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

[10secimportpyro]

Take a deep breath? No offense Abe, but why is Roberts the best to hope for? I think I would have been a better candidate. Yeah, Bush should have nominated me. Technically, I could get congressional approval to be the CJ. And I don't care if Roberts is scholarly and what not. Many people are probably just as smart and what not. Do you think Bush will actually replace O'Connor's spot with a moderate? Maybe, but maybe not. Besides, O' Connor seemed to be a bit more liberal on the issues- or at least some of the big ones. And Roe v. Wade won't be overturned because their base would be disinterested in politics? Please. Bush has made his own personal beliefs about hot issues (e.g. gay rights, stem cell research) clear and if he had it his way, I'm sure he revisit some issues like abortion. Your argument seems pretty far-fetched. And it's the Dem's fault because they didn't win the election? OMG. You can't say that. How is that relative? How would Dem's know that Rehnquist would die and O'Connor quit and Katrina happen and such. It's always some party's fault because they should have won the election. Dem's still have a say. THey better because otherwise it'd just be a one-partied country and probably no "democracy."

Robert's appointment will shape the next 30 years of all of our lives. Just like issues of fiscal and monetary policy that Greenspan and Bush set up. Now, I'm not going to argue in favor for or against the latter right now, but certainly, the high court has been pretty prominent in this country in the past several decades. I think Robert's appointment (or at least at this point) has a lot of ramifications that do not fly for me (at least).

[communistben]

You have no basis to disapprove John Roberts. The only issue he is clear on is abortion, but thats not going to be over turned any time soon. You advocate prejudice even before the hearings for his nomination. You would criticize anyone appointed by Bush. The Democrats have already given their approval by showing no dissent toward Roberts(except for possibly jabba the Ted Kennedy). No matter how much you bitch you will not get your way, you lost, now its time for the winners to run and steer this nation back to the right.

[10secimportpyro]

I can bitch about it all i want. Sure, I can't do anything about it--I obviously know that, but it helps to bitch (or least helps me). The democrats, like me, can't really do anything about it. They don't have control of any of the law-making bodies so their opinion is rather mute at this point. Roberts will get his approval. Yet Dem's on the congressional panel still want to know more about Roberts. His past and current outlook on the issues is still unknown. But he is clear on abortion, and may have wanted to overturn affirmative action programs. I mean he is probably conservative on a lot of issues like gay rights, medical marijuana, and what not. The confirmation hearings are next week so no one has offered a formal dissent yet anyway. I think you are right about me criticizing anyone appointed by Bush. I can do so because I have heard what Bush has had to say and he has lost credibility in my books. So I don't trust who he nominates. This has just as much as it has to do with Roberts, as it does with Bush.

[communistben]

What are gay rights? Bill Clinton believes marriage is between a man and a woman, that is why he and congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, to protect marriage from the homosexual agenda, if anything Bush wants to reaffirm this law passed under a democratic president through the constitution.

Again you assume and assume with little facts. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas dissented on the case where it was ruled that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana. Last time I checked Rehnquist and Thomas are conservative judges. You have your liberal judges ruling in favor of more federal impedement over state rights and going against medical marijuana. You can thank your liberal judges for that, not the conservatives.

Liberal judges have taken the laws into their own hands, striking down many laws passed by states. Let the legislators of states and the United States pass laws or repeal them, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to decide ona whim to repeal laws that are not in conflict with the Constitution.

Stop being prejudice and assuming you know what judges will support or not with a simple liberal/conservative diagram.

[10secimportpyro]

I'm prejudice? Please...if you call me prejudice, please look at yourself. I may be prejudice, but so are you.

I am not the expert and you aren't either. I have to make assumptions. You make assumptions as well. Generally, Rehnquist was conservative. And O' Connor was could be slightly more liberal at times. But obviously there are exceptions. Supreme Court judges strick down laws passed by states because they must have some kind of conflict with the Constitution. Otherwise, why would they do it? And sure, there are times when they do it and you have no idea why they did it (at least constituational justification) but I would be careful to single out liberal judges for it.

And as for Clinton? Well, he has his views and the Defense of Marriage Act shows his view on that subject. I'm sure Roberts will have his more moderate/liberal moments, as would a liberal judge. But for the most part, he is more conservative and Clinton was more liberal (well, he seemed left-moderate to me).

[communistben]

How am I prejudice? I don't pre-judge a future judge on his future decisions on future cases.

I don't make assumptions, I take the cases that have been decided on and look at the opinions on the judges. Its not a simple liberal/conservative principles that decides what a judge will decide on, if anything decisions such as marijuana and gay rights involve a more important conflict, state v. federal rights. Liberal judges do not take the constitution as is, they form their opinions around the "times," while conservatives like Scalia and Thomas construct their opinions around originalism of the constitution. You assume Roberts would be hard on marijuana yet Rehnquist and Clarence were not when it came to federal laws against state laws. The Supreme Court has been polluted by activist judges(exclusively liberal phenonmenon) and has made a joke for our judicial branch. You can not have unelected people for life to decide on important matters of state and federal laws unless it is clear it is against the constitution. Activist judges have taken many landmark decisions based on broad interpretations that our founding fathers never mentioned or even thought about. If you look at the majority opinion on Roe v Wade, they had to resort to looking back at the Persian Empire, ancient Greece, and the Roman Empire as examples of abortion being okay, what kind of retarded example is that? Those were the most oppressive and undemocratic regimes in ancient times. Activist judges have also hijacked the right of privacy clause, which trumps the right for life.

And if anything, Clinton was a conservative Democrat.

[communistben]

O Connor isn't liberal nor conservative. I think the only reason you think she's liberal is because she upholds discrimination against people based on race for college admissions is right.

I think nominating Judge Judy will be the only way to make liberals happy.

[10secimportpyro]

O' Connor is slightly more liberal than conservative. Just like Bush's nominee (if it is moderate) will be more conservative than liberal, but still considered a moderate.