Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/po...rssnyt&emc=rss

    I don't have anything to say about this, just thought I'd beat everyone to the post :D
    ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
    No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

    <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.


  • #2
    Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

    Cue Asscroft.

    3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

      And here we go with the stupid congress again, because you know BushMonkey is going to send them another freak of a recommendation.

      If I hear Frist and his "up or down vote" crap one more time I am going to.... frist him!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

        I'm really upset about this. I agree with much of O'Connor's writings-she seems a more moderate/rational voice on the SCOTUS bench....now we are going to get some nutcase that makes Scalia look moderate.

        Actually, I'm agreeing with Scalia alot as well. Scary. I'll have to hand in my liberal tags!

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

          Originally posted by AMosely
          If I hear Frist and his "up or down vote" crap one more time I am going to.... frist him!
          I don't understand this attitude. What's wrong with expecting an "up or down vote"? Filibustering was not intended to block votes like this...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

            Originally posted by IceCold
            I don't understand this attitude. What's wrong with expecting an "up or down vote"? Filibustering was not intended to block votes like this...
            it's not even a true filibuster...they didn't seize the floor...they just refuse to vote.

            Bush send a FREAK, eh? you mean a Judge that will interpret the laws that the legislature writes...as opposed to creating their own?

            Since when has a Congress blocked Judicial nominations like this? it was a political strategy...a dirty one....they blocked Judges by refusing to vote...figuring this was a one term President, and that they would win back the majority, or AT LEAST the White House...all they had to do was hold out for four years. sorry Dems...didn't work...and now Bush will get to put TWO SCJ on the bench...can't wait to see what happens.

            Dirt013
            Dirt013



            Comment


            • #7
              Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

              Originally posted by Dirt013
              Since when has a Congress blocked Judicial nominations like this? it was a political strategy...a dirty one....they blocked Judges by refusing to vote...figuring this was a one term President, and that they would win back the majority, or AT LEAST the White House...all they had to do was hold out for four years. sorry Dems...didn't work...and now Bush will get to put TWO SCJ on the bench...can't wait to see what happens.

              Dirt013
              There's no such thing as a dirty political strategy.

              Democrats blocked judges by the only means they had at their disposal (and it was at their disposal; they didn't make up rules as they go along like Republicans did for ethics issues). They brought national attention to the situation that really deserved the national stage; these people that get appointed for federal judgeships get them for life. The least democratic portion of our political system is charged with maintaining the democracy at its core; it's something every American should have at least a passing knowledge of, if only of the process.
              [volun2]
              NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
              Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
              <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
              <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash

              Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

                Originally posted by Pokerface
                The least democratic portion of our political system is charged with maintaining the democracy at its core; it's something every American should have at least a passing knowledge of, if only of the process.
                Including you... You're implying that federal judges are part of our political system. They're not. They're part of our government, but they're appointed for life specifically to keep them out of politics. They don't campaign, they don't have to be re-elected, they can't be lobbied by special interest groups (theoretically). They're impartial judges of our laws. Yes, they have personal biases and they certainly have political leanings (they ARE human), but keeping them out of our political system is an important part of our government.
                Become a supporting member!
                Buy a Tactical Duck!
                Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
                TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

                  Anytime I try and think of judges as decent people, I'm always reminded that almost all of them (if not all) were lawyers at one point.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

                    They're part of the political system insofar as they are appointed by the executive and confirmed by congress. If you're a contender for a SCOTUS seat, then it's partly because those currently in political power believe you, as a justice, would further their ends. If you want the power and prestige that goes along with being a SCOTUS justice, then you're probably playing politics to get there.
                    |TG-1stMIP|Mannerism​​​​​​​

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

                      Originally posted by CingularDuality
                      ...but they're appointed for life specifically to keep them out of politics.
                      So, explain to me why she specifically said that she owed it to Reagan to retire under a republican president.... :icon_conf :icon_conf :icon_conf

                      The freaking justices are just as political as the rest of the sharks in government.

                      3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

                        I fear 2 things that both seem as likely as any other outcome.

                        1) Bush will not discuss his nominees with or listen to the minority party at all, will nominate an extremely conservative judge, and call for the minority party to roll over and play dead in the guise of his idea of "bilateral politics". The democrats will filibuster. And it'll turn into a huge mess.

                        2) Bush in fact DOES consider the minority party, and goes OUT OF HIS WAY to choose a moderate conservative. Then the democrats miss their cue, and rabidly vow to filibuster the apointment anyway, because of a single issue the apointee has expressed an opinion on.

                        Either of these two scenarios will seriously hurt our entire system of government I believe. I could easily see horrible changes in rules because of a bitter fight resulting from these scenarios. The changes in rules(such as removing the filibuster) would over the long term hurt the very way we live. We live with a majority rule, but minority rights mentality.

                        The best thing that could happen is the democrats have a diolouge with the repubilicans and the President in particular, and agree to a conservative that they can live with. The democrats HAVE to realize they will NOT be 100% happy with WHOEVER is appointed, so they had better be willing to bend on this one.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

                          Noting recent Dem behavior, I'd say this will be the likely scenario:


                          Originally posted by Addict
                          2) Bush in fact DOES consider the minority party, and goes OUT OF HIS WAY to choose a moderate conservative. Then the democrats miss their cue, and rabidly vow to filibuster the apointment anyway, because of a single issue the apointee has expressed an opinion on.
                          They'll shoot themselves in the foot again, and wonder why things aren't going their way....

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

                            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8550106/

                            seems like things are starting out well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: SCOTUS Justice O'Conner to retire.

                              Originally posted by Dirt013
                              it's not even a true filibuster...they didn't seize the floor...they just refuse to vote.

                              Bush send a FREAK, eh? you mean a Judge that will interpret the laws that the legislature writes...as opposed to creating their own?

                              Since when has a Congress blocked Judicial nominations like this? it was a political strategy...a dirty one....they blocked Judges by refusing to vote...figuring this was a one term President, and that they would win back the majority, or AT LEAST the White House...all they had to do was hold out for four years. sorry Dems...didn't work...and now Bush will get to put TWO SCJ on the bench...can't wait to see what happens.

                              Dirt013
                              im sick of this supreme court makeing up the laws and not dealing with things like the constitution says to...it will be good to get some real justices on the bench and get this country in order....no if they could just get rid of greenspan we would be all set!
                              that sounds like a good idea trooper.
                              -Vulcan

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X