So Pissed @ Bush

[10secimportpyro]

So I was pissed at Bush about everything before but then the whole hurricane Katrina comes along. I mean he sucks balls (Bush) at dealing with the situation and what not. Fine. I can deal with that more so but then today he nominates John Roberts to be Chief Justice. What the FUCK

Comments

[communistben]

Lol, whats so bad about John Roberts? And the court isn't conservative, its a flaming liberal party, Rehnquist is the man who put a leash on the rabid advocate judges, jesus, how can we have courts deciding on letting black people in public schools, that totally goes against Plessy v. Ferguson, the law is the law right? You can't change the law of the land, thats outrageous, judges are supposed to interpret laws, not make them. I demand state rights. The South shall rise again. Its going to have to take the deaths of Ginsberg, Beyer and Souter for it to be a Conservative bastion.

[10secimportpyro]

The court is conservative. You're right about Rehnquist shaping the court so that it wasn't as liberal as before. But during Rehnquist's tenure, the court was more conservative than it was before. Robert's is probably a great guy, but for Bush to appoint him as CJ is pretty crappy. I acknowledge that historically, most CJ's were previously not associate justices, but so what. My problem with ROberts is that he seems too conservative. I mean he wants(ed) to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's pretty conservative to me.

Plessy v. Ferguson? Overturned: Brown v. Board of Education in 1954- from (probably) a more liberal court. I mean if we didn't have that or something like that landmark case, you and I may not be in the schools we are now and basically have the life we have. I might not be living.

Besides, the Supreme Court "makes" new laws (common law) by interpreting the law based on cases. It's one kind of law. THey have precedent.

I can never figure out if you are trying to mess with me and others, or are really passionate about your ideas. Please help me (my friend) find this answer...

[_sachiel]

his above comment was more joking around, he doesnt really want the south to rise necessarily. How would you not be alive anymore if Brown V. Ed was overturned?

[communistben]

Well too bad the liberals loss the elections in the Presidency and both Houses, now its time for the winners to run this nation to the right, no matter how much you complain, you will not prevail. The moral majority has mobilized and is ready to take the nation to a new era where morality means something and will push back the excesses of liberalism. You complain and complain, so what.

Nigga say what, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land… There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey." Who do you think said that? Why are you so strongly for infanticide? Not enough dead baby jokes for you? Why are you so invested in this one case? Choosing a Supreme Court judge should not include a litmus test, thats against the American way and only makes these judges cronies, instead the President and Congress should select qualified judges.

One clear view that Roberts does hold is the wrong that is judicial activism, you can't have a few people unelected to decide on the laws of the land, Supereme Court judges are supposed to interpret the Constiution, not legislate laws, that is what Roberts believes in. Conservative judges are more democratic than liberals.

Brown v. Board of Education was unconstitutional, you can't just make up rules as you see fit, you have to follow the constitution, seperate but equal is constitutional. And you are wrong, Washington forbade segregation of schools before Brown v BoE. Guess what, even with Brown V BoE, there is still what you call "discrimination" clearly, instead of race its economic discimination, poor families are not able to afford to live in communities with good schools.

Brown v Board of Education goes against precedence in terms of the 14th admendment as well as Plessy v Ferguson. Courts must to legislate, they must interpret the laws already placed. Let the legislators legislate, let the judges judge.

I think you don't like him for the sole reason he was representing the states against Microsoft and their evil trust practices.

[10secimportpyro]

The liberals lost the election. Yup. I can't do a damn thing about it, nope. But next year I will have my chance (with the election).

Supreme Court Justices are supposed to interpret the Constitution. But as they do that, they create laws (e.g. saying a law is unconstitutional). So in effect, they do legistlate. Now, I don't know what rationale you have for saying conservative judges are more democratic than liberal ones. I mean it's not like the constitution is the best document there is (especially for right now). Sure, it's what this country is founded upon, but is tradition everything? If we were so traditional, shouldn't you and I be in China? Or in segregated schools?

I am not arguing that there is no discrimination. And there is racial discrimination. We already had that discussion before. The constitution does not take into everything into account so there are going to be loopholes. Changing times need changing laws and outlooks. Of course, some things I think all American feel are founding principles- e.g. certain 'rights.'

Segregation in schools continued in Seattle up into the 1960s.

I didn't know that Roberts was representing the states against Microsoft. And why should I care? MSFT will win anyway!!! MUwhwhahaha. LOL, j/k.

When the Supreme Court decided Brown v Board of Education, they noted that the 14th Ammendment was inconclusive and current conditions mandated change. I suppose it's a moral dillema for judges to decide whether to abide soley with the consitution, and do the "right" thing for today.

[communistben]

Conservative judges don't take the law into their own hands. There is a legistlature, they make laws, not the judges. The Civil Rights Movement was won by the people who pressured their lawmakers, there was no need for supreme court judges to get involved besides presiding over cases of constititutionality.

Segregation was de facto, not de jure in Seattle. IF anything, the people should've mobolized and pressured their lawmakers to end segregation.

Judges taking law to their own hands is a dangerous precedence.

[communistben]

GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor steered clear of directly discussing the big issues facing the nation's highest court while visiting the University of Florida's law school Friday.

O'Connor spoke before a crowd of 500 but did not mention the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the nomination of John Roberts to replace him, or her own delayed retirement plans.

What she did address was political influence on the judiciary.

"I am against judicial reform driven by nakedly partisan, result-oriented reasons," O'Connor told the group. "The experience of developing countries, former communist countries and our own political culture teaches us that we must be ever vigilant against those who would strong arm the judiciary into adopting their own preferred policies."

Without naming names, she faulted politicians from both parties for not understanding judicial independence.

"We have the power to make the other branches of government really angry," she said. She spoke at the dedication of a new university law library named for Lawton Chiles, a former Florida governor who died in 1998.

O'Connor, 75, announced her retirement in July but promised to remain on the court until her replacement is confirmed.

Bush initially nominated federal appellate judge John Roberts to succeed O'Connor, but on Monday nominated him to succeed Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Roberts' confirmation hearings are to begin next week.

Even O'Connor says keep politics out of the judicial branch, let the people who are qualified become supreme court judges.