I can't wait to see who W picks as her replacement.
Discuss.
Printable View
I can't wait to see who W picks as her replacement.
Discuss.
oh boy, here we go! battle royale begins.
Ha...I was just posting the same thread. She was our liberal swing vote and I am sure that GWB is dancing a jig over this one.
One appointment that they mentioned is from the Texas Supreme Court (I believe, Texas government official atleast) and was seen as not quite conservative enough. He is Pro-Life (which is exactly what the female population is fearing) and they compared him to Justice Souter, who was BLATANTLY Pro-Life.
It is only one position, but the impact of the Sup. Ct. opinions is bound to change with just one person. This guy, Gonzalez, could be a swing in the wrong direction...
I'm still waiting to wake up from this bad dream! It just keeps getting worse! :nonono2:
This really sucks. I just hope he's as stupid with this nomination as he's been with some of the Federal Judges, causes a Senate fiasco, and costs the Repubs their majority.
Why doesn't anybody think a person can hold personal opinions but and not let that interfere with their interpretations of the constitution.
There have been pro-life justices before and as far as I know they have never looked to overturn Roe v Wade.
Regardless it should be an interesting next few months as I would assume Rehnquist is going to retire as well. Should make for an interesting summer here on TGR Crossfire
It's not that those people aren't out there, but Bush has shown that he'll tenaciously stick to nominations of hard-right activist judges who try to use the bench to do what legislatures won't. I definitely believe he'll nominate someone who will vote against Roe (although you won't get that out of them at the hearings), even if he thinks it will be a big battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by CUBUCK
Congrats to the first feminina on the court. It could get real ugly from here on out. Girlski: isn't Gonzales the same guy who wrote the torture memo? Do you really think Bush wants all the talk to be about that during confirmation hearings?
When the fuck is Stevens going to retire.
He's fucking 85 years old, dammit!
Rehnquist is 80 and dying!
O'connor is a young 75.
I sure will miss "our conservative swing vote" ;)
rarely ideological and dogmatic, she was never afraid to follow a reasonable middle ground. One of the best justices, particularly as a swing vote.
Because they are being chosen on their interpretations of the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by CUBUCK
ok maybe I worded it the wrong way. What I am after is I am morally against abortion and I can't think of any circumstance where I would ask my gf/wife/whatever to have one. But at the same time I understand, respect, and believe it is ultimately her decision and would not interfere with that. Make sense? Maybe I have too much faith in that people can hold personal biases back when it is for a greater good.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Damn Damn Damn Damn DAMN! [/Florida Evans]
Sandra Day was one of the best legacies of Reagan. Based her votes on careful consideration of the issue - not on ideology.
One can only hope the next justice will be near as good.
You speak for the entire female population? Why do people think just men are against abortion (I know, the men are the hard-core psycho ones). Plenty of gals I know think it's outright wrong. Don't want to debate the issue but their is a sizable minority against it. note: I have always leaned slightly to the choice side.Quote:
Originally Posted by girlski0912
I am sure Rove has some diabolical plan to get their guy in. Something like nominating a hard right no-chance nominee on the 1st try knowing al the pressure is on the Dems for #2 (the guy the Bush team really wants). The Dems don't have a Rove on their team yet...
So that means he's against the death penalty?Quote:
Originally Posted by girlski0912
I'm pro-life: against the death penalty and the war in Iraq (and killing people abroad for corporate gain). 'Pro-life" is a total misnomer. It should be called 'anti-abortion' or 'anti-freedom' or 'hypocritical right-wing steeze' or 'confused Jesus-lover'. At least the Catholics are consistent on this point.
Policeman: J.J. you fit the description of the suspect -- a tall, skinny, young, Black man.Quote:
Originally Posted by bklyntrayc
Florida: You just described most of Chicago!
Michael: We gotta take this to the Supreme Court! They got a Black judge there, and he don't fool around like y'all do!
[note to younger maggots, he ain't referring to Justice Thomas ;)]
heh, this is gonna be fun.
unfortunately I don't have the confidence I once had in a nominee that takes federalism seriously being nominated and then confirmed. oh, and the nukular(sic) option will happen within 45 days.
Between my limited understanding of the justice system and rumors something's conflicting. My feeling is that the chances of roe v. wade being overturned is extremely unlikely.
Wouldn't there have to be a bulletproof reason to overturn roe v. wade? Wouldn't the courts have to first determine that a fetus is a life or something? Also, has it even come up for vote since roe v. wade?
I only took one civics class in high school, but my understanding is that it would be really difficult to overturn a previous decision and in doing so, the justices would be such a minor part.
Discuss?
One more question: How much room for interpretation do the justices have? Do they basically get to vote how they feel, or is the system such that the impact of their biases is marginal?
TGR is for learning!
They can do anything they want, for any reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by shmerham
they are appointed for life, so no one can make them stop.
The only thing that keeps them in check, is their own sense of decency, their personal legal philosophy and their desire to leave a legacy in the history books.
As for Roe v. Wade, they have revisited it several times, and could reverse it if they want to. So far, they have only been chipping away at it, allowing certain restrictions such as parental consent. Just because they chip away at it, however, does not mean they want to reverse it.
"Stare Decisis" is the latin mumbo jumbo for not overturning prior decisions, but it is not as strong as it used to be.
I think RvW was based on a right to privacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by shmerham
Ruh roh. Here comes a shitstorm.
I expect Bush to appoint someone controversial and expect an "up or down vote". Funny thing about that is that it's the senate that decides, not the house where all they have is the up or down vote. It's amazing how much foresight the founding fathers had. They understood the need for super majority and the need to carefullly consider lifetime appointments. Bush and the idiots are merely trying to bull their way past the standards created by our founders.
The democrats must stand their ground on this. If the nomination is unacceptable they must fillibuster and if frist uses the nuclear option the Dems must shut down the senate for the duration. Anything less would not be in keeping with the intentions of the founders and would be a victory for the degradation of America as a whole
she was a moderate swing vote. the reason she was a "swing" vote was because she was in the middle and would swing back and forth...Quote:
Originally Posted by girlski0912
Souter was another centrist. in fact, he voted the same way as o'connor close to thirty times, which has never happened before. while he was pro-life, he felt that roe vs. wade could not be overturned, which is the same position held by alberto gonzales-Quote:
Originally Posted by girlski0912
look for gonzales to get resistance from the far left, because of his, well, evilness, but will probably be approved by moderate democrats and republicans because he is by far the most moderate canidate on the grounds of abortion and gay rights. but he's going to have alot of conservatives fighting him as well.Quote:
This guy, Gonzalez, could be a swing in the wrong direction...
in terms of domestic policies, gonzales is the best we're going to see. but his appointment could be a disaster on an international level. you know, since he was the one who created legal backing for the US to torture POWs.
It would be absolutely incredible to have a 'legal mind' like that of Gonzalez nominated, but it's probably going to happen. Ask any decent constitutional law prof. what they think of the torture memo if you really want to hear something bashed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki
how so? my access to law professors is limited...
If only the constitution required adhearance to your interpretation of the intentions of the founding fathers, you would have a solid argument...Quote:
Originally Posted by KillingCokes
;)
wrong. Madison actually wanted a 2/3 majority to REJECT nominees within a specified period of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by KillingCokes
it's just a majority and the dem's cannot do shit if they get nuked.
A liberal con. law professor would bash it, a conservative would support it. However, I am guessing your definition of "decent" may be synonymous with "liberal"... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki
Forgive my ignorance, but what is the "nuclear" option?
didn't you just get out of law school?Quote:
Originally Posted by girlski0912
she voted with Rehnquist most of the time.
Bud G I am with you completely, I refuse ever to use the term pro-life (well, except in this sentence I guess). Adopting it is one of the best tactical moves the anti-choice movement ever made, with the implication that the antonym would be pro-death or even just pro-abortion, both of which are a long way from the reality of simply believing women should be free to make their own reproductive decisions without government interference.
And if you round up anti-choice voters I'd bet the farm (if I had one) you'd find a disproportionate number of pro-death penalty voters who support the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq, have Iran next on their list, and think of Iraqi civilian deaths as "collateral damage" in a "greater cause." The anti-choice movement is about controlling women, not about preserving life.
The bigger irony in my mind is this debate is going on while insurance companies cover prescriptions for Viagara but not for birth control pills or other contraceptives; in a country where a huge proportion of children live in poverty and the safety net for after they're born is continually weakened; and in a world where the last Pope gave a speech that simultaneously condemned overpopulation, birth control, and reproductive rights. (At this point one had to wonder if his next topic would be the little green aliens driving his Popemobile...)
The freedoms established by Roe v. Wade can be attacked from any number of angles, from establishing parental consent requirements to implementing waiting periods to cutting government funding for reproductive health services, including abortion--effectively denying reproductive rights to women without health care insurance or the money to pay for their care. The Bush administration has already done so overseas.
Wait, I can do all this in three words: we are fucked. :cussing: Gotta go, I have an appointment to get measured for my burka.
Rare appearance from Arthur Gonzarelli. Living in CA's gotcha hitting the smileys pretty hard, eh brah? :tongue: :biggrin: :confused: :confused: :eek:
Now Bush can appoint a total psychopath to this seat and still appease lefties by naming a only somewhat insane CJ. Sweet. I got $5 on Mike Luttig.
At this rate Stevens will be on the bench until his heart-lung machine craps out.
That's kind of intellectually dishonest because the opposite is also true: pro-choice, particularly from the standpoint of a pro-lifer. To a pro-lifer, the central issue is life - that is the reason for the position and the concept of "choice" is largely irrelevant to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monique
On the other hand, choicers see it as a women's rights issue - and since they don't see a fetus befoe a certain point is a life, the concept of "life" is largely irrelevant to them, too.
That is why debates between the two sides are usually a waste of time. They're arguing from different paradigms. "This isn't a choice issue, it's a life issue" means nothing to a person who doesn't recognize it as a life in the first place.
That said, I've always seen RvW as a states rights thing - the court ruled that a state can't make it illegal to have an abortion. An overturning of RvW would not make abortion illegal - rather, it would leave it up to the individual states as to whether it should be legal or not.
Well, yes, nearly all the decent law profs are left of the American 'center', but I don't think that's a coincidence....Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzo
But in this case, actually, I think a majority of conservatives would bash the memo as well (I've heard at least one do that on radio). It's just so intellectually baseless and self-serving, with no legal merit as far as anyone can tell. Conservatives may be evil in many ways, but even they (usually) stop short of torture (Alan Dershowitz aside).
Not really--calling oneself pro-life while supporting murder is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, though. The point wasn't that the term is wrong, just that people use it purely for propaganda purposes. It's like Bush trying to call the SS private accounts 'personal' simply because it polls better.Quote:
Originally Posted by pube-in-my-taco
Right. But my point was you can say the same thing about pro-choice: It's not that the term is wrong, just that people use it purely for propaganda purposes. Otherwise, the terms would be "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki
I'm convinced that Bush and the ultra wacko Right - who think this is a such a blessing- will end up being their undoing. The media will be all over this- forget any other conflicts going on. They are not smart enough to nominate somebody who will truly be a postive contributer and benefit to the American people and Supreme Court. It's all about corporate donors and pressing ultra conservative right wing beliefs. Seriously.
So For them to make this a Positive gain, they will need to nominate a moderate-someone with past and present praise from not only both sides of the aisle, but also from public opinion and previous rulings. Abortion will be a stickler- but you can assume the person will be against abortion- but perhaps their past rulings would show moderation- a judge with a history of reasonable balanced judgement, but supports anti-abortion. Picking someone in the middle would be a smart move to curtail Bush's sagging ratings and his place in history as a lame duck president. But he/they won't. They'll go for the jugular because they are arrogant.
I'm counting on them trying to confirm someone that has extreme views - enough to piss off more than 50% of the country. And then when they don't get what they want, they'll try the 'nuke' option (so fucking arrogant with a divided country- it wasn't like the elections gave them a 'mandate' :rolleyes: ).
Combining a hotbed of topics with Justice nomination from the extreme right and nuclear option- public opinion will sharply turn on them. They'll shoot themselves in the foot basically and in next year's election, if the Dems are smart- they'll place a heavy emphasis on the Republican corruption (re: tom delay) and these proceedings. Not that I really like the Dems either- but anything's better to sweep these arrogant pricks from office.
On an interesting note, you can already see the shift from various GOP leaders concerned about their future now taking a stand against Bush. At least They're smart enough to jump off a sinking ship when they see one. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. If GOP isn't smart about it, this will cost them the House and Senate in 2006.
I understand your point but disagree with the premise that life is the central issue for reproductive freedom opponents. In the interest of intellectual honesty, try this: the vast majority of people who oppose the right to terminate a pregnancy support an exception for cases of rape or incest. If the issue here truly were the sanctity of life, they would make no such exception--the fetus would have a "right to life" that would be sacred under any circumstances, no matter how sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by pube-in-my-taco
And life IS the central issue for pro-choice women, they just define it more broadly to include a child after it's born, and to include women after they reach reproductive age.
Pro-abortion is pretty misleading, though. Pro-choice does logically imply that one is against killing (people?), and so shouldn't be applied to people who support killing in war/prisons. Anti-abortion or anti-choice is fine, I think, and I don't see pro-choice as difficult to understand or potentially misleading.
edit: see pube's post two above, I didn't refresh/quote before posting.