PDA

View Full Version : Sandra Day O'Conner stepped down....



TeamCasey
07-01-2005, 10:23 AM
.... from the Supreme Court.

Discuss. :)

flyer85
07-01-2005, 10:29 AM
not a big deal. It only is a big deal if a justice with a different judicial philosophy than the President steps down.

That of course does not mean there will not be a huge fight in the Senate.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 10:35 AM
I bet the 'Pubs try to install a right-wing activist judge. Oh wait, Republicans are strict constitutional constructionists. :) They would never try to mess with the Constitution.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 10:42 AM
not a big deal. It only is a big deal if a justice with a different judicial philosophy than the President steps down.

That of course does not mean there will not be a huge fight in the Senate.

It's a huge deal--Bush is an arch-conservative; O'Connor is a moderate. This will be ugly. You can kiss good-bye most of your civil rights if you're a minority or a woman.

flyer85
07-01-2005, 10:50 AM
If the rights of the people are going away, it is the activist left wing justices who are doing it. See the recents property rights and medicinal weed cases.

RedsBaron
07-01-2005, 10:52 AM
O'Connor and Kennedy have generally the swing votes betwen the three more "conservative"* justices and the four more "liberal"* justices. If she is replaced by a more conservative justice, this would affect the makeup of the Supreme Court more than it would be affected if Bush replaced Rehnquist or Thomas or Scalia. It won't affect the Court as much as would occur if Bush replaced someone on the Court's liberal wing such as Souter or Ginsberg.
Yeah, there will be a fight in the Senate, and, yeah, it'll probably be ugly.
*I'm using the terms "conservative"and "liberal" because I can't think of more descriptive and accurate retms, but those terms have limited usefulness.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 10:53 AM
If the rights of the people are going away, it is the activist left wing justices who are doing it. See the recents property rights and medicinal weed cases.

Riiight. The "rights" that matter to white males, eh? Pretend you just got knocked up by your brother. Now pretend there's nothing you can do about it but have the baby.

Fun. (Cuz Gawd says ev'ry life is a precious meer-cul from Gawd)

RedsBaron
07-01-2005, 10:54 AM
If the rights of the people are going away, it is the activist left wing justices who are doing it. See the recents property rights and medicinal weed cases.
In fairness, Scalia voted with the "liberal" wing in the property rights case, and he may have also voted with the majority in the marijuana case ( I can't recall).

RedFanAlways1966
07-01-2005, 10:58 AM
You can kiss good-bye most of your civil rights if you're a minority or a woman.

Sometimes I think people believe there is only 1 judge on the Supreme Court. We'll have to mark this comment down. Pretty radical comment... really (and then some). Most of their civil rights, you say? We will see about that.

Betting your first born's services on this comment?

Rumor... Dems are desparately seeking Anita Hill!! Anita... where are you?!?! :devil:

RedFanAlways1966
07-01-2005, 10:59 AM
Riiight. The "rights" that matter to white males, eh? Pretend you just got knocked up by your brother. Now pretend there's nothing you can do about it but have the baby.

Fun. (Cuz Gawd says ev'ry life is a precious meer-cul from Gawd)

Is abortion now illegal in this country?!? Do tell. Or just more radical comments!??!

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 10:59 AM
Sometimes I think people believe there is only 1 judge on the Supreme Court. We'll have to mark this comment down. Pretty radical comment... really (and then some). Most of their civil rights, you say? We will see about that.

Betting your first born's services on this comment?

Rumor... Dems are desparately seeking Anita Hill!! Anita... where are you?!?! :devil:

This Court was known as the "O'Connor Court" for a reason.

A Court usually does end up being "one" person. The swing person.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 11:00 AM
Is abortion now illegal in this country?!? Do tell. Or just more radical comments!??!

Not this minute, but it will be after W. appoints Rufus or Cleetus.

RedFanAlways1966
07-01-2005, 11:01 AM
This Court was known as the "O'Connor Court" for a reason.

A Court usually does end up being "one" person. The swing person.

Most civil rights of minorities and women.... gone. Radical?? Explain yourself. You said it. Please elborate... if you care (dare?).

RedFanAlways1966
07-01-2005, 11:02 AM
Not this minute, but it will be after W. appoints Rufus or Cleetus.

Betting your first born on this comment? Or do you have ESP?

RADICAL!

savafan
07-01-2005, 11:03 AM
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20050627.shtml

June 27, 2005

WASHINGTON -- It was not merely a leak from the normally leak-proof Bush White House. For more than a week, a veritable torrent has tipped Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as President Bush's first nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. It has sent the conservative movement into spasms of fear and loathing.

Gonzales long has been unacceptable to anti-abortion activists because of his record as a Texas Supreme Court justice. Beyond pro-lifers, he is opposed by organized conservative lawyers. Ironically, the same Bush supporters who have been raising money and devising tactics for the mother of all judicial confirmation fights are in a panic that Gonzales will be named. With the president's popularity falling among his conservative base as well as the general populace, a politically disastrous moment may be at hand.

The president will have to act quickly if the high court's current session ends today [Monday] with a resignation. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor now is considered more likely to quit than ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist. White House leaks describe Gonzales as the leading prospect for either vacancy. That creates a situation filled with irony, contradictions and questions.

For example, why the torrent of Gonzales leaks from a White House extraordinarily adept at holding back the president's intended nominations? It looks like a trial balloon, but there are also suspicions that Gonzales's name has been floated by critics in order to shoot him down.

If opposition to abortion is Bush's pre-eminent social conservative position, Gonzales is a most improbable choice. He could not bring himself to support parental notification on the Texas Supreme Court. While he professes to be anti-abortion, he maintains Roe v. Wade is inviolable -- a judicial version of John Kerry's formulation.

Conservatives fear Gonzales will be another in a long line of Supreme Court justices who have proved more liberal than the president who appointed them expected -- John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter. That is a view widely held inside the White House, but not by the occupant who counts most. George W. Bush loves Al Gonzales and would like his former chief counsel to head a "Gonzales Court."

Since Gonzales was confirmed as attorney general after a nasty debate over treatment of terrorist detainees, the argument he would be confirmed more easily than other prospects might seem dubious. But Senate Democrats may have expunged anti-Gonzales bile from their system and be willing to support somebody who is markedly less conservative than any other nominee.

Indeed, all other possibilities are conservative. They face trouble from Democratic senators who have led the campaign to block Bush's judicial nominees. Three of them, Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, Patrick Leahy and Charles Schumer, went on the Senate floor last Thursday morning to issue a virtual ultimatum. Underneath restrained rhetoric, they were telling the president: name justices acceptable to us or face a bitter battle. Gonzales might be the most acceptable name mentioned.

The White House has sent word that two favorites of the conservative movement -- Appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson (4th Circuit, Richmond, Va.) and former Solicitor General Theodore Olson -- are ineligible because they are over 60. The two current favorites are Appellate Judges John Roberts (D.C. Circuit) and J. Michael Luttig (4th Circuit).

But sources report Rehnquist is not ready to resign and that O'Connor is readying the way for a return to Arizona with her invalid husband. While Bush would consider replacing one of the court's two women with its first Hispanic justice, neither Roberts nor Luttig for O'Connor would be politically correct.

Accordingly, White House judge-hunters are looking for a woman. They have interviewed Appellate Judge Edith Brown Clement (5th Circuit, New Orleans), a conservative who flies under the radar. She was confirmed as a Louisiana district judge in 1991, seven weeks after her nomination by the first President Bush, and was confirmed as an appellate judge in 2001, two and a half months after George W. Bush named her.

Clement would be subject to far more scrutiny as a Supreme Court nominee. So would any other conservative named by Bush, though Democrats may have exhausted scrutinizing Gonzales. The president must choose between a fierce confirmation fight or the alienation of his political base.

RedFanAlways1966
07-01-2005, 11:04 AM
Rufus or Cleetus.

Derogatory comment towards a certain group of people? Doesn't seem fair to label certain people with comments like Rufus or Cleetus. Do you think their civil rights should be taken away?

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 11:04 AM
Most civil rights of minorities and women.... gone. Radical?? Explain yourself. You said it. Please elborate... if you care (dare?).

Ok, Simple.

Abortion (all reproductive rights for women, including birth control, if the Catholic Church gets its fangs in the decision). Affirmative Action. Labor rights. Immigration and Naturalization. Due Process.

Name it.

RedFanAlways1966
07-01-2005, 11:05 AM
Ok, Simple.

Abortion (all reproductive rights for women, including birth control, if the Catholic Church gets its fangs in the decision). Affirmative Action. Labor rights. Immigration and Naturalization. Due Process.

Name it.

Guess we'll see. I mean Jimmy Hyanes did win at least 14 games in one year. Who woulda thunk that could happen?

I think you are being awful radical. But to each his own. :)

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 11:06 AM
Derogatory comment towards a certain group of people? Doesn't seem fair to label certain people with comments like Rufus or Cleetus. Do you think their civil rights should be taken away?

Label? I'm not being sarcastic. I really think Cleetus is up for position. :)

RedsBaron
07-01-2005, 11:14 AM
Sava, I'd guess Gonzalez has been floated as a "trial balloon," but his name may have also been leaked by critics as the article you cited suggested. At this point, I doubt Bush will nominate him. Whoever he picks, the fight in the Senate will be tough.

Jaycint
07-01-2005, 12:28 PM
FCB, I tend to agree with you on most things but the "white male" and Rufus and Cleetus comments really are uncalled for and derogatory. It wouldn't be accepted on this forum for a second if someone came on here and made a backhanded comment about "Latrell and LaMont" being up for nomination.

It amazes me how you guys that lean far to the left seem to think it's okay to take shots at everybody that falls under the status of "white male" and to bunch us all into one group but are quick to the defense of anybody and everybody that doesn't fall under that classification. Reeks of hypocrisy. Or is it just socially acceptable to slander one group?

westofyou
07-01-2005, 12:30 PM
Or is it just socially acceptable to slander one group?

Let's ask the american indians about that.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 12:31 PM
FCB, I tend to agree with you on most things but the "white male" and Rufus and Cleetus comments really are uncalled for and derogatory. It wouldn't be accepted on this forum for a second if someone came on here and made a backhanded comment about "Latrell and LaMont" being up for nomination.

It amazes me how you guys that lean far to the left seem to think it's okay to take shots at everybody that falls under the status of "white male" but are quick to the defense of anybody and everybody that doesn't fall under that classification. Reeks of hypocrisy. Or is it just socially acceptable to slander one group?

The "one group" holds all the cards. That hasn't changed.

And saying making fun of a bubba (who is willfully backwards) is the same thing as deriding someone solely on the basis of race is some sketchy logic as well.

Jaycint
07-01-2005, 12:32 PM
Let's ask the american indians about that.

That's fine WOY let's ask them, why don't we go back even further and ask any group that has EVER been persecuted? I'm not excusing what has happened in America's past, just saying that I'm sick and tired of the "evil blue eyed devil" card being played when it doesn't apply anymore.

Chip R
07-01-2005, 12:36 PM
If you guys can't play nice the thread will be closed. This is the 2nd thread today I've had to warn you about. There won't be a third.

Jaycint
07-01-2005, 12:40 PM
If you guys can't play nice the thread will be closed. This is the 2nd thread today I've had to warn you about. There won't be a third.

Chip, if this was directed at me then I offer my apologies. This was actually the first thread I've even viewed today. :)

Chip R
07-01-2005, 12:44 PM
Chip, if this was directed at me then I offer my apologies. This was actually the first thread I've even viewed today. :)
It was directed at everybody.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 12:47 PM
Guess we'll see. I mean Jimmy Hyanes did win at least 14 games in one year. Who woulda thunk that could happen?

I think you are being awful radical. But to each his own. :)

Yeah, because I was wrong about Jimmah winning 15 games that sure meant I was WAY off the mark for calling him a bad pitcher. As the following year repaid my prediction cruelly. ;)

westofyou
07-01-2005, 12:49 PM
That's fine WOY let's ask them, why don't we go back even further and ask any group that has EVER been persecuted? I'm not excusing what has happened in America's past, just saying that I'm sick and tired of the "evil blue eyed devil" card being played when it doesn't apply anymore.

I have native anerican friends so I already know the answer myself. BTW the "past" isn't as over as you imply.

But I understand your frustration, I have it too. However I try not take the accusation personally, it doesn't have anything to do with my actions as a human being, but it also doesn't mean that the culture I enjoy isn't fraught with misdeeds and discrimination.

savafan
07-01-2005, 01:14 PM
Yeah, because I was wrong about Jimmah winning 15 games that sure meant I was WAY off the mark for calling him a bad pitcher. As the following year repaid my prediction cruelly. ;)

Did you get your kid back?

Unassisted
07-01-2005, 01:17 PM
Just heard speculation that John Ashcroft could be the nominee. Anybody worried about that?

Reds4Life
07-01-2005, 01:28 PM
Just heard speculation that John Ashcroft could be the nominee. Anybody worried about that?

He won't be the nominee.

If I had to guess I'd say it will be one of these 4:
Emilio Garza
John G. Roberts
J. Micheal Luttig
Edith Jones

Dark horse pick:
Ted Olsen

westofyou
07-01-2005, 01:29 PM
Dark horse pick:
Ted Olsen

Dark horse pick:
Judge Judy

RedsBaron
07-01-2005, 01:32 PM
He won't be the nominee.

If I had to guess I'd say it will be one of these 4:
Emilio Garza
John G. Roberts
J. Micheal Luttig
Edith Jones

Dark horse pick:
Ted Olsen
It definitely won't be Ashcroft. I've also read that Bush has ruled out Ted Olson because he is above age 60, and Bush wants to go with a younger nominee.

pedro
07-01-2005, 01:44 PM
It definitely won't be Ashcroft. I've also read that Bush has ruled out Ted Olson because he is above age 60, and Bush wants to go with a younger nominee.

Yup. If you are hell bent on destroying civil rights you might as well do it fo 30 years.

KronoRed
07-01-2005, 01:46 PM
Dark horse pick:
Judge Judy

I'm on board here, she would make Cspan coverage a riot ;)

savafan
07-01-2005, 01:46 PM
Yup. If you are hell bent on destroying civil rights you might as well do it fo 30 years.

My list of nominees would have to include these two:

http://www.americanvision.org/images/King_Solomon(b).jpg

http://www.evolvedgames.com/images/cover-dreddA.jpg


And don't think for a second that Bush hasn't considered them both!

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-01-2005, 01:58 PM
Riiight. The "rights" that matter to white males, eh? Pretend you just got knocked up by your brother. Now pretend there's nothing you can do about it but have the baby.

Fun. (Cuz Gawd says ev'ry life is a precious meer-cul from Gawd)

That is so ridiculously offensive. Every life IS precious. You take the most obscure, far-fetched example and portray it as the standard reason people have abortions. That's just horrible. :thumbdown

I knew a girl in college who got "knocked up," as you say, FOUR TIMES in four years - not once by her brother. She proceeded to have four abortions. What a wonderful thing it is that the abortion procedure was available to her on four separate occasions. Makes me so proud to be an American. :angry:

Abortion is evil.

savafan
07-01-2005, 02:05 PM
Abortion is evil.

I'm pro-life, but I don't think there are any absolutes. In the right scenario, it would be hard, but I would favor abortion.

savafan
07-01-2005, 02:11 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070100770_pf.html

By DEB RIECHMANN
The Associated Press
Friday, July 1, 2005; 12:56 PM

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Friday he will pick a successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a timely manner so her vacancy can be filled by the time the Supreme Court resumes work in the fall.

The White House said he would not decide before returning from Europe July 8.

Bush will consult with Republican and Democratic senators about his selection, and would review briefing material on potential nominees on the flight to Denmark next Tuesday and during his stay Wednesday through Friday at the summit of leading industrialized nations, in Gleneagles, Scotland, said presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.

The White House got the first indication of the retirement on Thursday when the Supreme Court's head marshal, Pamela Talkin, called White House counsel Harriet Miers to make arrangements to deliver a sealed envelope the next morning. Miers informed Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who were having lunch together, that a letter was coming. Talkin informed the White House around 9 a.m. Friday that the letter was from O'Connor , and Miers alerted Bush .

The president spoke with O'Connor before he appeared in the Rose Garden to express appreciation for her 24 years of service.

"For an old ranching girl, you turned out pretty good," he told O'Connor, who grew up on an Arizona ranch. But it was an emotional call, McClellan said. He quoted Bush as telling her, "You're one of the great Americans" and "I wish I were there to hug you."

After talking with O'Connor and before going to the Rose Garden, Bush held a meeting with senior advisers to talk about the selection process. The meeting included Cheney, Miers, Lewis "Scotter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Counselor Dan Bartlett. Chief of Staff Andy Card participated by telephone from Maine.

"We have had a plan in place ... just in case there was a vacancy," McClellan said.

He said that while the staff has been preparing material on potential nominees, the president has not reviewed the notes but would likely do so on the trip to Europe.

McClellan said the White House would consult with Senate Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Harry Reid and ranking members of the Judiciary Committee and expressed hope that Democrats would not block a vote on the president's pick.

"I can't imagine that the Democrats would want to engage in controversial tactics when it comes to a nominee for the Supreme Court," he said.

Bush said he would be pick a successor to O'Connor in a timely manner so her vacancy can be filled by the time the Supreme Court resumes work in the fall.

He praised O'Connor as "a discerning and conscientious judge and a public servant of complete integrity."

Anticipating a tough confirmation battle in the Senate, Bush called for a "dignified" process of considering his nominee.

The president spoke in the Rose Garden shortly after O'Connor announced her resignation after 24 years on the bench.

He pledged to consult with senators about his choice.

O'Connor's retirement caught the White House by surprise. The administration had been preparing for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to step down, and had been mulling how to replace the conservative anchor of the court, according to a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the private nature of the selection process.

Now, the White House has to reexamine its thinking because it faces a vacancy caused by the resignation of a moderate woman instead of a conservative man.

A short list of candidates distributed in the White House within the last week had not included the name of any women or minorities, the official said.

Bush will have an opportunity to consider his choice during a holiday weekend at the presidential retreat at Camp David in Maryland's Catoctin Mountains.

"I will be deliberate and thorough in this process," said Bush.

"I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country," he said.

"The nation deserves and I will select a Supreme Court that Americans can be proud of," Bush said. "The nation also deserves a dignified process of confirmation in the United States Senate _ characterized by fair treatment, a fair hearing and a fair vote."

"I will choose a nominee in a timely manner so that the hearing and the vote will completed before the new Supreme Court begins" in October, he added.

Bush said he had a warm conversation with O'Connor shortly after the announcement. In his tribute to O'Connor, Bush said she rose above the obstacles of an earlier era to become "one of the most admired Americans of our time."

Bush said he would recommend a replacement who will "faithfully interpret" the laws.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 04:47 PM
That is so ridiculously offensive. Every life IS precious. You take the most obscure, far-fetched example and portray it as the standard reason people have abortions. That's just horrible. :thumbdown

I knew a girl in college who got "knocked up," as you say, FOUR TIMES in four years - not once by her brother. She proceeded to have four abortions. What a wonderful thing it is that the abortion procedure was available to her on four separate occasions. Makes me so proud to be an American. :angry:

Abortion is evil.

I'm not going to get into an abortion bout with you because it will never be resolved and you will never appreciate appropriately the right of a citizen to have a choice in his/her own body's destiny.

But I think you're lying about that "girl you knew in college." I hate to say it but I'm certain you're lying. I can't prove that and you can't prove it, of course, but I'm certain I'm right.

And even in the off, off, off chance that you're being honest, I still don't care. It's her body. Not yours.

cincinnati chili
07-01-2005, 04:57 PM
This is single biggest reason I opposed the Bush presidency, even more so than his handling of the war. Hopefully, his father will counsel him on this matter an implore him to "pull a Souter" or risk turning this country into a theocracy.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 05:00 PM
This is single biggest reason I opposed the Bush presidency, even more so than his handling of the war. Hopefully, his father will counsel him on this matter an implore him to "pull a Souter" or risk turning this country into a theocracy.

We're 3/4 of the way there. Reason, maturity, inquiry have been replaced by provincialism, paranoia, and religious transcendentalism.

Redsfaithful
07-01-2005, 05:04 PM
But I think you're lying about that "girl you knew in college."

It's odd how many pro-lifers have a similar story to RFF's. Makes it sound like women just go around telling everyone deeply personal information.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 05:04 PM
This is single biggest reason I opposed the Bush presidency, even more so than his handling of the war. Hopefully, his father will counsel him on this matter an implore him to "pull a Souter" or risk turning this country into a theocracy.

Come on. Bush listen to the man he threatened to beat up after coming home to the Bush palace drunk in his party days?

"Let's go. Mano a mano" I believe were the words.

savafan
07-01-2005, 05:14 PM
Come on. Bush listen to the man he threatened to beat up after coming home to the Bush palace drunk in his party days?

"Let's go. Mano a mano" I believe were the words.

To which I'm sure dad replied, "Okay son, let me show you some of the things I learned in the CIA."

GAC
07-01-2005, 05:25 PM
It's a huge deal--Bush is an arch-conservative; O'Connor is a moderate. This will be ugly. You can kiss good-bye most of your civil rights if you're a minority or a woman.

:rolleyes:

paintmered
07-01-2005, 06:03 PM
(Cuz Gawd says ev'ry life is a precious meer-cul from Gawd)

:nono:

Knock off the snide comments. I haven't suspended anyone lately and I'm feeling trigger-happy.

Falls City Beer
07-01-2005, 06:07 PM
:nono:

Knock off the snide comments. I haven't suspended anyone lately and I'm feeling trigger-happy.

Why is that snide? That's the other side's argument. I can't help it if they can't spell.

paintmered
07-01-2005, 06:17 PM
Why is that snide? That's the other side's argument. I can't help it if they can't spell.

It was a mocking, derogatory comment that baited the other side; those are a no-no around here . And because you've already got two official warnings on the books, this will cost you a day.

Jaycint
07-01-2005, 06:28 PM
But I understand your frustration, I have it too. However I try not take the accusation personally, it doesn't have anything to do with my actions as a human being, but it also doesn't mean that the culture I enjoy isn't fraught with misdeeds and discrimination.

Agreed, this applies to every culture though. There are plenty of neighborhoods in Cincinnati where I would definitely feel discriminated against or downright intimidated by. My only beef was with the broad brush that I felt was being used to paint everybody that looks like me. Unfortunately it goes on on all sides. I long for the day when it won't matter at all what pigmentation you have but I fear I won't live to see it.

alex trevino
07-02-2005, 01:34 AM
Repubs are always for state rights unless ofcourse it is when deciding presidential elections.

RedsBaron
07-02-2005, 08:52 AM
He won't be the nominee.

If I had to guess I'd say it will be one of these 4:
Emilio Garza
John G. Roberts
J. Micheal Luttig
Edith Jones

Dark horse pick:
Ted Olsen
In addition to Edith Brown Clement, who was previously mentioned by a poster, I've been reading a lot of speculation that Garza and Roberts are leading contenders. I can recall that George H.W. Bush considered Edith Jones before nominating Souter in 1991 ( I think that was the year).
I've also read a report that Democratic minority leader Reid has suggested to Bush that he nominate one of the following incumbent GOP senators: Martinez of Florida, DeWine of Ohio or Crapo of Idaho.
I believe that Bush would prefer to either be the first president to nominate an Hispanic to the Supreme Court, or he would prefer to replace O'Connor with another woman.
If Rehnquist soon announces his retirement, I'm certain at least one of the nominees will be Hispanic or female.

RBA
07-02-2005, 09:16 AM
If Rehnquist soon announces his retirement, I'm certain at least one of the nominees will be Hispanic or female.

So, are you saying it's easier for Bush to nominate a minority if he also has the luxury of picking a white guy to appease his base?

RedsBaron
07-02-2005, 09:49 AM
So, are you saying it's easier for Bush to nominate a minority if he also has the luxury of picking a white guy to appease his base?
Not at all. I don't know if you are wanting to imply Bush's base is simply racist, but, since you raise a question about my prior post I'll answer. My best guess is that Bush will nominate a woman or an Hispanic to replace O'Connor, and his base will be happy. If he has two picks to make with a Rehnquist retirement, I'm certain that one of those picks will be a woman or Hispanic, and both nominations may very well be females or minorities. Regardless of their qualifications, I don't expect Bush to nominate two white guys, and maybe not even one. There are white male candidates who would be good justices, but there are also non-white and non-male candidates who would also be good justices, and I expect Bush to lean towards nominating the latter.

RBA
07-02-2005, 09:58 AM
Why would you say I'm implying Bush's base is simply racist? Your previous post pretty much implied it on it's own. Thanks for clarifying, but I think your previous post was more on the mark.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-02-2005, 10:28 AM
I'm not going to get into an abortion bout with you because it will never be resolved and you will never appreciate appropriately the right of a citizen to have a choice in his/her own body's destiny.

But I think you're lying about that "girl you knew in college." I hate to say it but I'm certain you're lying. I can't prove that and you can't prove it, of course, but I'm certain I'm right.

And even in the off, off, off chance that you're being honest, I still don't care. It's her body. Not yours.

You're unbelievable. First you bring up a pathetic brother/sister incest example as a valid reason why abortions shoud remain legal. Then you mock Christians by putting us down if we do believe - as I do - that every life is precious.

Now you're calling me a liar. I'm sorry, do you know me? You don't even know my name but you feel comfortable enough to challenge my integrity? It's oh-so-easy for you to call me a liar on an Internet message board knowing full well that I would never name names of a four-time abortion offender. Suffice it to say that she was a student at Bowling Green State University in the mid- to late-90s and was in the same sorority for a time as a close friend of mine. After her third abortion she left BG to attend a small college in her hometown, where she had the fourth abortion. I know this because my friend was someone who she spoke to about this and they remain in contact today.

I could not possibly care less whether or not you "believe" this example from my life. Rationalize things any way you want. But if you're "certain" that I'm lying, as you say, that really diminishes a lot of your other arguments in my view.

As for you not wanting to get into an "abortion bout" with me because I "will never...appreciate appropriately the right of a citizen to have a choice in his/her own body destiny," could you possibly be any more condescending? I feel that I needn't waste my time getting into a discussion with you because it is YOU who will never appreciate appropriately the value of every human life, even those who are unborn.


[And Redsfaithful, why is it so hard to understand that women who opt for abortions would feel the need to discuss this with their close friends? Abortions aren't like going through the drive through at KFC, they're emotionally and physically damaging procedures that, if the girl is lucky, are softened with the support (or at least understanding ear) of a close friend. Who else is a girl going to talk to about this? Her parents? Her grandparents?]

RBA
07-02-2005, 10:43 AM
Well, you have to admit a woman having 4 abortions in one years time is a story hard to swallow. I'm guessing reproductive/sex education was frown upon in her community.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-02-2005, 10:46 AM
Well, you have to admit a woman having 4 abortions in one years time is a story hard to swallow. I'm guessing reproductive/sex education was frown upon in her community.

I never said one year's time; it was over a span of four years. But that hardly makes it acceptable.

Mutaman
07-02-2005, 10:52 AM
It's oh-so-easy for you to call me a liar on an Internet message board knowing full well that I would never name names of a four-time abortion offender. Suffice it to say that she was a student at Bowling Green State University in the mid- to late-90s and was in the same sorority for a time as a close friend of mine. After her third abortion she left BG to attend a small college in her hometown, where she had the fourth abortion. I know this because my friend was someone who she spoke to about this and they remain in contact today.



I've heard about this girl. She spoke to one of my friends too. Her story has certainly convinced me that prolife is the way to go and that abortion should be illegal. A most convincing argument.

RBA
07-02-2005, 10:53 AM
I never said one year's time; it was over a span of four years. But that hardly makes it acceptable.

Okay, I misread it. I'm a poor reader. But the girl needed professional help, not a buddy's shoulder to cry on.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-02-2005, 11:01 AM
Okay, I misread it. I'm a poor reader. But the girl needed professional help, not a buddy's shoulder to cry on.

I agree with that 100%

WVRed
07-02-2005, 11:36 AM
The supreme court battle is going to be the Armageddon of the Bush Administration. The "nuclear option" was just a stepping stone that was a delay of the inevitable, while replacing the justices and setting the precedent for making partial-birth abortion and late term abortions illegal(or even overturning Roe vs Wade), as well as an upcoming homosexual case that will most likely occur.

TeamCasey
07-02-2005, 11:45 AM
I started this one. May I make the motion to end it?

I just threw in breaking news yesterday. It wasn't my intention to start an abortion/religious debate.

Apologies, Peeps.

RedsBaron
07-02-2005, 12:04 PM
Overturning Roe v. Wade would not in itself make abortion illegal. Prior to the Roe decision, a number of states (probably a majority) had already legalized abortion. I don't know of any responsible legal scholar who claims that the Constitution prohibts abortion.
If Roe was overturned, the issue would return to the states. Certain "red" states would probably restrict abortion. Most states, including New York and California would not.
Even if Bush replaced O'Connor and Rehnquist with James Dobson and RushLimbaugh, that would still give only four votes on the present court willing to overturn Roe (Scalia and Thomas would be the others). Kennedy would remain the swing vote, and he has previously refused to overturn Roe.

Redsfaithful
07-02-2005, 03:03 PM
I know this because my friend was someone who she spoke to about this and they remain in contact today.

Wow, some friend, keeping what she said in confidence and all.

GAC
07-02-2005, 04:46 PM
Not at all. I don't know if you are wanting to imply Bush's base is simply racist, but, since you raise a question about my prior post I'll answer. My best guess is that Bush will nominate a woman or an Hispanic to replace O'Connor, and his base will be happy. If he has two picks to make with a Rehnquist retirement, I'm certain that one of those picks will be a woman or Hispanic, and both nominations may very well be females or minorities. Regardless of their qualifications, I don't expect Bush to nominate two white guys, and maybe not even one. There are white male candidates who would be good justices, but there are also non-white and non-male candidates who would also be good justices, and I expect Bush to lean towards nominating the latter.

Good post. People seem to foget that Bush has more minorities working in high-level Cabinet positions then the previous adminstration. ;)

Democrats love to applaud the success of minorities in this country, but they fall silent on people like Powell, Rice (the first black female to hold that position), Gonzales, Estrada, Barreto, Paige, and others. Why? Ideology.

I also believe they want the promotion of highly skilled and successful women and minorities to positions of power in our government. I just believe they don't want Republicans doing it because if it's a Republican doing it, then that runs contrary to their mythologizing of Republicans being racist.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-02-2005, 05:29 PM
Wow, some friend, keeping what she said in confidence and all.

With all due respect, that isn't the issue here. I relayed the experience of an acquaintance of mine in college, whose actions were told to me by a close friend of both of ours. Since I did that I have been called an outright liar by one poster and mocked by another who sarcastically made fun of the pro-life perspective.

Put yourself in my friend's shoes. Isn't even a little bit possible that this information was just too much for her to handle on her own? Is it entirely out of the realm of possibility that she would want to share this horrible account with another human being?

Falls City Beer
07-02-2005, 06:50 PM
You're unbelievable. First you bring up a pathetic brother/sister incest example as a valid reason why abortions shoud remain legal. Then you mock Christians by putting us down if we do believe - as I do - that every life is precious.


1. People get pregnant via incest far more than you would understand. I work with men and women moving from prison to the workplace, and unfortunately I see it. I think YOU should curb your certainty on that front. Just because in your world it doesn't happen doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just know that. It's a sad world, and unfortunately not enough people appreciate and respect the darkness that's there, and the painful and awful decisions young women in this world face.

2. You may read my comments as "mocking Christians" alone, but Christians aren't the only world religion that condemns abortion. To me, assuming that I was talking only about Christians is a tad presumptuous. And maybe (and I'll try to avoid snideness here) a little myopic.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject; I felt what I've said needed to be said.

BUTLER REDSFAN
07-03-2005, 04:17 AM
hey falls city--stick to baseball

Falls City Beer
07-03-2005, 09:30 AM
hey falls city--stick to baseball

Hey Butler. Stick to your own business.

REDREAD
07-05-2005, 04:52 PM
It's odd how many pro-lifers have a similar story to RFF's. Makes it sound like women just go around telling everyone deeply personal information.

Actually, I did a research paper in college. It said that many women who have abortions do not regret having them at all. Therefore, it doesn't seem too implausible that they'd be willing to tell people about them.

I'm not taking either side of the abortion arguement, but it's not right to dismiss all these people as fabricating these stories. I've had at least 6 women tell me they've had an abortion (I can recall 6 off the top of my head). There's really not that much of a stigma about it.

Rojo
07-05-2005, 05:13 PM
I'm going on record as predicting Edith Jones is the pick.

Jaycint
07-09-2005, 08:07 PM
I wanna go on record and say Edith Brown Clement would be my nominee.

RBA
07-09-2005, 09:09 PM
I wanna go on record and say Edith Brown Clement would be my nominee.

I wanna go on record and say Edith Brown Clement will not be the nominee.

Jaycint
07-10-2005, 09:12 AM
I wanna go on record and say Edith Brown Clement will not be the nominee.

Oh I never said she would be, just that she would be if it were up to me.

RBA
07-12-2005, 08:48 PM
My prediction: Allyson Duncan will be the nominee.

RBA
07-19-2005, 10:35 AM
I wanna go on record and say Edith Brown Clement would be my nominee.

You may get your wish. I'm hearing rumors.

Reds Fanatic
07-19-2005, 01:55 PM
The choice for who will succeed Sandra Day O'Conner has been made and will be announced at 9 PM. Edith Clement is thought to be the frontrunner.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.bush.ap/index.html

RBA
07-19-2005, 01:59 PM
The choice for who will succeed Sandra Day O'Conner has been made and will be announced at 9 PM. Edith Clement is thought to be the frontrunner.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.bush.ap/index.html

You can't fault them for trying to control the news cycle. Hard nose politics to the end.

Jaycint
07-19-2005, 02:37 PM
You may get your wish. I'm hearing rumors.

Some info Here (http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais) on Edith Brown Clement down towards the bottom of the page. I think she won't have nearly the hard time getting confirmed that some of the other candidates would have. Like the article says, she doesn't leave opposition groups with a whole lot of ammo.

Not to mention, for 57 she is pretty hot. :thumbup: