| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:05 pm Supreme Court Pick Out! Name: John Roberts |
|
| Quote: | Supreme Court Pick to Come Tuesday Night
WASHINGTON � President Bush will name his selection for the open seat on the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday night.
FOX News Channel will carry the announcement live at 9 p.m. EDT.
Earlier in the day, Bush was cagey about whether he'd name his pick on Tuesday.
"I do have an obligation to think about people from different backgrounds, but who share the same philosophy, people who will not legislate from the bench," Bush said when asked by reporters Tuesday during a joint press conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. "I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is ... I'm confident about where we are in the process."
Two Republican sources very close to the Supreme Court nomination process told FOX News that the groundwork had been laid for a public disclosure, but the timing of the announcement was up to Bush.
The name at the top of the list appears to be that of Judge Edith "Joy" Clement (search), who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans. Activists have already prepared a video testimonial from long-time lawyer friends of Clement.
FOX News has learned that Clement has already been interviewed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a possible sign that she is the choice for the high court.
White House officials have refused to discuss the names of top prospects being considered to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search), who was the first woman on the court.
Bush Poring Over 'Curriculum Vitae'
Officials said the White House had contacted Republican senators it hoped would serve as advocates for the nominee in media interviews following an announcement. Former Sen. Fred Thompson was selected by the president to help shephard his candidate through the confirmation process.
Democrats scoured the rulings and writings of leading contenders, including Clement, a 57-year-old jurist who was confirmed on a 99-0 vote by the Senate when she was elevated to the appeals court in 2001.
Already, a memo was issued by the Democratic staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee giving a heads-up of Clement's record.
"Edith Clement had a record before her last confirmation hearing, and she has continued to develop this record since joining the Fifth Circuit. Members of the Judiciary Committee will carefully review the record she has developed since her last hearing," reads the memo.
The memo goes on to categorize "issues of concern," listing the issues as: "Limited Constitutional Rights," "Restricts Access to Court," "Cozy With Corporate Interests/Regular Attendee of Judicial Junkets," "Imposes Her Views Above Jury Verdicts," "Endorses Activist Courts," "Opposed Environmental Protection of Endangered Species" and "Hostile to Minority Rights."
One source close to the selection process said Bush was determined not to be accused by Democrats of trying to push through a nomination in a short period of time; naming a candidate sooner rather than later would give the Senate more time to deliberate on the candidate.
Confirmation hearings could begin in September, after Congress returns from its traditional August recess. Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (search), R-Pa., was called to the White House on Monday. Specter, who would lead the confirmation process in the Senate, has said he hopes Bush selects a moderate jurist.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (search), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he has not received a call from the White House regarding a court nominee. Asked whether he's satisfied with the level of consultation from the White House, the Vermont lawmaker said, "Well, there has been some reaching out to Democrats but certainly not to the extent we saw during the Reagan or Clinton administrations."
One Democratic judiciary aide said that the president and Democrats have not had "meaningful consultation" on a nominee. A Democratic leadership aide added that just because Clement was approved unanimously last time doesn't mean she'll have it easy the second time around, if in fact, she's the president's pick.
During a press conference on immigration reform on Tuesday, Republican Sens. Jon Kyl, of Arizona, and John Cornyn, of Texas, said Bush had gone above and beyond the usual process in consulting with senators.
"My guess would be that when historians write about this, there's been more consultation by President Bush on this occasion than ever before in the history of the republic," said Kyl.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., one of the so-called "Gang of 14" senators who crafted an agreement that called for the use of a judicial filibuster only in "extreme circumstances," said the president was in a good position to send a conservative judge to the Senate for confirmation.
Democrats expect a conservative to be named, Graham explained, since Bush campaigned on that promise in 2004.
Graham noted that simply being conservative was "no longer an extraordinary circumstance" as defined by the "Gang of 14" agreement.
The "Gang of 14" avoided a virtual deadlock in the Senate a few months ago over some of Bush's more conservative federal-court nominees. As Democrats threatened filibusters, Republicans led by Frist countered with the "nuclear option," which would have changed Senate rules to eliminate filibusters for good.
"I couldn't be more pleased with the tone I hear in the Senate," Graham told FOX News. "Bottom line is that the president is in the best position since I've been here in 2002 to send a nominee to the Senate, who is conservative, who will be confirmed by the United States Senate."
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who also is part of the "Gang of 14," said he expects that centrist group to meet to discuss the nominee on Wednesday or Thursday.
Republicans, especially, will be looking for a vote one way or the other.
"I think he deserves an up or down vote based on whoever he nominates," Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo., told FOX News. "I have great confidence in the president that he will appoint someone he believes is the kind of person and will do the kind of job that a Supreme Court justice is supposed to."
Interest Groups Watch Carefully
Interest groups say another female candidate thought to be under consideration was Edith Hollan Jones (search), who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and is considered a favorite of the Christian right.
Clement, who is considered less ideological than Jones, was among nearly a dozen judges Bush nominated to the bench in May of 2001, and her confirmation was relatively speedy. A Jones nomination would likely lead to a fight with many Democrats, who have claimed that Bush has nominated too many judges who they consider to be out of America's mainstream.
"I hope that the president will choose a consensus nominee, who can bring the nation together, as Justice O'Connor herself did, rather than further divide us," Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said Tuesday.
"To reach that result, consultation must be more than a one-way street. No one is suggesting that senators co-nominate candidates for the Supreme Court. But for members of the Senate to provide advice to the president, there must be a real discussion and a two-way conversation about specific candidates � the result will be a distinguished nominee who is acceptable to the vast majority of the American people, and who will easily be confirmed."
Clement is more likely to be seen as a relative moderate, much like O'Connor.
The thought of Clement on the bench also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court, "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard."
Still, Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that Clement's record raises "seriously troubling" questions about her commitment to protecting personal freedom. "Unless she was able to put those concerns to rest in Senate hearings, pro-choice Americans would oppose her nomination," Keenan said.
Clement's statements also are causing concern in anti-abortion circles. "We are looking to see in what context Judge Clement made those statements and do they give a window into her thinking on Roe and other decisions," said Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition. "If we do not feel that Judge Clement is the kind of justice we would be comfortable with, and we meaning the pro-family, pro-life community, we would have no problem working aggressively against her confirmation."
At Clement's office in New Orleans, a man who identified himself as a law clerk said the judge was not available. "That's what I've been instructed to say," he told a caller who asked if she were in Washington.
Other names thought to be under consideration were: Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Other possible candidates are conservative federal appellate court judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts Jr., Emilio Garza and J. Harvie Wilkinson III; and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson.
"It could come any time this week," said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference (search). He said he believes the White House has shifted its focus to female candidates, which would exclude Bush�s friend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, from the nomination.
Miranda said he would like to see a Hispanic named to the court, but it might make more sense to name a woman so that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not the only woman on the nation's highest court.
"I think, at this point, a woman politically is much more advantageous," Miranda said.
Sean Rushton, director of the conservative Committee for Justice (search), said that while his group is "ready for it to be any minute," making the announcement next week would give liberals like Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a little less time to push public opinion.
"If Ted Kennedy is not anywhere near a microphone when the nominee is announced, that is an advantage," Rushton said.
FOX News' Julie Asher, Major Garrett, Wendell Goler, Brian Wilson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162923,00.html |
Last edited by Republican_Man on Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:35 pm |
|
His name is John Roberts. I'll post the update later, but it looks like he's more conservative, naturally, which I think is better than a more Liberal judge.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:40 pm |
|
Naturally.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:40 pm |
|
I heard that Laura Bush wanted a female Judge, but she supports George's decision. It doesn't seem like a bad choice, but only time can tell.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:42 pm |
|
Well of course. I think it's better for the country, you don't. But I digress. I hope that this person is chosen and will do what's right for the Constitution's sake, which I expect he will.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:43 pm |
|
Someone who isn't totally aligned with either side, would be the best choice, IMO.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:44 pm |
|
Yeah I heard both sides we're going for someone more moderate.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:46 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Yeah I heard both sides we're going for someone more moderate. |
Actually, that's not the case, but I'm not looking for someone politically aligned to me (although I DON'T want a Liberal judge  ), but someone who will correctly interpret the Constitution.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:52 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Founder wrote: | | Yeah I heard both sides we're going for someone more moderate. |
Actually, that's not the case, but I'm not looking for someone politically aligned to me (although I DON'T want a Liberal judge ), but someone who will correctly interpret the Constitution. |
Yeah....a Moderate could do that without being biased.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 pm |
|
Yes, but if they're aligned "to you," then that would mean they'd be "correctly interpreting the Constitution" in your views, without chance for seeing things from a different persepective. No? Of course, this is the goal of both sides, typically.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:07 pm |
|
John G. Roberts.... Whose heard of him? Sheesh, 
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:09 pm |
|
| Fox News wrote: | Bush Picks Roberts for Supreme Court Nominee
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
WASHINGTON � President Bush has picked Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. (search), to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search).
Roberts, 50, is a conservative who currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. A former clerk to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, his name has been floated for months as a possible Bush selection for the high court.
Bush will announce his nominee to the American public at 9 p.m. EDT. Roberts will presumably appear alongside the president.
FOX News Channel will carry the announcement live at 9 p.m. EDT.
Roberts' nomination comes as a surprise after an all-day festival of speculation in Washington and on the cable news networks, where the race was handicapped in favor of 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Edith "Joy" Clement. Clement was seen as an uncontroversial, moderate jurist who would likely be passed through Congress without an enormous fight.
But as evening approached, ABC News broke the news that Clement herself said she had not been selected. That led to speculation that Bush would go with a more conservative nominee, one who would please his ardent supporters.
Earlier in the day, Bush was cagey about whether he'd name his pick on Tuesday.
"I do have an obligation to think about people from different backgrounds, but who share the same philosophy, people who will not legislate from the bench," Bush said when asked by reporters Tuesday during a joint press conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. "I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is ... I'm confident about where we are in the process."
Two Republican sources very close to the Supreme Court nomination process told FOX News that the groundwork had been laid for a public disclosure, but the timing of the announcement was up to Bush.
Earlier on Tuesday, FOX News learned that Clement was interviewed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a possible sign that she was the choice for the high court. Activists had already prepared a video testimonial from long-time lawyer friends of Clement.
White House officials have refused to discuss the names of top prospects being considered to replace retiring O'Connor, who was the first woman on the court.
A Long Shortlist
Interest groups say another female candidate thought to be under consideration was Edith Hollan Jones (search), who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and is considered a favorite of the Christian right.
Clement, who is considered less ideological than Jones, was among nearly a dozen judges Bush nominated to the bench in May of 2001, and her confirmation was relatively speedy. A Jones nomination would likely lead to a fight with many Democrats, who have claimed that Bush has nominated too many judges who they consider to be out of America's mainstream.
Other names thought to be under consideration were: Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Other possible candidates are conservative federal appellate court judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts Jr., Emilio Garza and J. Harvie Wilkinson III; and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson.
Stuart Taylor, a senior writer and columnist for National Journal, said Luttig, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush for the 4th Circuit, is a hero of conservative circles, but may be off the charts for Democrats.
"He's a member of the Federalist Society, movement conservatives say 'He's one of us, we're confident he will do the right thing' ... a lot of controversial opinions. Now, he's never said Roe v. Wade should be overruled, he's never said gay rights should be wiped out so the ammunition for liberals to use against him is somewhat limited, but dozens and dozens of opinions" where he could be characterized as a "dangerous conservative," Taylor told FOX News.
Manuel Miranda, chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference (search), said he believes the White House shifted its focus to female candidates in the past week, which would exclude Bush�s friend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, from the nomination.
Miranda said he would like to see a Hispanic named to the court, but it might make more sense to name a woman so that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not the only woman on the nation's highest court.
"I think, at this point, a woman politically is much more advantageous," Miranda said.
Bush Poring Over 'Curriculum Vitae'
Other names have also been floated as the potential nominee, but one certainty is that the nominee will be conservative.
Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., one of the so-called "Gang of 14" senators who crafted an agreement that called for the use of a judicial filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances," said the president was in a good position to send a conservative judge to the Senate for confirmation.
Democrats expect a conservative to be named, Graham explained, and Bush campaigned on that promise in 2004.
Graham noted that simply being conservative was "no longer an extraordinary circumstance" as defined by the "Gang of 14" agreement.
"President Bush campaigned he would pick a solid conservative, I expect for him to live up to his promise. Our goal is to make sure a solid conservative sits on the Supreme Court that is not beholden to any special interest group," Graham said.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (search), R-Pa., was called to the White House on Monday. Specter, who would lead the confirmation process in the Senate, has said he hopes Bush selects a jurist who will bring "balance" to the court.
Clement's name was said to arise from the recommendation of Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu. Advisers say Landrieu, one of the seven Democrats in the Gang of 14, is prepared to support enthusiastically Clement's nomination.
"If it's a person like Judge Clement with Mary Landrieu supporting her, I think it's a slam dunk," Graham said.
Confirmation hearings could begin in September, after Congress returns from its traditional August recess.
FOX News' Julie Asher, Major Garrett, Wendell Goler, Brian Wilson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163025,00.html |
Facts on him can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163027,00.html
He looks good to me. Bush said, and I hope this is true, that Roberts will interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:11 pm |
|
Wow, hes even popular with the Dems, And from Buffalo, very woohoo. Not that that makes a difference.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:25 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Wow, hes even popular with the Dems, And from Buffalo, very woohoo. Not that that makes a difference. |
Yes. I don't think that Durbin, Kennedy, Schumer, and others will vote for him, but he is DEFINITELY NOT an "extremest." However, Dick Durban was saying that this is a "controversial nominee," and that because of this there will be a controversial debate, hinting a FILIBUSTER. There will be a filibuster, as the far-left wingers in the Senate will label him an "extremist," however it will backfire on them. And there is NO question that he will end up being nominated.
EDIT:
Oh, and another warning of the filibuster is when Schumer said after O'Connor's retirement announcement that there will be a war over this--BEFORE the nomination. Of COURSE they're going to argue against ANY Bush nominee.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:35 pm |
|
Okay, I DO NOT like this nominee. Too conservative, and I don't want anyone too liberal either. I think we need people who are more bipartisan, although I would much perfer a liberal judge over a conservative judge. And I'm almost glad that there is most likely going to be a Filibuster
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:40 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Okay, I DO NOT like this nominee. Too conservative, and I don't want anyone too liberal either. I think we need people who are more bipartisan, although I would much perfer a liberal judge over a conservative judge. And I'm almost glad that there is most likely going to be a Filibuster |
GLAD that there will be a filibuster? That's just horrifying.
Okay, Bush was ELECTED President. It's HIS perogative to nominate a nominee that he likes, based on HIS opinions that HE thinks will do the best. All the Senate has to do is decide if he meets the standards of the Senate requirements and such things. The Republicans let two FAR-LEFT judges, including former ACLU leader Ruth Ginsberg, go through during the Clinton administration, Ginsberg's getting approved with a vote of 60-something to 3, with NO filibusters. The Republicans let these judges pass because they were QUALIFIED. That's all that's necessary, as this President was ELECTED by the people.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:40 pm |
|
Here's what Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has to say
| Quote: |
STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID
ON THE NOMINATION OF JOHN ROBERTS
TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
The President has made his choice. Now the Senate will do its job of
deciding whether to confirm John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the Supreme
Court.
The President has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that
is not the end of our inquiry. The Senate must review Judge Roberts�s
record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American
values of freedom, equality and fairness. The nominee will have an
opportunity to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and make his
case to the American people.
I will not pre-judge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about
Judge Roberts. |
-------signature-------
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:48 pm |
|
The rule for the Dems, it seems: Let a Democratic president get a person who follows their philosophy get through (such as Ginsberg), but when there's a Republican president, we can't have people which coincide with HIS philosophy, can we?
Btw, yes, MANY people like this man, on BOTH sides of the aisle.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:50 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Starbuck wrote: | | Okay, I DO NOT like this nominee. Too conservative, and I don't want anyone too liberal either. I think we need people who are more bipartisan, although I would much perfer a liberal judge over a conservative judge. And I'm almost glad that there is most likely going to be a Filibuster |
GLAD that there will be a filibuster? That's just horrifying.
Okay, Bush was ELECTED President. It's HIS perogative to nominate a nominee that he likes, based on HIS opinions that HE thinks will do the best. All the Senate has to do is decide if he meets the standards of the Senate requirements and such things. The Republicans let two FAR-LEFT judges, including former ACLU leader Ruth Ginsberg, go through during the Clinton administration, Ginsberg's getting approved with a vote of 60-something to 3, with NO filibusters. The Republicans let these judges pass because they were QUALIFIED. That's all that's necessary, as this President was ELECTED by the people. |
The president isn't elected by the PEOPLE he's elected by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Meaning he doesn't have to get the popular vote to win, all he has to do is get the big states with the big votes. Did you know that in bushes first election there were 19,000 votes in Florida that weren't counted, and the person in charge of counting the votes was Bushes campaign manager. Its funny that his COUSIN in the end had the deciding say. And in this past election there were 30,000 more votes from Ohio than there were registered voters? But this isn't the topic for that discussion...
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:53 pm |
|
You only need to win 11 states to win the presidency, New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas, Georgia, and California.
Back on topic.
This bloke seems ok. He isnt as Conservative as i was expecting. Which is good. we will have to just wait and see 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:54 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Starbuck wrote: | | Okay, I DO NOT like this nominee. Too conservative, and I don't want anyone too liberal either. I think we need people who are more bipartisan, although I would much perfer a liberal judge over a conservative judge. And I'm almost glad that there is most likely going to be a Filibuster |
GLAD that there will be a filibuster? That's just horrifying.
Okay, Bush was ELECTED President. It's HIS perogative to nominate a nominee that he likes, based on HIS opinions that HE thinks will do the best. All the Senate has to do is decide if he meets the standards of the Senate requirements and such things. The Republicans let two FAR-LEFT judges, including former ACLU leader Ruth Ginsberg, go through during the Clinton administration, Ginsberg's getting approved with a vote of 60-something to 3, with NO filibusters. The Republicans let these judges pass because they were QUALIFIED. That's all that's necessary, as this President was ELECTED by the people. |
The president isn't elected by the PEOPLE he's elected by the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. Meaning he doesn't have to get the popular vote to win, all he has to do is get the big states with the big votes. Did you know that in bushes first election there were 19,000 votes in Florida that weren't counted, and the person in charge of counting the votes was Bushes campaign manager. Its funny that his COUSIN in the end had the deciding say. And in this past election there were 30,000 more votes from Ohio than there were registered voters? But this isn't the topic for that discussion... |
Oh, no. He was elected by the people. Sure, he didn't win the electoral college in 2000, but he was still elected, and now he DID get the majority of the vote--period. Electoral or popular. However you look at it doesn't matter. He WAS chosen by the people for(btw, this is NOT his first term  ) his second term, and therefore it's HIS perogative to nominate the justice that HE wants! And that Florida vote stuff is just false and hooey. As is the Ohio thing. It's Washington that had more voters than elegable voters, and that went Democrat, including in the governor's race.
You are just bitter that this man may be chosen, and therefore you throw out an illogical argument that means almost NOTHING.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 8:55 pm |
|
| charmed88 wrote: | You only need to win 11 states to win the presidency, New Jersey, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, New York, Texas, Georgia, and California.
Back on topic.
This bloke seems ok. He isnt as Conservative as i was expecting. Which is good. we will have to just wait and see |
Right. He's a moderate to a conservative, and seems quite a good choice.
EDIT: And Ginsberg was 96 to 3. She is very, vey liberal and not constitutional and yet was passed without forcing her to give her opinions on specific issues in questioning, etc.
And CNN on Aaron Brown's NewsNight show said that he is a "firm conservative." No, he's not.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:05 pm |
|
How is she not constitutional? Because she's liberal?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:10 pm |
|
| Starbuck wrote: | | How is she not constitutional? Because she's liberal? |
She just doesn't follow the constitution and legislates from the bench. And yes, being SOO far left does naturally play a roll in is, as would being SOO far right (although, IMO, less).
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Tue Jul 19, 2005 9:17 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | She just doesn't follow the constitution and legislates from the bench. And yes, being SOO far left does naturally play a roll in is, as would being SOO far right (although, IMO, less). |
Give me an example.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
