Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on September 04, 2005, 12:24:47 am
-
http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/D8CD720G1.html :( :sigh: :eek2: :shaking:
Anyway get ready for the ugliest battle yet.
-
*Isn't up enough to get the battle thing*
Another wave of opposition by th Dems in the Senate to candidates, or is there something about Rehnqueist I'm missing?
-
No, that's just about the looming political battle over confirmation of another SC justice. Today is a day for mourning his passing, tomorrow will be the day for politics. Such is the way of Washington...
-
So now the single party control of the US government will get strengthened even further. Scary.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
*Isn't up enough to get the battle thing*
Another wave of opposition by th Dems in the Senate to candidates, or is there something about Rehnqueist I'm missing?
Oh and half truths and lies by both sides, those are always fun. Like the Naral Ad.
-
Alright, it's sealed now. The Republicans officially control all three branches of government. I'm not really up on my American history, but am I correct that this is the first such case since the US came into existance??
-
No. The Democratic-Republicans dominated for quite a few years between the War of 1812 and when Andrew Jackson was elected, as they were the only party. There might be others, but that's the only one coming to mind.
-
Rehnquist being the staunch liberalist that he was :doubt:
He was appointed by Nixon. He is, and always has been, a Republican justice. Letting a Republican president appoint his successor doesn't seem to tip the balance of the courts much.
-
he was still far more "moderate" than people expected.
-
I've always had a great deal of respect for Rehnquist. Not only was he a great leader on the Court, but he understood the role of a justice and how to apply the Constitution to the modern day better than most. He will be missed. :(
-
Originally posted by redmenace
he was still far more "moderate" than people expected.
Being on the Supreme Court tends to do that to people.
-
Abort me now... before that becomes illegal... please...
-
Im against abortion but for killing babies.
-
Yes!
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/wcower7.gif)
-
Vote.
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/regressive1.gif)
-
Those of you that hated Roberts before will hate him even more. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9215790/
-
Why the hell should he be chief justice when he's the newcomer?
-
It's like he jumped straight from n00b to admin... :eek:
-
Originally posted by Ace
Why the hell should he be chief justice when he's the newcomer?
That's happens more often than you might think. I believe that Earl Warren jumped straight to chief justice when he was appointed. It makes some degree of sense, too; if you're a president who has to appoint a new chief justice, you'd want the new leader to be someone that you're handpicking instead of someone chosen years ago by a different president.
-
Originally posted by KappaWing
It's like he jumped straight from n00b to admin... :eek:
That's one of the funniest analogies I ever heard.
-
he was still far more "moderate" than people expected.
Theres the whole root of the problem.. how can you be moderate when it comes to judicial review? Either its a personal policy preference or its the interpretation of the constitution.
-
and I assume you mean dissagreeing or agreeing with you respectively.
-
would you guys rather have scalia or thomas nominated to cheif justice.
-
Can a Prez promote existing justices or does he have to appoint a new one to the post? But yeah, better than Scalia.
-
Apparently, the problem with appointing an existing justice is that you have to re-nominate them, which basically leads to two sets of hearings for what is essentially one vacancy. Since that could get messy, presidents often just choose a new justice as chief justice, as in this case.
(As a side note, I don't see what anyone has against Scalia. He bases his decisions off what the Constitution says. Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that what a justice is supposed to do?)
-
That's what everyone says, though of course it's quite subjective. I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable than myself to argue against him, but I'm pretty sure that the Constitution makes no mention of marriage being a man-woman thing (though I do admit it would have been so implicit at the time as to not be worth mentioning) nor does it allow habeas corpus to be suspended at will.
-
There's my iterpretation, and his interpretation, and then your interpretation.........