The Dread Judge Roberts (supreme court nominee) - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 07-20-2005, 02:45 AM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
What did I tell you people? I will be writing letters to my senators tommorrow. I hope those of you who value Roe v Wade (among other things) will do the same.
remilard is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 07-20-2005, 04:29 AM
Veggie Regular
 
xrodolfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,644
Story from the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/po...rtner=homepage



Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd S. Purdum View Post

July 20, 2005



In Pursuit of Conservative Stamp, President Nominates Roberts



WASHINGTON, July 19 - President Bush nominated John G. Roberts, a federal appeals court judge with a distinguished résumé and a conservative but enigmatic record, as his first appointment to the Supreme Court on Tuesday night, moving to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with a candidate he hopes will be hailed by the right and accepted by the left.



"He has the qualities that Americans expect in a judge: experience, wisdom, fairness and civility," Mr. Bush said in an unusual televised appearance from the White House Cross Hall just after 9 p.m., as Mr. Roberts and his family looked on.



He added, "I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike will see the strong qualifications of this fine judge."



Mr. Bush's dramatic prime-time announcement ended more than two weeks of speculation set off by Justice O'Connor's surprise retirement announcement, and a day of frantic rumors in which first one then another candidate was reported to be the leading choice, amid hints from some Republicans that he might choose a woman to succeed the Supreme Court's first female justice.



Instead, word came shortly before 8 p.m. that Mr. Bush's choice was Judge Roberts, 50, a summa cum laude graduate of Harvard College, former managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and clerk to William H. Rehnquist, who was then an associate justice on the Supreme Court. Since 2003, Judge Roberts has served on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to which he was confirmed by unanimous consent of the Senate.



Mr. Bush has made no secret of his desire to impose a more conservative stamp on the Supreme Court, and he apparently named Mr. Roberts with confidence that he would help him do so.



Almost instantly, the conservative and liberal interest groups that have spent years preparing for a Supreme Court vacancy swung into action.



The conservative Progress for America called Judge Roberts a "terrific nominee," while Naral Pro-Choice America denounced him as an "unsuitable choice," and a "divisive nominee with a record of seeking to impose a political agenda on the courts."



But significantly, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader of the body that will determine Judge Roberts's fate, was much more subdued, hewing to the Democrats' stated strategy of demanding a thorough vetting of any nominee by describing Judge Roberts as "someone with suitable legal credentials," whose record must now be examined "to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness."



In his campaign for the presidency five years ago, Mr. Bush pledged to appoint judges like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, staunch conservatives with well-established judicial philosophies.



While Judge Roberts has impeccable Republican credentials and a record of service in the Reagan and first Bush administrations dating to 1981, his paper trail of opinions is comparatively thin, and he is not seen as a "movement conservative."



Justice O'Connor had long ago emerged as the fulcrum of the current court, a pivotal vote on abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty and religion. Judge Roberts's detailed views on many of those issues are less known.



Abortion rights groups fault him for arguing, as deputy solicitor general for the first Bush administration in 1990, in favor of a government regulation banning abortion-related counseling in federally financed family planning programs.



He also helped write a brief then that restated the administration's opposition to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established the constitutional right to abortion, contending, "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled."



But when pressed in his 2003 confirmation hearings for his own views, he said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," and added, "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."



Such comments have made Judge Roberts somewhat suspect in the eyes of some social conservatives. But he arouses nothing like the opposition that conservatives leveled at another potential nominee, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose views on abortion are more uncertain.



Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, one of the most vocal socially conservative groups that have been girding for a confirmation fight, issued a statement declaring that Mr. Bush had chosen "an exceptionally well-qualified and impartial nominee," and adding, "I believe that Judge Roberts will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench."



By the same token, Judge Roberts will be more difficult for Democrats to attack than his friend and fellow appellate court judge, J. Michael Luttig, who was considered more conservative and had also been among those mentioned for the job.



In his own remarks on Tuesday night, Judge Roberts offered no substantive comments, but told how he "always got a lump in my throat" when he appeared before the Supreme Court as a lawyer, and said "I would not be standing here today if it were not for the sacrifice and help" of his parents, sisters and wife.



Appearing on television just after the announcement, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, which two years ago approved Mr. Roberts's nomination on a vote of 16 to 3, said he envisioned full and exhaustive hearings, adding that he did not expect "any issues that go to the qualifications" of a justice to be off limits.



Given Judge Roberts's age, there is every reason to think he could serve on the court for decades, or even become chief justice, a fact that Democrats emphasized in pledging a thorough review of his record.



Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, another influential Democrat on the panel, said there was "no question that Judge Roberts has outstanding legal credentials" and an appropriate judicial temperament. Still, Mr. Schumer recalled, he had voted against confirming Judge Roberts to his current post because in response to a question, he refused to cite three Supreme Court cases that he considered to have been wrongly decided.



Mr. Schumer said "the burden is on a nominee" to prove that he is worthy of confirmation, and said that despite past Senate support for Judge Roberts, "it's a whole new ballgame."



Representatives of both parties suggested that they expected confirmation hearings to occur in late August or early September, allowing ample time for both sides to review Judge Roberts's record. Because he was so recently confirmed to his current job, the official F.B.I. investigation of his background, financial interests and the like can be expected to be less burdensome than for a nominee who had never undergone such scrutiny.



Mr. Bush repeated his wish to have Justice O'Connor's successor confirmed by the time the Supreme Court begins its next term on the first Monday in October, and went out of his way to emphasize the past bipartisan support for Judge Roberts.



The president noted that more than 150 Republican and Democratic lawyers, including top White House and Justice Department officials of both parties, had supported his confirmation two years ago.



"So I have full confidence that the Senate will rise to the occasion and act promptly on this nomination," Mr. Bush said.



White House aides said that Mr. Bush, whose aides have spent years preparing for a potential vacancy, had reviewed a list of 11 candidates and interviewed 5 of them, before offering the job to Judge Roberts during a telephone call at lunchtime on Tuesday.



Judge Roberts was clearly among the less provocative picks Mr. Bush could have made, a reality that some senior Democratic Senate aides acknowledged Tuesday.



That did not stop Democratic Party officials from circulating a three-page set of talking points after the announcement, branding Judge Roberts as a "Friend to Big Business, the Mining Industry and Ken Starr," the former Whitewater special prosecutor whom Mr. Roberts served as principal deputy solicitor general in the first Bush administration, helping to draft the government's positions before the Supreme Court.



The Democratic talking points also described Mr. Roberts as "a longtime Republican partisan," and that is indisputable.

xrodolfox is offline  
#3 Old 07-20-2005, 04:31 AM
Veggie Regular
 
xrodolfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,644
Story continued...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Continued PRESIDENT NOMINATES ROBERTS by "Todd S. Purdum" View Post


After serving as a law clerk to Justice Rehnquist, he began his public career in the Reagan administration as an aide to Attorney General William French Smith from 1981 to 1982, and then as an associate White House counsel. He practiced law at the firm of Hogan & Hartson from 1986 to 1989, and again from 1993 until he took his current post.



Mr. Bush's father first nominated him to the District of Columbia appeals court, considered the nation's second most important bench, in 1992, but his nomination died in a Democratic-controlled Senate without a vote.



Born in Buffalo, Mr. Roberts grew up mostly in Indiana, was captain of his high school football team and helped earn college tuition by working summers in a steel mill, details that Mr. Bush took some pains to highlight in his announcement.



Before clerking for Justice Rehnquist, he clerked for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, who was widely considered to be among the most distinguished appellate judges of his era.



Judge Roberts is widely regarded as personable, no small consideration for a president who has said he wanted to take the personal measure of any nominee to the court. Friends, colleagues and adversaries dating to his college days have described the judge as always bright without being overbearing or overly aggressive.



The bipartisan lawyers' letter supporting his nomination to his current job described him as "one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate," and added, "He is also a wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness."

xrodolfox is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 07-20-2005, 04:57 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Blue Plastic Straw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,388
Jeebus that's a big headline.
Blue Plastic Straw is offline  
#5 Old 07-20-2005, 05:12 AM
Banned
 
bstutzma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,535
What lovely timing. Give us an unacceptable nominee to keep us too busy to worry about the Rove/Cheney scandal.



There are gonna be some really good movies about this administration 20 years from now.
bstutzma is offline  
#6 Old 07-20-2005, 09:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Thalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 6,902
FYI-I merged the two supreme court nominee threads.
Thalia is offline  
#7 Old 07-20-2005, 09:34 AM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
i like justice scalia, and honestly i prefer strict constructionist perspectives of most supreme court cases. and here's why.



the purpose of the supreme court is to make certain that an action or law doesn't violate the constitution or the bill of rights. while conservatives like scalia may not like laws such as roe v wade or planned parenthood v casey (which is the current standard, btw, and gives more power to states and local governments to dictate the abortion laws in their state--which imo does a much better job than roe v wade in a number of ways), but he is willing to support the constitutionality of such laws, and, unless i'm mistaken, did so with PP v Casey. i need to get my chamerinsky out and look it up for certain; i know that he wrote a statement about it and i think it was a concurrance with a different argument for the case (same result, different reasons).



for this reason, i tend to prefer conservative justices. the purpose of the legislature and the state legislatures is to develop law and policy. as long as those laws don't violate the constitution, and the toughest standard in regards to whether or not something violates the consitution is the 'strict constructionist' ideology, then those laws are considered constitutional and are therefore acceptable as precident.



as a matter of interest, i wouldn't want the whole of the SC to be seated by strict constructionists, but overall, i find their arguments regarding the constitution to be the most convincing that seems to support state rights and individual rule--which makes the most sense to me. to allow states to predominently govern themselves makes sense because of the social, environmental, economic, and cultural differences of the various states that make up our country. What will work for florida environmentally, economically, culturally and socially might not really work for alaska in a practical sense. Similarly, alaskans may not agree, culturally or socially, with a decision made in virginia or in maine or in hawaii. So, each group of people gets to govern themselves, based on what they feel is right or correct or appropriate. Considering our diversity, this makes sense to me--rather than having broad social policy coming from a national space.



not that it isn't important to have social policy and the like coming from a national space. as members of a large and diverse country, we do hvae interests in all of our neighbors. Even though i live in PA, i have an interest in the environmental preservation of alaska. So, at a certain level, federal actions are definately valuable and important--and this is why we have the federal legislature--to hammer out these issues.



I think that the supreme court's job is to simply look to the constitution and make sure that the state law or the federal law is upholding the constitution. (a state supreme court's job is to make sure that a state or local law is upholding the state constitution.) To me, strict constructionist methods are the toughest methods to ensure that a law is constitutional, which is why i like it.



it's why i was willing, in the first GWB election to vote conservative. unfortunately, other 'stuff' happened that lead us into a lot of weirdness. would that it not have happened. thus, voted liberal in the last election to have what i feel is a 'better' way of dealing with that weirdness and the origins of that weirdness.



as to this particular nominee, i'm interested to see what he's said and done in the past, so i'm in the process of researching now. but, i'm glad that he's a strict constructionist--though i liked gonzales and was pinning a few too many hopes on that one i guess (already researched). ah well.
zoebird is offline  
#8 Old 07-20-2005, 09:59 AM
Banned
 
bstutzma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,535
Wow I've never heard anyone say they liked Scalia before (of course, I live in Massachusetts... ;-) )



I understand your reasoning for liking strict constitutionalists, but I don't believe that the conservatives actually have the monopoly on interpreting what the constitution intended. I believe that the founding fathers were more progressive than we actually give them credit for, and created our system such that when ready, we could bring ourselves (step by step) closer to a more perfect society.
bstutzma is offline  
#9 Old 07-20-2005, 10:20 AM
Veggie Regular
 
stellar26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,024
I'm beginning to think that it would be in my best interest (and in the best intrest of any future children that I may have) to just suck it up move 400 miles north to Canada. Surely bitter cold winters are a better trade off than the uncertainty of women's rights that the republican party and it's vast following of highly uneducated religious zealots is so set on chipping away?

stellar26 is offline  
#10 Old 07-20-2005, 10:28 AM
Veggie Regular
 
skanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 865
Quote:
Originally Posted by stellar26 View Post

I'm beginning to think that it would be in my best interest (and in the best intrest of any future children that I may have) to just suck it up move 400 miles north to Canada. Surely bitter cold winters are a better trade off than the uncertainty of women's rights that the republican party and it's vast following of highly uneducated religious zealots is so set on chipping away?




Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out
skanky is offline  
#11 Old 07-20-2005, 10:29 AM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by stellar26 View Post

the republican party and it's vast following of highly uneducated religious zealots is so set on chipping away?





Do you really want to go there? Do you? Might want to think that one over.
Tame is offline  
#12 Old 07-20-2005, 11:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanky View Post

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

Annie is offline  
#13 Old 07-20-2005, 11:58 AM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post

the purpose of the supreme court is to make certain that an action or law doesn't violate the constitution or the bill of rights.



Among other things.



Quote:
while conservatives like scalia may not like laws such as roe v wade or planned parenthood v casey (which is the current standard, btw, and gives more power to states and local governments to dictate the abortion laws in their state--which imo does a much better job than roe v wade in a number of ways), but he is willing to support the constitutionality of such laws, and, unless i'm mistaken, did so with PP v Casey. i need to get my chamerinsky out and look it up for certain; i know that he wrote a statement about it and i think it was a concurrance with a different argument for the case (same result, different reasons).



Yay! for Scalia. We are talking about Roberts here, who has some pretty outspoken opinions on abortion and has not been supportive of the Supreme Court's decisions to date. He is also too young, imo, but thats what happens when the nominations are an attempt to control the court for as long as possible, and not in the best interest of the country.



Quote:
for this reason, i tend to prefer conservative justices. the purpose of the legislature and the state legislatures is to develop law and policy. as long as those laws don't violate the constitution, and the toughest standard in regards to whether or not something violates the consitution is the 'strict constructionist' ideology, then those laws are considered constitutional and are therefore acceptable as precident.



This is hardly a compelling argument that constructionist ideology is good, let alone does it acknowledge that constructionist judges (like any other) have a knack for voting based on personal ideology anyway. Roberts is way to outspoken and opinionated for me to even think he has a chance of being an unbiased constructionist on the bench.



Quote:
as a matter of interest, i wouldn't want the whole of the SC to be seated by strict constructionists, but overall, i find their arguments regarding the constitution to be the most convincing that seems to support state rights and individual rule--which makes the most sense to me. to allow states to predominently govern themselves makes sense because of the social, environmental, economic, and cultural differences of the various states that make up our country. What will work for florida environmentally, economically, culturally and socially might not really work for alaska in a practical sense. Similarly, alaskans may not agree, culturally or socially, with a decision made in virginia or in maine or in hawaii. So, each group of people gets to govern themselves, based on what they feel is right or correct or appropriate. Considering our diversity, this makes sense to me--rather than having broad social policy coming from a national space.



What makes you think that Roberts is going to protect state's rights? I'm glad you are such of a fan of constructionism but we are talking about an individual here.



Quote:
I think that the supreme court's job is to simply look to the constitution and make sure that the state law or the federal law is upholding the constitution.



Among other things.



Quote:
To me, strict constructionist methods are the toughest methods to ensure that a law is constitutional, which is why i like it.



How do you feel about Roberts?



Quote:
it's why i was willing, in the first GWB election to vote conservative.



GWB isn't conservative, who did you vote for?
remilard is offline  
#14 Old 07-20-2005, 02:27 PM
Veggie Regular
 
zoebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,451
well, it's none of your business what i voted, but i assume that a smart person like you could figure it out.



as i said, i'm still researching regarding roberts and how i feel about him personally, by reading what opinions he's written as available. since i not have my lexus connection on my own anymore, i'm waiting on my friend to pass along what she is getting for herself. it'll take a while. as i said, i'd spent more time on gonzales (among others--a few women; i was really hoping for a woman justice. i'd like to see two or three of them on the court, personally).



would you outline 'what other things' the supreme court does? Here is a basic outline of the constitutional rights and responsibilities of the US federal judicial system. at the link, it states
Quote:
Judicial powers and judicial work involve the application and interpretation of the law in the decision of real differences; that is, in the language of the Constitution, the decision of cases and controversies.

Which other things are you talking about, specifically?



Similarly, if he is a strict constructionist, then i'm inclined to prefer him to a person who isn't a strict constructionalist. even if i disagree with a person's politics, to me, it's the methodology that seems most important. i've disagreed with the politics and the methodology of many justices in the various court cases that i've read, and i've found that even though i may not like the politics of scalia, i find his decisions to be the most convincingly constitutional.



If roberts is like scalia, then i like him. if he's not like scalia, then i don't know if i like him. since i don't know if roberts is like scalia (although in the article posted by roldolfo it says that he uses the R vW and PP V Casey applied as precident, as the law of the land--which means i'm inclined to think that he is like scalia), i can't really say.
zoebird is offline  
#15 Old 07-20-2005, 02:55 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post

well, it's none of your business what i voted, but i assume that a smart person like you could figure it out.



A number of conservatives ran, per my recollection none were on the ballot in any state. GWB was a campaigning as a conservative at the time despite his record as Governor of Texas (and we know now his record as President) being not at all conservative.



Quote:
Similarly, if he is a strict constructionist, then i'm inclined to prefer him to a person who isn't a strict constructionalist. even if i disagree with a person's politics, to me, it's the methodology that seems most important. i've disagreed with the politics and the methodology of many justices in the various court cases that i've read, and i've found that even though i may not like the politics of scalia, i find his decisions to be the most convincingly constitutional.



I guess my question is, what makes you think that someone who identifies as a constructionist will always act as a constructionist ought to?
remilard is offline  
#16 Old 07-20-2005, 06:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
stellar26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by skanky View Post

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out



Well, on the off chance that I do decide to leave everything and everybody that I've ever known, I won't let the door hit me on my way out. I also won't look back in regret when this country implodes- when your female children are left barefoot, unemployed, and pregnant in the kitchen where this patriarchal society believes that they belong praying to their almighty God to save them from their wretched lives centered solely on their ability to reproduce, reproduce, reproduce. Or maybe they won't. Maybe they'll be content with that sad exsistance- much they way I'm sure you would be.



Or am I wrong?
stellar26 is offline  
#17 Old 07-20-2005, 06:40 PM
Banned
 
Tame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 13,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by stellar26 View Post

Well, on the off chance that I do decide to leave everything and everybody that I've ever known, I won't let the door hit me on my way out. I also won't look back in regret when this country implodes- when your female children are left barefoot, unemployed, and pregnant in the kitchen where this patriarchal society believes that they belong praying to their almighty God to save them from their wretched lives centered solely on their ability to reproduce, reproduce, reproduce. Or maybe they won't. Maybe they'll be content with that sad exsistance- much they way I'm sure you would be.



Or am I wrong?



Tame is offline  
#18 Old 07-20-2005, 07:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
lauratiara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 712
Stellar- don't leave yet!

When things get F'd up and the world seems filled with neo-conservatives, the more liberal miinded are needed more than ever!

I think the dissapointment with this administration makes people rightly upset and impulses people to act like they are going to pack their bags and leave. In reality we love our country, we love it enough to want to make it better.

We need to stay here and fight.
lauratiara is offline  
#19 Old 07-20-2005, 07:09 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gaya's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,112
I would be surprised if abortion were to become illegal but if so I really think our country needs to come up with more options for single moms. Such drastic measures should in turn require drastic consequences for all involved. For one, being pregnant is a full time job and if a female doesnt have the option to terminate the pregnancy and is not married then I think she should be paid for her time (by the man who impregnated her). I think $20/hr would be more than fair which would total around $120,000 by the end of the pregnancy (if I did the math correctly). Since it takes two to tango then the guy would only owe half that equaling $60,000 plus child support for 18 years. If he cannot/refuses to pay then he should go to a workhouse to pay his debt to society (since she will possibly leach off the system). I cant tell if Im kidding or not lol.
gaya is offline  
#20 Old 07-20-2005, 07:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Music Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,610
OMG, Stellar - stereotype much?
Music Girl is offline  
#21 Old 07-20-2005, 07:28 PM
 
IamJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,134
Hmm...I don't see where Stellar was saying that all Americans feel as she described. I don't think it was a stereotype at all, there are some folks (I can introduce if you'd like ) who fit that description.



<<<cannot read this thread without saying in her best "giant" voice "The Dread Judge Roberts is here for your soooooouuuuul".



<<<hopes that remilard isn't the only one who gets why that's funny.

The ones I pity are the ones who never stick out their neck for something they believe, never know the taste of moral struggle, and never have the thrill of victory. - Jonathan Kozol
IamJen is offline  
#22 Old 07-20-2005, 07:37 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Music Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,610
Some do fit the stereotype, sure. But most don't....



I'm alarmed at the way things are going - particularly the last 6 years of our government, but I also think leaving the country and pronouncing our daughters doomed to medieval lives because of the party currently in power is taking things a bit over the top



The government doesn't have total power in America - too much screwing around with people's freedom and such and the leaders will be out on their can.



Or maybe I'm just naive.....





(edited for crappy grammar and spelling - I'm trying to make friends with a new keyboard.)
Music Girl is offline  
#23 Old 07-20-2005, 09:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
marleah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 427
at IamJen ... I was thinking the same thing!
marleah is offline  
#24 Old 07-20-2005, 10:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Skylark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 15,684
Jen, I keep thinking of that part in The Princess Bride about the Dread Pirate Roberts, and Wesley filling the bucaneer's shoes.

Q: How many poets does it take to change a light bulb? A: 1001...one to change the bulb, 1000 to say it's already been done.
Skylark is offline  
#25 Old 07-21-2005, 11:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
skanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 865
Quote:
Originally Posted by stellar26 View Post

Well, on the off chance that I do decide to leave everything and everybody that I've ever known, I won't let the door hit me on my way out. I also won't look back in regret when this country implodes- when your female children are left barefoot, unemployed, and pregnant in the kitchen where this patriarchal society believes that they belong praying to their almighty God to save them from their wretched lives centered solely on their ability to reproduce, reproduce, reproduce. Or maybe they won't. Maybe they'll be content with that sad exsistance- much they way I'm sure you would be.



Or am I wrong?





What the hell are you talking about? Who from my side of the isle wronged you so? Or maybe something so far fetched came not from your mind, but is just a regergitation of the leftist propaganda machine?? Don't you worry about either of my daughters. They're growing up in a time like no other in history in terms of the progression of women's rights. They're smart and independent. While we're stereotyping, they aren't being raised by complacent leftist parents, leeching off of welfare, complaining about everything and doing nothing.



You make so little sense for a girl with such nice clavicles.
skanky is offline  
#26 Old 07-21-2005, 03:24 PM
Newbie
 
*STARZ*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59
Maybe it's confusing because I'm Canadian, and therefore have a number of political parties to choose from... but I don't understand why Democrats in the US talk as if they are under the despotic rule of the Republicans.



Kerry only lost by 1%



It's not as if the whole US is being overrun with Republicans.
*STARZ* is offline  
#27 Old 07-21-2005, 03:28 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by *STARZ* View Post

Maybe it's confusing because I'm Canadian, and therefore have a number of political parties to choose from... but I don't understand why Democrats in the US talk as if they are under the despotic rule of the Republicans.



Kerry only lost by 1%



It's not as if the whole US is being overrun with Republicans.



Supreme Court Justices sit for life. The Supreme Court overall is just as important as the executive branch. Barring Rehnquist not retiring soon (which is about as likely as being struck by lightning while holding the winning powerball ticket twice) Bush will name two justices.



With Roberts (who has been a judge only 2 years) Bush is showing a clear intention to nominate young judges, they will be there 20 or more years.
remilard is offline  
#28 Old 07-21-2005, 04:45 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Annie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

Bush is showing a clear intention to nominate young judges, they will be there 20 or more years.

Hooooo.Rahhhhh!
Annie is offline  
#29 Old 07-21-2005, 04:49 PM
Banned
 
remilard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie View Post

Hooooo.Rahhhhh!



I will live to avenge this.
remilard is offline  
#30 Old 07-21-2005, 04:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
GOPVeggie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by remilard View Post

Bush is showing a clear intention to nominate young judges, they will be there 20 or more years.



good thing too!
GOPVeggie is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off