Rehnquist dies

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 4, 2005, 12:43 am

Now this will be interesting...

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 4, 2005, 12:55 am

Man, you guys are so fucked.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » September 4, 2005, 1:32 am

Dregor Thule wrote:Man, you guys are so fucked.

That about sums it up

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 4, 2005, 2:45 am

Best thing that could have happened for the court, he was a crotchedy old fucker

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » September 4, 2005, 3:27 am

But at least he was a strict constructionist. He was a true conservative, someone I'd much rather have that a crispie. Oh well, Bush's political capital is so low right now because of his polling that hopefully they will make confirmation hard for him.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 4, 2005, 3:29 am

Roe v Wade won't be overturned.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 4, 2005, 4:01 am

Dregor Thule wrote:Man, you guys are so fucked.

Not really... it's sad he died, but doesn't change the layout of the supreme court at all - another conservative will be appointed, replacing the *very* conservative Rehnquist.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » September 4, 2005, 7:34 am

Thess wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:Man, you guys are so fucked.
Not really... it's sad he died, but doesn't change the layout of the supreme court at all - another conservative will be appointed, replacing the *very* conservative Rehnquist.

And you can expect the landscape of the court to stay the same for a very long time to come now too.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 4, 2005, 10:53 am

I haven’t been keeping up with the news for the last 2 weeks or so, but out of curiosity has Roberts, the other nominated judge made his position clear on his stance of roe v wade?
Rehnquist was very conservative on almost every social issue, it would be hard for even bush to appoint a more extremist judge

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 4, 2005, 2:27 pm

Thess wrote:
Dregor Thule wrote:Man, you guys are so fucked.
Not really... it's sad he died, but doesn't change the layout of the supreme court at all - another conservative will be appointed, replacing the *very* conservative Rehnquist.

Yup Rehnquist was a true conservative but it will definitely change the landscape of the court...Rehnquist reviled Bush and his attacks on rule of law which is why he tried to hold his position in spite of his illness. Conservative yeah but you won't find anyone who will fight as vigorously against emasculation of the judiciary. Nor are you likely to find his replacement being a preserver of individual rights.

Look for American on sale to a corporatist theocracy near you soon...

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 4, 2005, 3:50 pm

Thess wrote:Not really... it's sad he died, but doesn't change the layout of the supreme court at all - another conservative will be appointed, replacing the *very* conservative Rehnquist.

Rhenquist was too socially conservative for my tastes but he was reasonably honest and had a lot of integrity. Plus he will look like one of the dudes from queer eye for the straight guy compared to the crazy ass fundie bush will put forth.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » September 4, 2005, 9:46 pm

Rehnquist was all about states rights, a true conservative. I'm not looking forward to Bush's candidate, a conservative interested in more federal power.

Daboohk · Post by **Daboohk** » September 5, 2005, 12:45 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/ ... index.html

Xzion wrote:I haven’t been keeping up with the news for the last 2 weeks or so, but out of curiosity has Roberts, the other nominated judge made his position clear on his stance of roe v wade?
Rehnquist was very conservative on almost every social issue, it would be hard for even bush to appoint a more extremist judge

John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote:Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land...There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 5, 2005, 1:10 pm

this just in...Bush nominated ROBERTS to succeed as chief justice...despite his qualifications...hes very young, inexperienced and hasn’t served on the supreme court, wouldnt it be much more appropriate if a senior judge to the court was nominated

it really pisses me off that the president has the power to “nominate” these high positions…way too much power for one man, why cant the senate or even remaining members of the supreme court nominate a candidate?

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 5, 2005, 1:38 pm

Having a president veto every nomination the senate throws could be a really bad situiation. Or having a senate majority in the same party as president would be the same as having the president nominating. Having the supreme court itself nominate judges could be scary too. A high court with no one having any say over them, and only they can pick who joins them? I think the current form is probably the safest.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 5, 2005, 4:52 pm

Xzion wrote:this just in...Bush nominated ROBERTS to succeed as chief justice...despite his qualifications...hes very young, inexperienced and hasn’t served on the supreme court, wouldnt it be much more appropriate if a senior judge to the court was nominated

It seems a little strange to send the newcomer straight to the cheif justice spot, but according to comments on this thread - http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/09 ... l#comments apparently it happens most of the time. According to James Kabala,

Of the fifteeen Chief Justices since the first (John Jay, who obviously couldn't be an elevated associate justice), ten were newcomers (Ellsworth, Marshall, Taney, Chase, Waite, Fuller, Taft, Vinson, Warren, and Burger), three were promoted associates (White, Stone, and Rehnquist), and two were ex-associates returning to the Court after a period of absence (Rutledge and Hughes).

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 5, 2005, 5:46 pm

Cheif Justices are usually given the job from the start. I have a problem with a guy with no CRIMINAL case exp being cheif justice tho

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » September 5, 2005, 7:49 pm

Yeah, it's not so much the fact that they are promoted to Chief Justice from scratch. Marshall and Warren being two who stand out in my mind as integral chief justices of our country who came into the job without serving as a previous supreme court justice.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » September 5, 2005, 11:40 pm

Back scratchers dictating your whole law system, now thats democracy and true freedom at work, nice work fellas.

Not that it's any fucking different in the UK.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » September 6, 2005, 12:10 pm

You say that like we can do anything.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » September 6, 2005, 2:38 pm

You can, you can take your country back from the out of control Government. hence the second amendment....

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » September 6, 2005, 6:12 pm

I don't think your dumb enough to believe that would acutally happen.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 7, 2005, 1:45 pm

Stragi wrote:I don't think your dumb enough to believe that would acutally happen.

Or more correctly, believe that "could" actually happen. Anyone with leadership skill and personality enough to lead something like that against the government would be killed long before a 'movement' got underway. Look at history for proof.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » September 7, 2005, 1:48 pm

Huey Long.

Charley Manson.

The Black Panthers.

Fox News.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » September 7, 2005, 2:06 pm

It's not really a free country therefore if you can't do something that's right there in the constitution.

Not that the Uk is any different. A crying fuckin shame though. Sorta makes a total mockery of the whole concept of freedom and democracy really......

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » September 7, 2005, 2:12 pm

Has the UK ever been truelly "free"? I mean aren't you all subjects of the crown? I know the royalty really has no political power anymore but you should still have that same kinda mindset in place. Im just NooB when it comes to Govt's in other countries cause you know... I'm an American and WE'RE NUMBER ONE BABY!!!!!!!!!! BOW DOWN BEFORE THE EMPIRE!!!!!!! RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!!!!!!!11 WE PWN JOO CAESE WE 1337!!!!~

Oops sorry outburst.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » September 7, 2005, 2:49 pm

Actually you are free to do pretty much anything you want. You just have to be prepared to deal with any reprecussions involved. You are free to kill that person over there but you must be prepared to go to jail or be killed for doing that.

Everyone is free but things need to be put in perspective as well. Society has laws and they are, for the most part, laws for a reason.