yours (am I seriously referencing Kilmoll?)

Fash is Midnyte's brother.