NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9215790/

Thoughts, anyone?

bump

bump

bump

Yea, I just heard.

This is great and somehow I am not surprised.

It's not unexpected, and it may help Roberts out some. There have been rumblings on the left of a spirited opposition to his original nomination because it's becoming increasingly clear that he's not an O'Connor style moderate, and there will continue to be some questions about his lack of experience and the jump all the way to Chief Justice, but since he'll now be replacing a hardcore conservative, he may get some slack.

It's not unexpected, and it may help Roberts out some. There have been rumblings on the left of a spirited opposition to his original nomination because it's becoming increasingly clear that he's not an O'Connor style moderate, and there will continue to be some questions about his lack of experience and the jump all the way to Chief Justice, but since he'll now be replacing a hardcore conservative, he may get some slack.
No. I'd give him some slack now for the associates position, but not for the Chief Justice. I'd rather have someone who has more experience on the bench being the chief justice rather then just promoting Roberts up without even getting a chance to see what his style is.

The only chance he has of getting in is replacing Rehnquist, but going straight to Chief Justice is not something that should be happening. There were already enough questions as it is.

No. I'd give him some slack now for the associates position, but not for the Chief Justice. I'd rather have someone who has more experience on the bench being the chief justice rather then just promoting Roberts up without even getting a chance to see what his style is.I'm not suggesting that the Democrats ought to let up--I think they ought to hammer him as hard as possible and if he won't come clean on whether or not he supports, among other things, a right to privacy, that they ought to filibuster his butt.

All I'm saying is that, from a political point of view, he might have an easier time, might be slightly more palatable to the moderates who were on the fence, now that he's replacing a hardcore conservative as opposed to a moderate like O'Connor. Who knows--if the Chief Justice slot is a deal breaker, Bush could always nominate Roberts as Associate Justice and try to move one of the existing Justices up the ladder.

I'm not suggesting that the Democrats ought to let up--I think they ought to hammer him as hard as possible and if he won't come clean on whether or not he supports, among other things, a right to privacy, that they ought to filibuster his butt.

All I'm saying is that, from a political point of view, he might have an easier time, might be slightly more palatable to the moderates who were on the fence, now that he's replacing a hardcore conservative as opposed to a moderate like O'Connor. Who knows--if the Chief Justice slot is a deal breaker, Bush could always nominate Roberts as Associate Justice and try to move one of the existing Justices up the ladder.
That he is. If he's replacing the CJ's slot, I'd have no real problems against him, considering he's not too far out of line of the Chief, but I do have problems with elevating him to the high post without even getting an idea of what is legal style is.

I bet Scalia's infuriated.

I bet Scalia's infuriated.

LOL I hadn't thought of that, but now that I have, you just made my day.

Ahhh, no better way to start the day than knowing some arch-conservative is pissed as hell. :D

No. I'd give him some slack now for the associates position, but not for the Chief Justice. I'd rather have someone who has more experience on the bench being the chief justice rather then just promoting Roberts up without even getting a chance to see what his style is.

Doesn't usually work like that...

"The president's dilemma is whether to elevate a currently sitting justice. Historically, such appointments are rare. Of the 16 chief justices in American history, only five previously served as associate justices. "

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4708442

I bet Scalia's infuriated.

I doubt it...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4708442

Read up folks, it will make you better armed to discuss the issues...

On a slight tangent - this is why I voted for Bush. I don't love him as a President, and strongly disagree with many of his decisions. It helped that I thought Kerry was a slimeball, but knowing that there would be a good chance that this President would replace one or two SCJ's was my reason for voting Bush.

I love it when a plan comes together... :)

Hawkintom']I doubt it...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4708442

Read up folks, it will make you better armed to discuss the issues...
Just because such appointments are rare doesn't mean Scalia didn't have hopes for the slot. Personally, I'd have been surprised if Bush had tried to move one of the sitting justices up to the Chief slot, simply because the three (leaving out O'Connor) he would consider basically shot themselves in the foot with the Democrats in the Senate after the horrible decision they signed off on in Bush v Gore--and before anyone accuses me of simply being partisan, let me remind you that a number of conservatives have admitted, after the fact, that Bush v Gore was a horribly argued and written decision, even if the outcome benefitted them.

That said, I'd like someone with a bit more of a history to be Chief Justice of SCOTUS than Roberts.

Hawkintom']On a slight tangent - this is why I voted for Bush. I don't love him as a President, and strongly disagree with many of his decisions. It helped that I thought Kerry was a slimeball, but knowing that there would be a good chance that this President would replace one or two SCJ's was my reason for voting Bush.

I love it when a plan comes together... :)

Yea... but that's a horrible plan. If you don't like the man, or his policies, what on earth makes you think he would appoint a good SCJ whom you agree with? It would seem to me that Bush would try and inject the Supreme Court with people who agree with him.

Hawkintom']I doubt it...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4708442

Read up folks, it will make you better armed to discuss the issues...

Had you not referrenced NPR, I'd have accused you of being a humourless neocon. Damn the quandry! ;)

What I said was a joke. Laugh it up. You'll live longer.

I bet Scalia's infuriated.

As well he should be.
At least he has the experience for the job.

Just because such appointments are rare doesn't mean Scalia didn't have hopes for the slot. Personally, I'd have been surprised if Bush had tried to move one of the sitting justices up to the Chief slot, simply because the three (leaving out O'Connor) he would consider basically shot themselves in the foot with the Democrats in the Senate after the horrible decision they signed off on in Bush v Gore--and before anyone accuses me of simply being partisan, let me remind you that a number of conservatives have admitted, after the fact, that Bush v Gore was a horribly argued and written decision, even if the outcome benefitted them.

That said, I'd like someone with a bit more of a history to be Chief Justice of SCOTUS than Roberts.

We could debate Bush V. Gore but it really wasn't the wrong decision. It actually was correct from a legal standpoint. However, I'm not going to argue it because it was in 2000 and this is 2005. That election is over and good ridence.

Yea... but that's a horrible plan. If you don't like the man, or his policies, what on earth makes you think he would appoint a good SCJ whom you agree with? It would seem to me that Bush would try and inject the Supreme Court with people who agree with him.

Well consider that I am a Libertarian. How much WORSE would it have been for Kerry to have been appointing SCJ's - from my point of view?

I don't like Bush's decisions, but I lean far more to the right than left.

Had you not referrenced NPR, I'd have accused you of being a humourless neocon. Damn the quandry! ;)

What I said was a joke. Laugh it up. You'll live longer.

I laugh in the real world. The internet was made for arguing. Wasn't it? ;)

Oh yeah, and porn. Thanks Al Gore!

We could debate Bush V. Gore but it really wasn't the wrong decision. It actually was correct from a legal standpoint. However, I'm not going to argue it because it was in 2000 and this is 2005. That election is over and good ridence.
You know, I think I'll go with the opinions of non-partisan legal experts on this one rather than with your, um, less-than-unbiased opinion, but thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

Hawkintom']Doesn't usually work like that...

"The president's dilemma is whether to elevate a currently sitting justice. Historically, such appointments are rare. Of the 16 chief justices in American history, only five previously served as associate justices. "

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4708442
I'm bemoaning his lack of bench experience, only two years, going directly to the highest position in the highest court. The last two, I believe Burger and Warren were notorious for being exactly not what they seemed to be, and I don't like having an unknown quantity on the bench.

Isn't this the self-righteous dipshit who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade?

You know, I think I'll go with the opinions of non-partisan legal experts on this one rather than with your, um, less-than-unbiased opinion, but thanks for playing. :rolleyes:

I think I'd go with SCOTUS's opinion over any other opinion because it is the Supreme Court.

Thanks for playing :rolleyes:

Hawkintom']Well consider that I am a Libertarian. How much WORSE would it have been for Kerry to have been appointing SCJ's - from my point of view?

I don't like Bush's decisions, but I lean far more to the right than left.

I guess it depends on which aspect of libertarianism you find more important. If it's social libertarianism, Kerry's the best pick by far. If it's economic libertarianism, Bush is closest.

I think I'd go with SCOTUS's opinion over any other opinion because it is the Supreme Court.

Thanks for playing :rolleyes:
SCOTUS isn't infallible. Much as you like the outcome of Bush v Gore, that doesn't make it good law. Plessy v Ferguson was shitty law as well, but it was a SCOTUS decision. We can play this game all day if you want--I'll own you, though, I guarantee it.

SCOTUS isn't infallible. Much as you like the outcome of Bush v Gore, that doesn't make it good law. Plessy v Ferguson was shitty law as well, but it was a SCOTUS decision. We can play this game all day if you want--I'll own you, though, I guarantee it.

I'm not out to win arguements. I'm out here for devil advocate reasons only. As I said, we could debate Bush v. Gore all day but yet, I won't debate it because it really isn't worth debating since it was 5 years ago and the only ones who care these days are the leftist losers and no one else.

I'm not suggesting that the Democrats ought to let up--I think they ought to hammer him as hard as possible and if he won't come clean on whether or not he supports, among other things, a right to privacy, that they ought to filibuster his butt.

All I'm saying is that, from a political point of view, he might have an easier time, might be slightly more palatable to the moderates who were on the fence, now that he's replacing a hardcore conservative as opposed to a moderate like O'Connor. Who knows--if the Chief Justice slot is a deal breaker, Bush could always nominate Roberts as Associate Justice and try to move one of the existing Justices up the ladder.

When will the democrates get it though their heads, they LOST the election, they ARN'T in power, they are only making themselves look bad by filibustering.

I think that Roberts may be a good choice seeing that he was the CJ's aide in the past.

Good info on al lthe Justices who ever served.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/portlet/justices/

When will the democrates get it though their heads, they LOST the election, they ARN'T in power, they are only making themselves look bad by filibustering.

I think that Roberts may be a good choice seeing that he was the CJ's aide in the past.If Republicans had had that attitude when they were out of power, they'd never have won their way back in. Now I can understand why you might like us to roll over for you, but it's not going to happen. Get used to having us in your face.

He's far too young. The job should go to a more senior member, like Kennedy or Scalia. It shouldn't go to this young guy with little experience and, on top of that, will have a long, long, tenure. He'll make Reinquist's look like a brief second.

The only chance he has of getting in is replacing Rehnquist, but going straight to Chief Justice is not something that should be happening. There were already enough questions as it is.
The questions about him were only in the minds of the delusional. If you actually look at his record he appears to be one of the few judges who can differentiate between his personal politics and his frigging job.

SCOTUS isn't infallible. Much as you like the outcome of Bush v Gore, that doesn't make it good law. Plessy v Ferguson was shitty law as well, but it was a SCOTUS decision. We can play this game all day if you want--I'll own you, though, I guarantee it.
So is US v Cruickshank yet not many people seem to bitch about that one.

The questions about him were only in the minds of the delusional. If you actually look at his record he appears to be one of the few judges who can differentiate between his personal politics and his frigging job.
I don't know about that--the stuff that's been coming out of his writing while working for Reagan makes him look a lot more like an idealogue. He referred to the right to privacy as "so-called" on more than one occasion, argued against equal pay for equal work, against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act, etc. Now, it's possible that he was a hothead at the time and has moderated, but if he has, I'd like some evidence of that before I argue otherwise.

So is US v Cruickshank yet not many people seem to bitch about that one.
So was--and I'm sure I'll blow your mind with this one--Roe v Wade. The conclusion was correct--there is a right to privacy as found in Griswold, but the argument made in Roe is horrible law, all the way around. It's vague and poorly argued, and many of the attacks--although not the ones typically put forward by abortion opponents--are legitimate attacks.

When will the democrates get it though their heads, they LOST the election, they ARN'T in power, they are only making themselves look bad by filibustering.

I think that Roberts may be a good choice seeing that he was the CJ's aide in the past.
I wasn't aware that this country was a dictatorship of the majority. Silly me.

So was--and I'm sure I'll blow your mind with this one--Roe v Wade. The conclusion was correct--there is a right to privacy as found in Griswold, but the argument made in Roe is horrible law, all the way around. It's vague and poorly argued, and many of the attacks--although not the ones typically put forward by abortion opponents--are legitimate attacks.

I can agree with this The Nazz!

So was--and I'm sure I'll blow your mind with this one--Roe v Wade. The conclusion was correct--there is a right to privacy as found in Griswold, but the argument made in Roe is horrible law, all the way around. It's vague and poorly argued, and many of the attacks--although not the ones typically put forward by abortion opponents--are legitimate attacks.
Ugh...the trimester system has to be one of the low points in legal thinking...

I can agree with this The Nazz!
With the whole thing, or just the part where I say the decision is poorly written? Roe's conclusion is correct, as far as the right to privacy is concerned--it's the implementation that's suspect in the decision.

With the whole thing, or just the part where I say the decision is poorly written? Roe's conclusion is correct, as far as the right to privacy is concerned--it's the implementation that's suspect in the decision.

That it was poorly written. I can also buy the rest of your arguements though but I'm really going to have to dig into it more before I can make a full statement on it.

I wasn't aware that this country was a dictatorship of the majority. Silly me.

It's not, I just get tired of the Democrates thinking that they are in power and trying to bully the rest of congress and senate into passing their laws via filibustering, and wasting everyone's time instead of finding their own canidate to try and appoint
:headbang: .

Granted the Republicans could always use the nuclear option and tie it up even farther.

Now, is it just me, or will this lower morale for the justices on the Supreme Court? I mean, the last justice turnover was a decade ago, and at the time, a few of the justices weren't serving long. So inevitably, you get the clubby mentality that they probably have. I know that all nine were very good friends with eachother, despite their differences. But now their leader is going to be from outside the court, and one that probably isn't use to the partisan bickering that the Supreme Court always hears. Wouldn't the other sitting justices feel that the Cheif Justice should be one of them?

It's not, I just get tired of the Democrates thinking that they are in power and trying to bully the rest of congress and senate into passing their laws via filibustering, and wasting everyone's time instead of finding their own canidate to try and appoint
:headbang: .

Granted the Republicans could always use the nuclear option and tie it up even farther.
Except the president has to appoint, and he's just renominating the same people over and over again.

I don't know about that--the stuff that's been coming out of his writing while working for Reagan makes him look a lot more like an idealogue. He referred to the right to privacy as "so-called" on more than one occasion, argued against equal pay for equal work, against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act, etc. Now, it's possible that he was a hothead at the time and has moderated, but if he has, I'd like some evidence of that before I argue otherwise.
Of privacy rights, abortion is the one with the most tenuous relationship. Thus the so-called appellation. As has been noted before, whatever the outcome of the decision, RvW itself was decided on very shaky grounds. He wasn't arguing against equal pay for equal work. Driving a truck cross-country is unequal to doing laundry for eight hours a day. Ergo people should be paid differently. Doing laundry is a very monotonous routine that only needs a person because robots aren't cheap enough yet. There is no robot in the world that could continuously drive a freight truck. Wayyy too many instances where precise thought out action is needed. Also, truck driving is inherently more dangerous. If the jobs are inherently unequal, why should they be payed equally?


...
...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/07/22/civil_rights_groups_cite_concerns_over_roberts/?page=2

Later, in private practice, Roberts represented clients opposed to government affirmative action programs. Four years ago, he authored a ''friend of the court" brief arguing that Congress had failed to prove that minority-owned construction firms were disadvantaged, so a law granting preferential treatment for minority-owned firms in highway contracts was unconstitutional.

''[T]he evidence presented to Congress over the years is plainly insufficient to support a nationwide remedial program applicable to nearly every racial minority in every type of construction business," Roberts wrote. ''There is no evidence of discrimination in every sector of the construction industry, in every geographic market, against every racial group covered by the [Disadvantaged Business Enterprises] program."

.
.
.


Roberts rejected the girl's claim that the Washington law was discriminatory, saying that treating the young differently from adults was allowable as long as there was a ''rational basis" for doing so -- the lowest and easiest legal standard to meet. In the french fry case, he wrote, the Washington law promoted ''the legitimate goal of promoting parental awareness and involvement with children who commit delinquent acts."

I fail to see where he argued against the Civil Rights Act. And if you were to have read his decision on the fry case he basically comes out and says that the law itself is fucking stupid. Since, however, what the police did was within the scope of the law he couldn't do anything about it.

Hawkintom']Oh yeah, and porn. Thanks Al Gore!

Hooray! Boobies!!!

Oh ... umm ... eherm ... SCOTUS ... right ... sorry

I'm bemoaning his lack of bench experience, only two years, going directly to the highest position in the highest court. The last two, I believe Burger and Warren were notorious for being exactly not what they seemed to be, and I don't like having an unknown quantity on the bench.

Yeah that has always freaked me out. It is almost like some of these jurists spend their whole life voting one way in the hope that they will be appointed to the SC and then they can flip...

But that is awfully conspiracy theorist-like for me...

Now, is it just me, or will this lower morale for the justices on the Supreme Court? I mean, the last justice turnover was a decade ago, and at the time, a few of the justices weren't serving long. So inevitably, you get the clubby mentality that they probably have. I know that all nine were very good friends with eachother, despite their differences. But now their leader is going to be from outside the court, and one that probably isn't use to the partisan bickering that the Supreme Court always hears. Wouldn't the other sitting justices feel that the Cheif Justice should be one of them?


During the history of the Supreme Court, only a few associate Justices were elevated to the job of Chief Justice.

I guess it depends on which aspect of libertarianism you find more important. If it's social libertarianism, Kerry's the best pick by far. If it's economic libertarianism, Bush is closest.

I took that political compass test and it says I am -3 points economic and -2 points social so that would be good for me I suppose.

I tend to care more about economic issues because they affect me more directly. If the dems would quit taking my money and giving it to other people so generously, I'd be willing to swap sides. I'm tired of the religous hi-jacking on the right. But ultimately, for me, pro-second amendment and lower taxes affects me more. So I still vote republican on most issues.

If Republicans had had that attitude when they were out of power, they'd never have won their way back in. Now I can understand why you might like us to roll over for you, but it's not going to happen. Get used to having us in your face.

That's nice, but what I find interesting is the democrats view that the republicans should somehow concede something to them right now for the "better good." What's the point in winning if you don't get your way after you win?

I'd be shocked, and disappointed, if the republicans compromised when they have such a strong position right now.