Supreme Court Nominee

[toasty]

With Bush's announcement of a successor to O'Connor looking to be imminent, I thought I'd see what people thought he was going to do. Since no one knows for sure exactly who's on his list, I'll frame it this way -- will he nominate a moderate who will make it through the Senate fairly easily, or will he select someone further to the right that will make his base happier? Will he nominate someone who will uphold Roe v Wade, for instance?

I've got to think that with all the political woes Bush has right now, he'd have to be a complete idiot to go with an extremist that will further polarize the country. He ought to go the easy route this time and pick a moderate -- he'll probably have the opportunity to appoint another justice before he's done, and he can appease his base then...

Of course, Bush has obviously done some pretty idiotic things in the past, so I'm making no predictions.

[thesightless]

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

gah no. no more flip flopping..... all i ask. and no hard core liberals. please, no more hard core liberals. its the supreme court. let the liberals control the senate and house and write the laws. leave the court to keep them in check. too much for me i think. still tired.

[toasty]

well, I think you can rest assured that Bush won't appoint a hard core liberal.

[thesightless]

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

YEAH, i know. but i dont want him to succumb to pressure. i have a firm belief that the supreme court has given the fed gov't entirely too much ground for awhile now. the whole emminent domain thing really irked me. im actually writing a peice on the tax implications of the losses ppl suffer from it. i so much so prefer small gov't that is conservative with money and a liberal senate/house that ensures ppl have the freedoms but stops short of giving handouts to special interests and the such. if you cant get private citizens to fund it, then it really isnt wanted by most (read giving away money for unemployment after 3 months and welfare.) let us have our freedoms and keep our money. slowly we are moving to a socialist idealism here.

[eye-p]

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

gah no. no more flip flopping..... all i ask. and no hard core liberals. please, no more hard core liberals. its the supreme court. let the liberals control the senate and house and write the laws. leave the court to keep them in check. too much for me i think. still tired.

Where are the "hard core liberals" exactly?

We have been over this before.

6 of the 9 on SCOTUS are republicans.

House= Republican

Senate= Republican

Executive= Republican



I dont know enough about Roberts to make a intelligent comment about his potential appointment, so I wont.

However, I have yet to see a single honest, well executed thing happen in the last 4 years. Maybe this is the 1st good choice of "bubble boy".

[toasty]

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

Here's an interesting tidbit on Roberts. Turns out he was on the panel that decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in favor of the Bush adminstration last week. Link to the decision below:

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf

That decision found in essence that this Hamdan guy was not protected by the Geneva Convention protections (or a host of other protections) as an "enemy combatant."

Not saying the decision was wrong (I haven't looked through it in great detail, but I think I agree with it in principle) or that they're even connected, but the timing sure is ironic.

[thesightless]

Re: Supreme Court Nominee

eye-p thats why i said to give one of the houses to the democrats, because we will have a democratic president next term with a republican supreme court(which i truly prefer for the court, limit the gov't power in the end). the houses should be opposite majorities unless we(US citizens) overwhelmingly vote republicans into the houses again. there should be a balance between the houses and between the presidency and SC. any group who has too much power will take advantage. but you know what, the country did vote republican in the end. majority rules. so give em what they want.

simply put, gov't doesnt work at all. it carries those who shouldnt be carried and limits those who work hard for more than the next guy. this isnt a socialist country.