[redmenace]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100650_pf.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0701051oconnor1.html

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050701/D8B2LF300.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100890_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100770_pf.html

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20050627.shtml

http://www.moveonpac.org/schiavo-QT.html
Just a comment about this one, I can't believe liberals in this country want to try and lecture the people about the Gov't being too intrusive.

A comment in generals, I am really worried how this is all going to end up. Most likly the democrats in congress will try another fillibuster.

[Taristin]

I hope they do, we don't need that assclown of a president filling each and every openin with his favourites.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by redmenace

Just a comment about this one, I can't believe liberals in this country want to try and lecture the people about the Gov't being too intrusive.

Why?

[StratComm]

Probably because the "liberal" forces that be in this country have traditionally (in the last ~20-30 years, anyway, excluding the current administration) for "big government" which would presumably be more engaged in privacy invasion.  Not to excuse the current batch of Republican leadership from doing just that, but in principle at least that's sort of a core Democratic principle.

I hate politics.  

[aldo_14]

Democratic does not necessarily equal 'liberal', though.  Not in proper politicial definition; AFAIK liberalism (as an ideology) supports state involvement in the form of welfare (unemployment assistance, health service), but opposes it in other areas; primarily those which would infringe civil liberties/freedom.

I'm always quite perturbed how political labels (left wing, right wing, for example) become defined by the actions of parties purporting to be of that ideology, when in reality politics is more about populism than principles.  It's quite annoying, because it means 'liberal' and 'conservative' have very different meanings between countries such as the UK and US, when in actuality they should be of identical meaning and we should define the parties by which parts of which ideology they are using.

[StratComm]

While I do agree with you wholeheartedly aldo, I am in no position to do anything about our labels.  I know that "liberal" in the US means Democrat, even if that isn't exactly true right now.  And that there doesn't exist a true conservative party.  But in the context of redmenace's statement, the assumption of political affiliation with "liberals" eschews Democrats.

I hate politics.  

[Ford Prefect]

It's not simply the difference between "big" and "little" government, it's what each side wants to be big and little. The left in America generally favors a government that is more economically involved in people's lives, but takes a minimal role in controlling social issues. The right is seen as the opposite, advocating a government that does not interfere economically, but upholds a specific set of moral values. But it's important to remember that it's more of a 360-degree compass than a linear scale; many people's beliefs include aspects of both main categories. And of course, these lines blur when the government is in bed with big business, as is the case in our country as well as many others, I suspect.

Concerning the main issue, I think it's a good bet that if Bush tries to push the envelope, (even Rehnquist objects to many of the people on the list), Congress will make sure there's a gridlock.

[Rictor]

When I read this, I get the distinct image of two vultures, one red and one blue, circling around the Supreme Court, ready to swoop on the first one who expires, to rip his/her still-warm carcass apart and feast on the delicious political clout it will offer.

By the way, Liberalism = individual rights, which is today called libertarianism, because the meaning of the word has come to mean simply "leftist"..

[Ford Prefect]

Only one problem with that analogy: At this point, the best the Democrats (and moderate Republicans) can hope for is that they can prevent the administration from appointing someone to the right of Attila the Hun.

By the way, Liberalism = individual rights, which is today called libertarianism, because the meaning of the word has come to mean simply "leftist"..

A Libertarian in the United States is not entirely "liberal", because Libertarians advocate minimal economic interference on the part of the government as well as social. These words depend largely on the specific political context.

[Rictor]

What I meant was that the Republicans and Democrats switch every few years, so should a Supreme Court member succumb to the ravages of age - BAM - they'll f*ck the corpse before it even hits the ground.

As for Bush's nomination, I just had a scary thought. Two words: John Ashcroft.

[Zarax]

What you're looking for is called "socialdemocrat" I think... Or maybe Keynesian democrat...

[Mongoose]

I know it's just a fantasy, but God, I'd love another Scalia, someone who actually interprets the Constitution as it is, and not as they would like it to be.  See the recent eminent domain case for the type of crap that I'm talking about.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Mongoose
I know it's just a fantasy, but God, I'd love another Scalia, someone who actually interprets the Constitution as it is, and not as they would like it to be.  See the recent eminent domain case for the type of crap that I'm talking about.

LOL, If kazan were here he would call you and me ****ing morons and republican hacks. But he is not

But anyway, I am a little wary about scalia. He has made some comments that worry me including how if bush wasn't made president he would never make Supreme court justice.

[redmenace]

Sigh
well, here we go
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901518_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900138_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901647_pf.html
http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/m2.asp?Issue=NYS/2005/04/15&ID=Ar00101&Mode=HTML

[Divine Wind]

Comrade Stalin disapproves of this nomination, as does Chairman Mao.

(me == left enough to be commie)

[redmenace]

<--- Libertarian: Drugs and Assault Weapons for All

Lets face it though, regaurdless who bush nominated, the democrats will be ****ting bricks.

[Kosh]

No surprises that Bush would nominate a hardliner. The right has been salivating over a chance to make a grab for the supreme court. Now they have a chance to control the entire federal government. Good bye progress........


But you do realize that this is just to hide the Plame scandal that has been going on, don't you?

[Fenrir]

Progress being defined as what, exactly? Just curious...

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Rictor
When I read this, I get the distinct image of two vultures, one red and one blue, circling around the Supreme Court, ready to swoop on the first one who expires, to rip his/her still-warm carcass apart and feast on the delicious political clout it will offer.

This is honestly probably a pretty good analogy of the situation.

Still, I dislike that Bush seems to basically be maneuvering things so that abortion gets struck down. Not so much that it's abortion, but because it sounds to me like Bush is rigging things to please his pro-choice voters. That may simply be the bias of the news sources coming into play, but I don't doubt that Bush would do it.

Ah, well, four more years and all that...

[redmenace]

Actually, their prolife voters. and many prolife voters reconcile that Row vs Wade will never be struck down. The biggest fight in regaurds to abortion will be do parents of minors have to give their parental consent for abortion like all other invasive procedures?