The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: AlohaDawg on September 04, 2005, 03:22:05 am
-
This is going to be very interesting. I declare this thread to be open to political speech so long as it is of the intelligent variety.
That means no calling people stupid or flaming. That means supportable arguments fairly phrased.
Thanks for your cooperation.
-
You're stupid and you're flaming! Ha!
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The Democrats may be able to push Bush to appoint a more moderate candidate, seeing as how they haven't gone nuclear over a conservative like Roberts.
I don't consider this the end of the world. Especially in light of the Katrina fallout.
-
My condolences to CJ Rehnquist's family.
Overall, I don't expect this to make much of a difference. I fully expect Bush to appoint some far right winger to this opening (that or elevate Scalia and fill his seat). However, Rehnquist was a hard line right winger already, so it'll just be more of the same. O'Connor's retirement could have more of an effect because she ended up being more moderate. I'm not expecting much moderation from Roberts -- the fact that he's TV pretty doesn't change that he's Rehnquist's protege or what he's written in the past.
-
Holy Shit, was this Chinese Curse week or something? Cause it's sure been "interesting."
-
I fully expect Bush to appoint some far right winger to this opening.
OK - but could he at least find a far right winger who isn't a white guy? In 21st century America, could it really be that hard? Does he not even want to try to placate the other side even a tiny, mostly cosmetic little bit?
Some morning I would like to wake up to some good news that brings the country together. I can't figure out what it would be, though.
-
I fully expect Bush to appoint some far right winger to this opening.
OK - but could he at least find a far right winger who isn't a white guy? In 21st century America, could it really be that hard? Does he not even want to try to placate the other side even a tiny, mostly cosmetic little bit?
Some morning I would like to wake up to some good news that brings the country together. I can't figure out what it would be, though.
Interesting to note that as far as nominating racial minority Justices to the Supreme Court, Republicans and Democrats are exactly equal. True, LBJ did years before Bush (I), but hey, Republicans nominated the first woman.
If Bush does nominate a minority, he'll be criticized for appointing a "token (insert racial minority)" to the Court. If he doesn't, he'll be accused of racism. I don't like the guy, but I feel for him on this point. Hasn't he appointed more women and minorities to cabinet positions than Clinton, or any other President in history? Yes, he has (at least according to USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-12-09-diverse-usat_x.htm)--it's the best source I could find). Seriously, wombat, what's a guy gotta do? However, I don't think this means that his policies concerning race and gender are better than Clinton's. That's why I think it's such a silly criticism.
August: Rehnquist, I think, is different than the type of conservative that Bush is likely to nominate. Unless we get Gonzales, the nominee is likely to be to the right of Scalia or even Thomas. So this news worries me quite a bit. I mean, Scalia was enough, and then Thomas...well, it balanced it out a bit. But two more?
(Edited to include source.)
-
Seriously, wombat, what's a guy gotta do?
I feel that the Supreme Court is really different from cabinet positions and really anything else. Its permanence and conspiciousness and influence are just totally different. Maybe you have to be a women to know how it feels that we finally managed to get TWO women on the court - as if it were for real, not just one token - and now we've slid back to one. A girl in this country still can't really believe that she can grow up to be President but, seeing how many female lawyers there are now, how hard could it be to make the court more representative?
What we need is Philippe for president...
-
I had to get my SO out of the shower when I heard about this and I don't think she's been off the phone or computer since. So much for a couple of days off.
-
See, this is just like the Republicans to announce this now to divert attention away from their screw ups in New Orleans.
~Paul
-
Good job self-policing your comments people.
I personally think it probably is fairly significant. Lifetime appointmensts were one thing in 1800 when you lived to be 55. They are yet another thing now. Eventually there will be 12 people floating in Capt. Christopher Pike-type wheelchair thingies with lights on the front for 'uphold' or 'reverse', and we'll be celebrating the 100th year of Justice Smith's tenure. I think that Judge Roberts has in the past written against the lifetime appointment and it does bear discussion, although it is important for a long view of constitutional law and lifetime appointments afford such a view.
I think that Roberts will get through because the Democratic members of the Senate can't afford to tar-and-feather him, especially with another candidate right behind. The 'gang of 14' have effectively limited the filibuster to extremely unusual circumstances (and some feel the filibuster was meant only for legislation...it depends on how you interpret the Senate's rule to ' advise and consent' to the President's picks).
Watch for Janice Rogers Brown. Seriously. That would make for an interesting nomination, she already passed the Senate (as did Roberts) for Circuit Court or Court of Appeals one time and she's a black woman. I don't think the administration would nominate Alberto Gonzales because a female and especially a black female candidate with her qualifications would be more effective at curtailing the Senate attacks, especially given some Senators' physical appearance and tacit agreement to inflammatory statements made at some recent events staged by Harry Belafonte, Dick Gregory, etc. Also, I think there is something to be said for having more than one woman on the court, as well as more racial diversity.
-
I'm looking for Clement. She's the person the media thought was a lock before and I think she'd still be a strong contender now.
I'm just worried that this will get buried because of hurricane coverage. Plus the fact that most Americans don't realize how much the Supremes affect their daily lives. Everybody knows the Miranda rights but how many people are aware that they basically exist because of a Supreme Court decision? And don't even get me started on eminent domain
-
Everybody knows the Miranda rights but how many people are aware that they basically exist because of a Supreme Court decision?
Go Gideon! And the issue is still debated. Some people want to do away with Miranda rights.
Wombat: I agree that because Justices sit on the bench for so long, and because the decisions they hand down impact all of us, in most ways an appointment to the Court is much more significant than (most) cabinet positions. However, I don't know that it's more conspicuous. I bet that most people who pay even the smallest amount of attention to what's going on could rattle off a couple cabinet members, but it's possible that they wouldn't even recognize any of the Justice's names if you gave them a list.
-
Well, I would say that don't pay much more than the smallest amount of attention, and I could name several justices, but I'm not even sure what positions make up the cabinet. In fact if I give myself this quiz right now I would guess that Condoleeza Rice is on the cabinet - in the cabinet? - and I can't think of anyone else. And I'm probably only thinking of her because I just saw her in hurricane coverage. (Can someone please make me stop reading hurricane coverage?)
Whereas I can name several justices off the top of my head. There's Scalia, who embarrasses me because I am also Italian, and Clarence Thomas who recalls many cringe-making memories, and Souter, the guy from New Hampshire whose mother's house still had a refrigerator with a motor on top (I swear I remember reading this or seeing a picture), and Sandra Day O'Connor who once visited the Small Mammal house with her grandchildren, and Ginsburg. There's another one with a nondescript name and no distinguishing characteristics. Is that all?
By the way: Surely no fair naming Roberts as Chief Justice. Shouldn't he have to work his way up?
-
By the way: Surely no fair naming Roberts as Chief Justice. Shouldn't he have to work his way up?
I'm not sure how I feel about this. He's further right than Scalia but Scalia is batshit insane. It's a devil-you-know situation right here.
-
This is going to be very interesting. I declare this thread to be open to political speech so long as it is of the intelligent variety.
That means no calling people stupid or flaming. That means supportable arguments fairly phrased.
Thanks for your cooperation.
So we can have political speech as long as AlohaDawg approves it?
fuck*ng lovely.
-
This is going to be very interesting. I declare this thread to be open to political speech so long as it is of the intelligent variety.
That means no calling people stupid or flaming. That means supportable arguments fairly phrased.
Thanks for your cooperation.
So we can have political speech as long as AlohaDawg approves it?
fuck*ng lovely.
It said no flaming, If all you have is an ad hominem attack off the thread topic, I think you fall outside the requested "intelligent" posts. Everyone else so far at least understood what I was saying.
Start a new thread about how I'm a dick if you want. Couldn't give a shit less for your opinion about me.
-
Taking it back to the New Orleans topic, since that seems to be where this is relevant.
-
It's pretty much impossible to properly moderate a discussion forum without being thought a dick by someone.
Okay, I guess JL pulled it off. But I digress.
Anyway, I'm happy to be moderating-free since 2004. And hopefully the moderators can get along with everyone since they're, you know, just doing their job. It's like the mods are throwing a party in a rented hall - you want everyone to have a good time and not hurt each other, but at the same time you don't really give a shit if someone spills their Pinot Noir on the carpet.
Ultimately, we'd hope that people pretty much self-moderate and not be dicks, but it doesn't always happen that way, especially with political/religious/cola wars types of topics that get people's blood up.
-
Jough has it right. We're all adults here (or, you know, close enough) -- I'd really like to trust everyone to self-moderate, since it's worked in the past. I understand that this is more stressful than the norm and that emotions are running high, but please? One of the things I appreciate about this board is that people are in some ways at least attempting to not be dicks to each other. That's more than most boards can say.
-
Making book on the Law (http://www.nine.com/miscarticles/betcomlaw05092005.asp)
Looks like a few years ago, there was a line on the SCOTUS....kind of funny, actually. The same people seem to be more or less in play, too.
-
Yikes, I hope that doesn't still include Hatch. As a former (liberal, non-mormon) Utahn, I've never been a fan of his, but after nonsense like the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, I really want to see him out of power.
the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), was sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the industry since 1994.
Under the law, supplements are not subject to FDA approval, and the companies behind them do not have to report adverse side effects.
The net result of DSHEA, critics say, is an industry that is almost entirely unregulated.
There are, for example, no established quality-control standards, meaning that what's on the label isn't always in the pill.
Plus he's a chief sponsor of that perennial Senate time-waster, the flag desecration amendment. That's not something I'd like to see in a Supreme Court justice, but perhaps this is a debate for another thread.
-
Yikes, I hope that doesn't still include Hatch. As a former (liberal, non-mormon) Utahn, I've never been a fan of his, but after nonsense like the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, I really want to see him out of power.
As a Utahn, I loathe Hatch. I doubt we'll ever see him on the bench.
Also, it looks like all of the potential Chief Justice candidates on the website are current Justices. It reminds me that I've heard a lot of criticism lately regarding Bush nominating Roberts to be Chief Justice because he's an outsider (among other reasons). But I've heard that most Chief Justices have been outside appointments. Maybe these guys didn't work all the factors into their calculations.
-
Gee, think this has anything to do with products like Stacker2 and the resulting lawsuits?