TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - New York
-- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist passes away.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist passes away.

Liberals rejoice, Conservatives weap.

RIP

I dont know if anyone will be rejoicing over a supreme court judge's death! besides, im sure the replacement will be just as, if not more, conservative (hopefully)

As I responded to Mebot in the COR, Bush will most likely nominate Scalia, but whether he is confirmed by the Senate is another story.

yeah how are we happy? that asshole bush is just going to replace him with someone even more conservative. i swear i am moving to canada.

quote:

Originally posted by trancEyes22 yeah how are we happy? that asshole bush is just going to replace him with someone even more conservative. i swear i am moving to canada.

Can you take me too

quote:

Originally posted by trancEyes22 i swear i am moving to canada.

canada is too cold, go to australia, that's what i did .

With 2 spots opening up. He will probably nominate Scalia for Cheif Justice, now with 2 bench spots open, he will probably fill it with 1 conservative and 1 liberal.

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad he will probably fill it with 1 conservative and 1 liberal.

i doubt that. I dont think he will fill the 2 spots with ultra conservatives, but still unfortunately they will be conservatives .

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad With 2 spots opening up. He will probably nominate Scalia for Cheif Justice, now with 2 bench spots open, he will probably fill it with 1 conservative and 1 liberal.

No way he'll do that. This is the exact thing that I feared with the last election, that the Rebuplicans would control both houses of Congress and the Oval Office and can now reshape US government for the next half century.

Bush just nominated Roberts for Chief Justice. He's 50 now, if he gets in, we will get 30-50 years of his opinions, which we don't know much about anyhow, as he's only been on the Appeals Court for 2 years. That's the part that scares me the most: not knowing how conservative he may be. And who knows who they're going to get to replace O'Connor (as well as the next one to go in the next 3 years, which you can bet there will be, with Stevens being 85)

You guys are ignoring the fact that Bush can only nominate, he cant implement it. The Senate confirms, and trust me, he wont fill those 2 seats with ultra conservative because it will not pass in the Senate. If he wants Roberts in, he will have to put a liberal in to fill the other seat. The liberal Senators were probably waiting on Rehnquist to go so that they could make a deal for the 2 spots. They will most likely not allow Roberts to fill the spot of Chief Justice because of his age. But the only way he will take a seat on the bench is if they fill the other spot with a liberal.

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad They will most likely not allow Roberts to fill the spot of Chief Justice because of his age. But the only way he will take a seat on the bench is if they fill the other spot with a liberal.

witness the cheney machine first hand. Roberts is as good as confirmed and then next one will be much more conservative.

One word... Filibuster.

quote:

Originally posted by Vlad One word... Filibuster.

both parties agreed earlier in the year to use it for extreme cases, and if the democrats do it again the repblicans will try to get rid of it agian.

one of my friends didn't like the idea of Roberts being the Chief Justice...


only because he did not have a solid conservative record


http://republicansenate.blogspot.co...pportunity.html

quote:

John Roberts is a good nominee for Chief Justice and should be confirmed. Having said that, the President missed a golden opportunity to define a new direction for the Supreme Court. If the President had nominated Janice Rogers Brown, he could have made a statement that the government has far exceeded its constitutional authority and that the era of big government is, in fact, over. He would also have clearly rejected Sandra Day O'Connor's jurisprudential gymnastics and seated another Justice whose record shows a clear understanding of the fact that the Constitution says what it says, not what Gallup's latest poll says it says. Politically, the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown would have been the play of the decade. Anybody could see the irony of Ted Kennedy complaining about the civil rights record of the fist ever black woman to be nominated for Chief Justice of the United States. Senators Nelson, Stabenow, Landrieu, and others would have been forced to either back a solid conservative or institute a glass ceiling on black women in America. The confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown would have made clear once and for all that judicial philosophy is not justification for filibustering judicial nominees. The hipocracy of the Democrat Party, no matter what it did, would have been bared for all to see. As I said, Roberts is a solid nominee and deserves to be confirmed. This assessment is not a criticism of John Roberts, whom I had endorsed for confirmation to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. I expect that Judge Roberts will serve well for decades to come. The documents released from his service in the administration of President Reagan suggest that he is a solid consrvative and point to a Scalia without the attitude approach. (I like the attitude.) I will be posting regularly throughout the rest of the process in support of the good Judge..

LOL, he probably will nominate her.

past republican presidents have been wrong about their choices being totally conservative. i can't match names of presidents with their picks but i know eisenhower's pick went to the left, and reagan's pick of anthony kennedy has been somewhat disappointing for staunch conservatives. all i can say is they're fair. but why push roberts through as chief justice? i haven't been paying too much attn to what's been going on lately...

quote:

Originally posted by trunks1022 past republican presidents have been wrong about their choices being totally conservative. i can't match names of presidents with their picks but i know eisenhower's pick went to the left, and reagan's pick of anthony kennedy has been somewhat disappointing for staunch conservatives. all i can say is they're fair. but why push roberts through as chief justice? i haven't been paying too much attn to what's been going on lately...

I think it's because the Republicans are seeing the opporunities that could be associated with Rehnquist's. As of now, they have not indicated who they want to nominate to replace O'Connor, which means, that the Democrats have to be very careful about what happens during Rehnquist's proceedings. If they're too standoffish and too willing to filibuster, then the Republicans will start to threaten to change the filibuster rules again. If they do, they'll be able to nominate whoever they want for the associate, because they'll only need 51 people to make it go to a vote and they have 55 seats in the Senate. I think the associate justice nominee is going to be more conservative than Roberts.

What's even more scary is what happens when Stevens goes. In the Rehnquist court, he has leaned liberally quite a few times (though some of his earlier opinions were conservative). Overall, he's been one of the moderates (which in my opinion is the more desirable construct of the court). And the Republicans complain of judicial activism now, just wait until they get to handpick half of the court and see how activist it becomes.

Rehnquist, while conservative when nominated, became much more moderate as he got older.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.