NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would you like to see as the next Supreme Court Justice?

My choice would be J. Michael Luttig.

Two questions asked, two answers given:

Who will Bush pick? A right-wing, neocon, constructionist psychopath.

Who would I pick? Batman. That'll learn 'em.

The question you should be asking is:

Who will the Senate allow Bush to pick? Checks and/or Balances, my good man and/or woman.

Who would I pick? Batman. That'll learn 'em.



Batman. (http://www.jasonlove.com/cartoons/view/?363) Good pick!

Great intellectual response on your part, thank you.

In an effort to put this thread more on-topic;

He will need to pick a strict-constructionist, certainly. The biggest complaint of the American People reguarding judicial decissions lately has been that the courts are legislating, which they are not allowed to do, and even worse, they are legislating values that Americans don't believe in.

While there are a number of things I would like very much to see, like another pro-life judge, the primary focus should be on someone who will follow the law.

Who would you like to see as the next Supreme Court Justice?
That's two different questions there.

Bush WILL pick an extreme rightwing fundie nutcase based on his past record of nominations for judgeship. He will then complain mightly when the unfitness of his nominee is profoundly evident.

Who SHOULD he pick is a moderate, or even a liberal, but that ain't gonna happen.

I hope it's Alberto Gonzales.

Yeah. He'd be a good one.

He will not pick Janet Reno. Whomever he nominates, the Democrats will not like the nomination and will attempt to block it. :(

He will not pick Janet Reno. Whomever he nominates, the Democrats will not like the nomination and will attempt to block it. :(

Unfortunetely, this is true. It's all about power. Democrats don't want Republicans having more power than they already do.

I don't think Bush is actually going to pick anyone that extreme, honestly. They'll be a conservative Christian, obviously, but I don't think he'll go for someone too conservative, and I don't think it's going to be a white guy, either.

Who SHOULD he pick is a moderate, or even a liberal, but that ain't gonna happen.

Why should he nominate a liberal? Why should any sitting President nominate someone who is the antithesis of his political philosophy? :confused:

He'll pick a black or Hispanic judge, likely a woman, to appear progressive. The nominee will be more or less a centrist except for a few key issues that Bush decides are the most important (i.e. gay marriage).

He'll pick me of course.

He'll pick me of course.

A 17-year old Pakistani Quebecer. Seems logical.

A 17-year old Pakistani Quebecer. Seems logical.
:rolleyes:

He'll pick a black or Hispanic judge, likely a woman, to appear progressive. The nominee will be more or less a centrist except for a few key issues that Bush decides are the most important (i.e. gay marriage).

I agree with you.

Except for the "appearing progressive" part. Bush has no problem with diversity.

He'll pick me of course.

More likely, he'd have you strip-searched and thrown in a detention center... I think you know what I'm talking about.

More likely, he'd have you strip-searched and thrown in a detention center... I think you know what I'm talking about.
I'm not following.

More likely, he'd have you strip-searched and thrown in a detention center... I think you know what I'm talking about.

Somehow, I doubt this.

I agree with you.

Except for the "appearing progressive" part. Bush has no problem with diversity.

Excuse me while I laugh.

Haha.

There, I did it.

I agree with you.

Except for the "appearing progressive" part. Bush has no problem with diversity.

I'm not saying he does, but public image will be the only reason he picks a minority.

I'm not following.

It's your appearance. Apparently, everyone of Middle-Eastern and near-Middle-Eastern descent is a suspect.

I'm not saying he does, but public image will be the only reason he picks a minority.

Exactly.

It's your appearance. Apparently, everyone of Middle-Eastern and near-Middle-Eastern descent is a suspect.
Oh, yeah. I call my friend Abdur-Rahim a terrorist. Everytime I see him I ask him, "Hey Terrorist, how's uncle Zarqawi?"

Excuse me while I laugh.

Haha.

There, I did it.

That's why he had a Black secretary of state.

That's why the current secretary of state is not only black, but female.

That's why he has a Hispanic Attorney general.

But of course, they aren't real minorities since they happen to agree with the majority :p

That's why he had a Black secretary of state.

That's why the current secretary of state is not only black, but female.

That's why he has a Hispanic Attorney general.

But of course, they aren't real minorities since they happen to agree with the majority :p

#'s 1, 2, and 3: Mine and Sdaeriji's point exactly. Public image.

4: Well, considering the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush, this is a moot point.

He'll pick me of course.

If Batman's not in the running, then you get my vote. I'll call my Senator immediately.

If Batman's not in the running, then you get my vote. I'll call my Senator immediately.
:p Muslim power!

#'s 1, 2, and 3: Mine and Sdaeriji's point exactly. Public image.

4: Well, considering the majority of Americans didn't vote for Bush, this is a moot point.

No. He picks those he feels are best for the job.

And, no, the point is not moot, even though 51% of Americans voted for Bush this time around.

What I meant was, that they aren't real minorities because they don't agree with the minorities.

I hope his choice isn't made because of making there be an equal representation of people.

this means we need an ex messianic jec turned extremist christian black woman with down's syndrome and one leg called frank.

what's the other leg called? it's called i hope the new person personally shoots bush john wilkes booth style.

what's the other leg called?

Billy Bo Bob Cletus Jr.

I hope his choice isn't made because of making there be an equal representation of people.

this means we need an ex messianic jec turned extremist christian black woman with down's syndrome and one leg called frank.

what's the other leg called?

How about Pete? We could turn it into a sitcom: Frank and Pete! When you pair a high-strung conservative and a loose 'n' wild liberal together, you don't know what might happen!

...How legs can have political idealogies is beyond me, but I gues anything can happen...

The problem is, and I've stated this before, is that Bush will try to appoint a clown with a poodle. Byrd will stand up and applaud Bush's choice and the instant the Dems say "Ummm ... wait a minute", everyone will be pissed at the Dems.

For some reason, the Republicans take 51% as a mandate. It is not. Bush is not King and God and Law, he is the temporarily elected President who has no power to make law or even set precident. He doesn't run the country anymore than any individual runs the country, yet they all seem to think they do.

There is a reason the minority party is called the "opposition party" and you Republicans should be damn proud it exists. You're trying so desperately to get rid of any opposition (such as by trying to abolish the filibuster) that you forget you won't always be the party in power. Just look at our history and you will know it to be true. Will you then demand your right to opposition back when the Dems are in power again? Do you think they'll give it?

While I respect Bush's apparent diversity, I also am able to look at his version of diversity. He doesn't mind someone's ethnicity, but they damn well better think like he does. Even Reagan, who many like to compare Bush to, appointed the very centrist and moderate O'Conner to the bench.

A Supreme Court appointee cannot be an extreme on either side. You're right in one thing: Judges are not allowed to legislate. Judges are, however, allowed to interpret legislation. That's their job ... to judge! This is part of the problem. Neocon constructionists don't want judges being able to interpret legislation unless that legislation doesn't agree with them. See the Terri Schiavo case if you don't believe me. Bush and company were juggling judges like a street performer juggles oranges to get their way on that little gem .... even going so far as bringing it into the House of Representatives in clear violation of State's rights.

Between this, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, and a few other little bits of political shenanigans, 'tis going to be a very entertaining summer.

:p Muslim power!

You know it!

The problem is, and I've stated this before, is that Bush will try to appoint a clown with a poodle. Byrd will stand up and applaud Bush's choice and the instant the Dems say "Ummm ... wait a minute", everyone will be pissed at the Dems.

For some reason, the Republicans take 51% as a mandate. It is not. Bush is not King and God and Law, he is the temporarily elected President who has no power to make law or even set precident. He doesn't run the country anymore than any individual runs the country, yet they all seem to think they do.

There is a reason the minority party is called the "opposition party" and you Republicans should be damn proud it exists. You're trying so desperately to get rid of any opposition (such as by trying to abolish the filibuster) that you forget you won't always be the party in power. Just look at our history and you will know it to be true. Will you then demand your right to opposition back when the Dems are in power again? Do you think they'll give it?

While I respect Bush's apparent diversity, I also am able to look at his version of diversity. He doesn't mind someone's ethnicity, but they damn well better think like he does. Even Reagan, who many like to compare Bush to, appointed the very centrist and moderate O'Conner to the bench.

A Supreme Court appointee cannot be an extreme on either side. You're right in one thing: Judges are not allowed to legislate. Judges are, however, allowed to interpret legislation. That's their job ... to judge! This is part of the problem. Neocon constructionists don't want judges being able to interpret legislation unless that legislation doesn't agree with them. See the Terri Schiavo case if you don't believe me. Bush and company were juggling judges like a street performer juggles oranges to get their way on that little gem .... even going so far as bringing it into the House of Representatives in clear violation of State's rights.

Between this, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, and a few other little bits of political shenanigans, 'tis going to be a very entertaining summer.

Oh my...OH my God...I agree with you! For the most part, at least.

I doubt Bush will appoint someone far to the right, for his own good. As said before, he'll nominate a moderate with right leanings. Remember the GOP national convention? All of his speakers were far more moderate than he was. Bush knows what's up.

[QUOTE=Arnburg]Who would you like to see as the next Supreme Court Justice? [QUOTE]

Judge Judy :p

Oh my...OH my God...I agree with you! For the most part, at least.

I knew there was a swarm of locusts out there ... anyone check the temperature of Hell lately? :D

I doubt Bush will appoint someone far to the right, for his own good. As said before, he'll nominate a moderate with right leanings. Remember the GOP national convention? All of his speakers were far more moderate than he was. Bush knows what's up.

He may try and such would be his right. Every President who has the opportunity gets plenty of appointees blocked. Even Clinton, who the Dems seem to deify for some unknown reason, had plenty of his nominees blocked. However, in the end, the centrist/moderate will prevail.

Oh, it will be quite the dog and pony show and I advise everyone tune in to C-SPAN during the comittee hearings, but this is Bush's legacy term and he gets to appoint a Supreme Court Justice ... even he has to be in awe of the fact that he'll be seating someone who will establish Constitutional interpretation that will last long after his children's children are dead. As much as I dislike him, I cannot imagine he really wants to damage the country so much that it cannot heal.

I cannot imagine he really wants to damage the country so much that it cannot heal.

what'd he see as damage and what'd he see as doing good?

what'd he see as damage and what'd he see as doing good?

Good point ... I suppose it is subjective. Until yesterday, I would have told you he'd believe whatever Karl Rove said ... but it looks like Rove may become the low-man scapegoat and in a couple of weeks, Bush will be saying, "Karl who?" much like he did to Ken Lay and Osama bin Laden.

At this point, I can't answer your question. I can only hope that any strict constructionists hit a brick wall of opposition.

At this point, I can't answer your question. I can only hope that any strict constructionists hit a brick wall of opposition.
At least a Constitutional literalist would be better than a Biblical literalist.

That's why he had a Black secretary of state.

That's why the current secretary of state is not only black, but female.

That's why he has a Hispanic Attorney general.

But of course, they aren't real minorities since they happen to agree with the majority :p

What I meant was, that they aren't real minorities because they don't agree with the minorities.

I love how -- in the name of diversity -- you manage to stereotype and pigeon-hole Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales, Condaleeza Rice, blacks, women, and Hispanics. :rolleyes: :p

I love how -- in the name of diversity -- you manage to stereotype and pigeon-hole Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzales, Condaleeza Rice, blacks, women, and Hispanics. :rolleyes: :p

How did I stereotype?

I wasn't trying to stereotype at all. I was only trying to point out that George Bush likes diversity.

How did I stereotype?

I wasn't trying to stereotype at all. I was only trying to point out that George Bush likes diversity.

(reaches through the Ether, pulls Haloman's foot out of his mouth.) I understand what you meant (which I think he did too) but you didn't say it clearly.

Instead of "...don't agree with the minorities..." (rough paraphrase, I don't want to go back and dig up the quote for htis. it's too minor).

Should have said "...aren't utterly beholden to the Democrat Plantation, like the so-called minority advocates are."

Bush will pick who Bush will pick, and bet that your first three nominees will be Borked. Bet on it. Regardless of their record, they'll be Borked in the Senate and have their names dragged through the mud. (Recall, folk, the Thomas hearings and that whole circus...)

The real question should be, how many appointees is GW going to go through before he wears his opponents out?

I think his first appointee will be designed to have his political opponents up-in-arms and screaming from the moment the name slips his lips. Probably going to find a real fruity one. This is called "The Distraction Phase". The second will be similarly unacceptable. After half a year and thunders from the pundit pulpit, (and under pressure to get it done before the close of the session) he'll pick a centre-right candidate, maybe female, maybe minority, with a vanilla background and nothing controversial to dig up-possibly played as a "Gee, well...i don't really want to...but the people's business must be done." in the leaks, maybe leak a few tidbits about the nominee liking Abortion or Affirmative action. That nominee will pass through confirmation like ex-lax through a diarrhetic sheep. The sense of Accomplishment the Dems feel at forcing GW to "Compromise" will be soured upon the first descision the newly-minted judge gets to write an opinion on.

(reaches through the Ether, pulls Haloman's foot out of his mouth.) I understand what you meant (which I think he did too) but you didn't say it clearly.

Instead of "...don't agree with the minorities..." (rough paraphrase, I don't want to go back and dig up the quote for htis. it's too minor).

Should have said "...aren't utterly beholden to the Democrat Plantation, like the so-called minority advocates are."

Bush will pick who Bush will pick, and bet that your first three nominees will be Borked. Bet on it. Regardless of their record, they'll be Borked in the Senate and have their names dragged through the mud. (Recall, folk, the Thomas hearings and that whole circus...)

The real question should be, how many appointees is GW going to go through before he wears his opponents out?

I think his first appointee will be designed to have his political opponents up-in-arms and screaming from the moment the name slips his lips. Probably going to find a real fruity one. This is called "The Distraction Phase". The second will be similarly unacceptable. After half a year and thunders from the pundit pulpit, (and under pressure to get it done before the close of the session) he'll pick a centre-right candidate, maybe female, maybe minority, with a vanilla background and nothing controversial to dig up-possibly played as a "Gee, well...i don't really want to...but the people's business must be done." in the leaks, maybe leak a few tidbits about the nominee liking Abortion or Affirmative action. That nominee will pass through confirmation like ex-lax through a diarrhetic sheep. The sense of Accomplishment the Dems feel at forcing GW to "Compromise" will be soured upon the first descision the newly-minted judge gets to write an opinion on.

The ugliness of the filibuster. The democrats just want things their way, as do the Republicans.

Those weren't nominees, though, I was pointing out the minorities in George Bush's cabinet. I think He'll nominate Gonzales, who'll stand the most chance of getting through of his original nominees. He won't get through, though, because of him supposedly endorsing torture at gauntanamo. :rolleyes:

I feel Gonzales would be an excellent addition to SCOTUS, but Bush will, in the end, have to nominate a left-leaning centrist. I have a feeling the democrats will filibuster everyone until he nominates one. Sucks, though.

I feel Gonzales would be an excellent addition to SCOTUS, but Bush will, in the end, have to nominate a left-leaning centrist. I have a feeling the democrats will filibuster everyone until he nominates one. Sucks, though.
Maybe, but I don't see it. Sen Reid is too canny to block someone too many people see as moderate.

I'm just wondering, now that Bush doesn't have to run again and has shown no signs of even wanting to help anyone suceed him, will he pander to his base again, or will the GOP drag him to a more moderate position. While this has the power to hurt Dems if they are seen as being obstructionists, many GOP senators are aware that the GOP isn't smelling so good right now with the moderate and swing voters, and this particular circus is coming very, very close to mid-term elections. I think he'll go moderate with a nominee who will probably afirm Roe for the time being.

1. is fear of a Bolton-type rebuttle by the moderates in the Senate, he's already trying to stave off lame duckness and having an ideological canidate axed by centerst GOP would show he has lost control of the party.

2. is fear of losing control of one or both houses of Congress during the midterm should he annoy the moderate voters too much. This isn't a presidental election, so many of the voters will stay home unless they are annoyed with something. Facing a hostle Congress during his last two years after his history of not playing nice is not a good way to leave the presidency. Especially when the need to establish his legacy takes hold (as it does with EVERY 2nd term president).

The ugliness of the filibuster. The democrats just want things their way, as do the Republicans.

Those weren't nominees, though, I was pointing out the minorities in George Bush's cabinet. I think He'll nominate Gonzales, who'll stand the most chance of getting through of his original nominees. He won't get through, though, because of him supposedly endorsing torture at gauntanamo. :rolleyes:

I feel Gonzales would be an excellent addition to SCOTUS, but Bush will, in the end, have to nominate a left-leaning centrist. I have a feeling the democrats will filibuster everyone until he nominates one. Sucks, though.

I don't think bush will veer left-unless it's to pick a Libertarian. I could see him pulling that one just to piss the Dems off. (something about the man tells me there's a smartass waiting to come out.) But I also see Bush just bulling through a Fillibuster-fest, then doing the appointment during a recess if the Dems want to play games.

But I also see Bush just bulling through a Fillibuster-fest, then doing the appointment during a recess if the Dems want to play games.
No, too risky. There's too much a chance that doing so will just annoy enough people that the Dems will block ANYONE (or, again, take control of the Senate during midterm). If they do that, he gets to play this game again and again and then watch as his sucessor picks the judge for life.

I don't think bush will veer left-unless it's to pick a Libertarian. I could see him pulling that one just to piss the Dems off. (something about the man tells me there's a smartass waiting to come out.) But I also see Bush just bulling through a Fillibuster-fest, then doing the appointment during a recess if the Dems want to play games.

Of course the democrats will want to play games, that's what they like to do best.

They'll filibuster everyone they don't feel will vote the way they want. I see it happening now. Bush will end up having to nominate another Sandra Day O'conner, if not, then someone to the left of her.

Two questions asked, two answers given:

Who will Bush pick? A right-wing, neocon, constructionist psychopath.

Who would I pick? Batman. That'll learn 'em.

The question you should be asking is:

Who will the Senate allow Bush to pick? Checks and/or Balances, my good man and/or woman.

nicely put... yet another reason I'm glad I'm from Canada...
other reasons I'm glad from Canada? See recent Supreme Court rulings...
-right for federal government to prosecute use of medical marijuana even if it is declared LEGAL by the state
-right of municipalities to confiscate private land for economic development... now cities can bulldoze all those slums with their hospitals and schools to make room for more shopping malls and golf courses
-right for police officers to ignore enforcing restraining orders

and as Bush once again ignores plausible methods for enforcing KYOTO protocol.. while our prime minister stands up to him on this...
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1120471939143_8?hub=Canada
.. and things such as missile defense that has not worked in tests yet...

:p Muslim power!

You mean terrorist power! There. I said it. :mp5:

They'll filibuster everyone they don't feel will vote the way they want. I see it happening now. Bush will end up having to nominate another Sandra Day O'conner, if not, then someone to the left of her.

Just like the Repubs did to Clinton and the Dems did to Bush sr. and Reagan and the Repubs did to Carter and the Dems did to Ford and Nixon and the Repubs did to Johnson and Kennedy and so on and so on and so on ...

Get it through your head: It's called "opposition party" for a reason.

You mean terrorist power! There. I said it. :mp5:

If you want the terrorists to have power, that's your business. That's not what she meant, though. Muslim != Terrorist.

Just like the Repubs did to Clinton and the Dems did to Bush sr. and Reagan and the Repubs did to Carter and the Dems did to Ford and Nixon and the Repubs did to Johnson and Kennedy and so on and so on and so on ...

Get it through your head: It's called "opposition party" for a reason.

Oh, I understand it, alright. When a liberal president comes along again (there will be, but not soon), the Republicans will filibuster every nominee.

That's why it's gotta be abolished. Nominees deserve up or down votes. Every nominee, not just the ones I like. ;)

Oh, I understand it, alright. When a liberal president comes along again (there will be, but not soon), the Republicans will filibuster every nominee.

That's why it's gotta be abolished. Nominees deserve up or down votes. Every nominee, not just the ones I like. ;)


Doesn't that lead to tyrrany of the majority and, thus, would make us no better off than Saddam's Iraq?

Doesn't that lead to tyrrany of the majority and, thus, would make us no better off than Saddam's Iraq?

No. It leads to judicial nominees getting the vote they deserve.

No. It leads to judicial nominees getting the vote they deserve.

Well, you've got 100 Senators and one Vice President. It can almost unilateraly be assumed that the VP will vote for the President's nomination.

If 60 of those Senators represent the ideals of the President and 40 are opposition party, then what happens is the President gets all his nominations through on a 60-40 vote and, thus, may as well be called King.

If the 40 are allowed to stonewall extremist appointees, then it forces the hand of the President to make more moderate choices. Choices good for the whole country, not just the 51% who voted him in.

I like the system we have. I wouldn't trade it for all the money in Bill Gates's portfolio. Even if my chosen representatives are the ones in power, I still like the system we have.

In an effort to put this thread more on-topic;

He will need to pick a strict-constructionist, certainly. The biggest complaint of the American People reguarding judicial decissions lately has been that the courts are legislating, which they are not allowed to do, and even worse, they are legislating values that Americans don't believe in.

While there are a number of things I would like very much to see, like another pro-life judge, the primary focus should be on someone who will follow the law.

I couldn't agree more. Judges need to be about the business enforcing the law not writing or bending it to suit their whims and wishes.

It doesn't matter who Bush picks, or how well qualified they are, or what position they take on any issue of any import.

The Democrats will demonize that person as being one step removed from Hitler as soon as they know that person's name. And they will filibuster.

I couldn't agree more. Judges need to be about the business enforcing the law not writing or bending it to suit their whims and wishes.

It is the police's job to enforce the law. The judge's job is to interpret it.

Where's Cat-Tribe when he's needed?

It doesn't matter who Bush picks, or how well qualified they are, or what position they take on any issue of any import.

The Democrats will demonize that person as being one step removed from Hitler as soon as they know that person's name. And they will filibuster.

He could nominate a hippy who's a registered communist and they'd say it was too right wing.

He could nominate a hippy who's a registered communist and they'd say it was too right wing.

Ah what?

Of course the democrats will want to play games, that's what they like to do best.

They'll filibuster everyone they don't feel will vote the way they want. I see it happening now. Bush will end up having to nominate another Sandra Day O'conner, if not, then someone to the left of her.

Kind of like how Scalia and Thomas follow the republican agenda.

The repubs do the same exact thing.

Let Rehnquist pick a Rehnquist clone for when he goes, for now let Thomas and Scalia pick this one :D

Let the filibuster start, then let the filibuster nuke take place...Then let the ACLU suck wind for the next twenty years :p