Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on November 07, 2004, 07:39:14 pm
-
(http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041106/capt.dccd10411060552.senate_judges_dccd104.jpg)
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 07, 2004 19:02:37 ET XXXXX
BUSH CONSIDERS CLARENCE THOMAS FOR CHIEF JUSTICE
**Exclusive**
President Bush has launched an internal review of the pros and cons of nominating Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as the chief justice if ailing William Rehnquist retires, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
A top White House source familiar with Bush's thinking explains the review of Thomas as chief justice is one of several options currently under serious consideration. But Thomas is Bush's personal favorite to take the position, the source claims.
"It would not only be historic, to nominate a minority as chief justice, symbolizing the president's strong belief in hope and optimism, but it would be a sound judicial move.... Justice Thomas simply has an extraordinary record."
One concern is the amount of political capital Bush would have to spend in congress to make the move.
A chief justice must be separately nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate, even if the person is already sitting on the court.
The need to replace Rehnquist could arise by year's end, Bush aides now believe.
Officially, Bush advisers call any Supreme Court vacancy talk premature.
Developing...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2004
Not for reproduction without permission of the author
-
As always, America: the Book provides insightful answers that can not only be quoted at a moment's notice, but are pretty damn funny as well.
Classroom Activities
Using felt and yarn, make a hand-puppet of Clarence Thomas
Tada! You're Antonin Scalia.
-
And this is bad how?
Clarence Thomas is the youngest judge on the panel at 54(IIRC), the rest are in their 70s. The next President is going to get to appoint a bunch of Supreme Court Justices if Bush doesn't.
-
-meh-
-
"It would not only be historic, to nominate a minority as chief justice, symbolizing the president's strong belief in hope and optimism, but it would be a sound judicial move.... Justice Thomas simply has an extraordinary record."
So... he likes blacks but hates gays? Isn't that a little.... what's the word I'm looking for?
-
Ironic? Moronic?
Perhaps he knows that there are an assload of black fundies as well as whites, but not so many gay ones?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
The next President is going to get to appoint a bunch of Supreme Court Justices if Bush doesn't.
Yes, and I would rather that it were the next president.
-
Being gay is NOT a racial characteristic. Being black is.
Get a new line.:doubt:
-
Oh right, I forgot. Being gay is something guys do to spite God.
-
Ahh. I remember now... Being gay is a choice... Just like it's a choice to be white... male... ~6 foot tall... ~180 lbs...
I can go on...
-
AND HERE WE GO....AGAIN
Can we lock this before it gets insane.
-
It won't get insane. I have yet to resort to name calling or personal attacks. And I don't intend to begin now.
Besides, aside from how I disagree completely with his opinions on some issues, and may even consider some ideas 'bigotted', I have nothing against Lib.
-
I wasn't saying that you would necessarily. But in general I would expect this thread to go insane.
About Clerence Thomas.
I personally, have reservations about his appointment primarily because someone accused him of sexual harasment. An Cheif Justice should be beyond reproach.
-
You forget he was exhonerated in an example of Dems being obvious partisans, his only defenders were Republican.
No man if above reproach, any yahoo can make up spurrious charges and tarnish their reputation.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You forget he was exhonerated in an example of Dems being obvious partisans, his only defenders were Republican.
No man if above reproach, any yahoo can make up spurrious charges and tarnish their reputation.
Regaurdless of whether or not democrats were being partisan or not; it still cast doubt on him.
-
I don't think any politician should appoint the judiciary, myself. I presume the exact situation is slightly different in the US, but you just have to look at the Hutton enquiry to see the problems it causes in the UK.
NB: Lib, to an outside observer it's pretty obvious that both Democrats and Republicans are partisan. They are politicians, after all.
-
Electing local/regional/state judges might be possible - but for the supreme court there'd be far too much apathy for it to be remotely representative. And even if you could do this it'd still be open to accusations of electoral corruption.
As for this guy a single unproven accusation should be no barrier to his career. If there were multiple dropped cases against him I'd think differently.
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
Electing local/regional/state judges might be possible - but for the supreme court there'd be far too much apathy for it to be remotely representative. And even if you could do this it'd still be open to accusations of electoral corruption.
As for this guy a single unproven accusation should be no barrier to his career. If there were multiple dropped cases against him I'd think differently.
Why not have the lower judges elect them? If you can establish a system where the judiciary is properly independent, then this should be fine.
Technically, you don't really want any form of public election for judges, do you? Because there's the possibility of bias, etc creeping in. You'd probably have to, at least at the lower tiers, though, because they don;t just pop out of nowhere.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Why not have the lower judges elect them? If you can establish a system where the judiciary is properly independent, then this should be fine.
Because that's a recipe for Judicial Tyranny. I don't know how it is in Britain, but we're just this side of Judges making law, which is a big no-no. We have to maintain some form of control over them.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Because that's a recipe for Judicial Tyranny. I don't know how it is in Britain, but we're just this side of Judges making law, which is a big no-no. We have to maintain some form of control over them.
But political control allows for political tyranny through manipulation of the judges. Whereas the interpretation of the law should surely be independent of politics.
-
It's important from Bush's point of view that he stays on the right side of the judicial system. A lot of his more controversial rulings met resistance there and he wants to try and stamp that out before it happens again.
As for the whole minority rights thing, all I say is that you chose to be Christian, or chose to be Muslim etc, and you live by those rules and no-one has the right to tell you to be something else, so if someone 'chooses' to be gay, don't dictate their rules to them.
-
Defining mariage between a man and a woman doesn't prevent them from being gay. It only prevents them from marrying
-
Yes, but it won't stop there, I can assure you.
The whole general attitude towards homosexuality in the section of the America public that voted republican seems to be that they shouldn't exist and that they are only being put up with till a decent excuse can be thought of to get rid of them.
Anyway, that's no one persons fault, and I should really have saved my comment for a more topical thread, if a thread like that crops up again, I'll be happy to state my case, but we'd better not start debating in this one ;)
-
I can't speak for everyone. But for myself I can say that I don't hate homosexual people, despite what you may have intimated from other things that I have said. I do however despise the behavior and wish that they would see the error of their ways.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Yes, but it won't stop there, I can assure you.
The whole general attitude towards homosexuality in the section of the America public that voted republican seems to be that they shouldn't exist and that they are only being put up with till a decent excuse can be thought of to get rid of them.
Anyway, that's no one persons fault, and I should really have saved my comment for a more topical thread, if a thread like that crops up again, I'll be happy to state my case, but we'd better not start debating in this one ;)
I, for one would be scared if that were the case. We would have another holocaust on out hands. However, I really doubt that the midwest and south east would be willing to put their support behind such an act. I should also point out that oregon also passed a gay marriage ban on Nov. 2 and they are not republican by a long shot.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I can't speak for everyone. But for myself I can say that I don't hate homosexual people, despite what you may have intimated from other things that I have said. I do however despise the behavior and wish that they would see the error of their ways.
Maybe you have that opinion, but that doesn't make it right or just to force it upon the population. If a leader was elected in the US who decided mosques were dangerous to the state and outlawed them, would you accept it?
Because if you believe both religion and sexual orientation are a choice (and many other things, of course), then you can't damage one without allowing - in principle - the damaging of the other. And if you don't accept the latter is a choice, then you have no valid argument that doesn't involve eugenics.
The principles that the US has - that any country has - are like a rock, but the more you chip away at them, the more you risk that rock crumbling and collapsing.