Is there no thread about Sandra Day O'Connor? I'm curious about what's going to come from this and I like to listen to the opinions of people here!
Printable View
Is there no thread about Sandra Day O'Connor? I'm curious about what's going to come from this and I like to listen to the opinions of people here!
I forsee another fillibuster in the near future...
Aside from that, i think Roe Vs. Wade will soon be overturned and the issue forked over to the individual states to screw up as they wish (best case scenario). If that happens, i'll be moving to a state that allows abortion, since that's where all the chicks'll be headed.
My crystal ball says that GWB will quickly nominate a hispanic 'strict constructionist' to fill Sandy's seat on the big bench ... maybe even make a 'recess' appointment to pre-empt the issue of a possible filibuster, which would then make any opposing democrats appear even more obstructionist if they choose to fight the 'recess' appointee after the fact.
However, the democrats have really painted themselves into a corner in terms of the recent filibuster agreement over federal circuit court judicial appointments, where they stated they would not resort to filibustering except for 'extraordinary' circumstances. If the democrats start lining up in opposition to a hispanic nominee who doesn't have any personal Chappaquiddicks in his closet, the republicans will crucify them in the media and hispanic voters will crucify them in the 2006 election. Nevertheless, I anticipate a major filibuster fight. PS I also anticipate the chief justice will immediately announce his own retirement as soon as GWB's nominee is successfully confirmed.
Mel, doesn't matter. If he's a hardline conservative, it changes the balance of the court. That counts as an 'extraordinary circumstance'.
And I'm betting that Bill Frist and host of republicans are just chomping at the bit in regard to an 'extraordinary circumstance' filibuster against a qualified nominee based solely on the fact that the nominee is conservative. This would allow the republicans to portray the entire filibuster deal as a bad faith political sham on the part of democrats, enact the 'nuclear option' of a senate rule change regarding filibustering judicial appointments, and open the floodgates for conservative appointments to all levels of the federal judiciary. This whole scenario is so Machiavellian that you just know it came from Karl Rove !Quote:
Originally Posted by Madcap
Mel's got it right on the politics. Expect GWB to nominate a hispanic and watch the Democrats in the Senate squirm. Such a move can only help the Republicans, no matter how it plays out. The Republicans have been actively courting the hispanic vote in recent years. I believe when he was elected governor of Texas, GWB got a majority of the hispanic vote, the first Republican to do so.
If the Democrats confirm a conservative GWB nominee to the Supreme Court with little fight, they will alleniate a lot of their core liberal supporters. On the other hand, if they launch a full, Clarence Thomas style, assault on a hispanic, they are going to allienate a lot of people in the hispanic community, which will soon be our largest ethnic group. I'm not saying hispanics are so shallow that they will vote Republican simply because GWB nominated a hispanic to the court. But the sight of a bunch of rich white guys blasting a well-qualified hispanic simply because of his politics will cause a lot of hispanics, espeically older ones that have traditionally supported democrats, to rethink thier allegiances.
As far as the court itself. Most news I've read has almost always mentioned O'Connor as a crucial "swing" vote, often siding with the "liberals" on the court despite the fact she was appointed by Reagan. When you consider how many decisions have been 5-4, you realize that if Bush's nominee is a true conservative and alligns himself with the Scallia/Thomas wing of the court, the court's decision may definitely move to the right.
That's what makes it extraordinary. This endangers a lot of what the Dems have been after for 30 years. I'm not talking about if it's a conservative, but a hardcore conservative. A shift in the balance in one of the three brnches of our govornment is pretty fucking extraordinary. If GWB picks someone who is going to nuke Abortion or something else core to the Dem platform and they DON'T fight it there's going to be hell to pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destiny
Personally, i think they should have just did the nuclear option thing last month. The Rebubs would have probably lost (many Repubs stated their intention to vote with the dems).
That agreement was retarded anyway. Nothing under the sun will qualify as 'Extraordinary' to some Conservatives.
Also, i don't think 'Machiavellian' is any strategy for conservatives to be proud of.
Main Entry: Ma·chi·a·vel·lian
Pronunciation: "ma-kE-&-'ve-lE-&n, -'vel-y&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Niccolo Machiavelli
1 : of or relating to or
2 : suggesting the principles of conduct laid down by ; specifically : marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith
- Machiavellian noun
These are such wonderful times to be living in, so full of excitement.
The German dramatist Goethe also thought so of his times.
Wealth and speed are the things the world admires and for which all men strive. Railways, express mails, steamboats, are all possible means of communication are what the educated world seeks. . .Actually this is the century of clever minds, of practical men who grasp things easily, who are endowed with a certain facility, and who feel their own superiority to the multitude, but who lack talent for the most exalted tasks. Let us as far as possible retain the ideals in which we were raised. We and perhaps a few others will be the last representatives of an era which will not soon return.
Yeah, and concerning Machaveill,
Still it cannot be called virtue to slay one's fellow citizens, to betray one's friends, to act without faith, without pity, without religion. By such methods one may win dominion but not glory. [The Prince, op.cit., p.36]
Bader-Ginsburg was quite liberal. Many would say "hard-line" liberal. Some would say "extraordinarily" liberal. That, to me, was not an extraordinary circumstance.
The new appointee will no doubt be quite conservative, at least for now. The definition of "hard-line" is subjective to the viewer. An "extraordinary" circumstance would be a clear case of conflict of interest, or demonstrated incompetence or misbehavior. A philosophy is not extraordinary.
So the mood of the Court might change? Well, and to the victors go the spoils. Welcome to America. Both phenomena are pretty well entrenched in our history. It wasn't extraordinary when the Court started swinging liberal, it's not extraordinary that it's swinging conservative, and it won't be extraordinary when it swings liberal again. In fact, all of that is quite ordinary.
Tell that to someone who finds out they have to go to Canada for an Abortion.
Depends on the conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madcap
Old school conservatives ( pre Morla Majority days ) would agree with you.
The new breed of conservative is indeed Machiavellian- ie marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith.
Perfect examples would be Frist, Rove, Bush2, Gingrich just to name a few.
Well, IMHO they learned well from watching democrats for the last 50 years, from LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin right up to Mister Bill's last minute pardons !Quote:
The new breed of conservative is indeed Machiavellian- ie marked by cunning, duplicity, or bad faith.
Perfect examples would be Frist, Rove, Bush2, Gingrich just to name a few.
Mel, ya got me there. Those last minute pardons were bullshit. A lot of lame duck presedents get some shit rolling that are part of their goals just before they leave office that their successor then has to deal with. Some of that includes pardons, but some of the freaks clinton pardoned were just outlandish. White collar crooks that had been living on the riviera for decades to escape the feds and people like that. Retarded.
So you won't find an objection from me to that characterization. No Ma'am.
Bah, why drive all the way to Canada when there will be some guy with unsanitary tools giving them at a fly-by-night clandestine clinic being run out of an inner city garage. I'm sure the meth lab runners will need a side business now that states are requiring that people sign their privacy away just to buy a box of Sudafed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madcap
There will be three retirements this year.
That means only one of the appointments will be seriously controversial. It is no one's interest to delay that process, a la when the Democratic Senate leadership blocked Bork on ideological motivations rather than on his qualifications--which were unimpeachable by any measure.
It will never be the same after Bork.
Nah, those types will be in business from the underage girls alone...Quote:
Originally Posted by doc-catfish
Without bogging down this thread with undue priority placed on the single issue of abortion, consider Sandra Day O'Connor's total legacy (well not actually total since this piece is 2 years old) ...
What's really 'extraordinary' is the fact that, after the voters have clearly swung the house and senate balance to the republican side of the aisle for 12+ years, and the voters have clearly swung the presidency to the republican side of the aisle for 6 years, that the Supreme Court and federal judiciary are still as liberal as they are !Quote:
A shift in the balance in one of the three brnches of our govornment is pretty fucking extraordinary.
If you're looking for historical precedents in regard to changes in voting patterns being followed by shifts in judicial philosophies, look no further than FDR's judicial appointments in the 30's ! Talk about a 'shift in the balance' ...
Not retarded in the least from a Machiavellian point of view ... these uber-rich riviera residents were/are major contributors to democratic 527's, and will undoubtedly come in very handy during Hilary's 2008 campaign ! As Destiny pointed out in her response about a possible hispanic supreme court nominee, it simply amazes me that the 'poor' of all races and categories seem to constantly overlook the fact that the democratic party today is primarily controlled by rich white men (OK also include rich white women with major balls).Quote:
but some of the freaks clinton pardoned were just outlandish. White collar crooks that had been living on the riviera for decades to escape the feds and people like that. Retarded.
~
These jokers at the National Review seem to have a fondness for complete fiction. This drivel is FILLED with false citations. At least they're consistent. Maybe you recall their recent crock of shit fictional rewrite of Souter's "takings" clause opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
BLECCH!
If Dubya goes after the most likely male Latino candidate as the SW consensus seems to be, without a doubt you can expect it to be Alberto Gonzales. In which case.. Roe...and its FAR more important predecessor Griswald remain safe.
All is well, remain calm.
I got Borked once. It stung like a bitch.Quote:
Originally Posted by CO
You're just aching to get Borked. Don't tempt me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
Quote:
If Dubya goes after the most likely male Latino candidate as the SW consensus seems to be, without a doubt you can expect it to be Alberto Gonzales. In which case.. Roe...and its FAR more important predecessor Griswald remain safe.
All is well, remain calm.
Nope, GWB isn't going to acquiesce to the left in regard to a Supreme Court nomination. I'd bet either Emilio Garza or Samuel Alito.
and if GWB wants to go Machiavellian in the extreme, he could always nominate Janice Rogers Brown, whom the 'dealing' democrats have already specifically agreed was an 'acceptable' candidate for the federal bench.
on the other hand, if GWB wants to create a media circus as a prelude to the 2006 election, he could nominate Miguel Estrada. This would definitely result in the public airing of a lot of democratic 'dirty laundry' used to kill Estrada's nomination the first time around. With the changes in mainstream media since 2003, (re)nominating Estrada could cause a LOT of politically damaging fallout for democrats who oppose his nomination.
~
Gonzales is just shy of the radical extreme far right. He happens to believe in stare decisis (follow precedent) for Griswald and Roe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
OK. Time for your Borking.:biting:
Not so fast .... that costs extra ! {never confuse politics with business LOL}Quote:
OK. Time for your Borking.
whoooaaa Borking is extra???Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Actually, I may have to hold off on the Borking...
I'm remembering how his Bush I replaced Marshall with Thomas (black male swap). I change my prediction to white female swapping: OConner <--> Edith Jones. Plus Dubya's Daddy liked Edith.
Edith Jones ... no friggin way ... ->
Edith Jones
Current Position:
- 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
- Former general counsel for the Texas Republican Party.
The Buzz:
- Extremely outspoken opponent of Roe v. Wade, having referred to it as an “exercise of raw judicial power,” that needs to be re-examined.
- In cahoots with Norma McCorvey, the original plaintiff in Roe v. Wade, and then in 1995 announced she had become a born again Christian and pro-life activist.
- Criticized and protested for her decisions in the death penalty case of Calvin Burdine, in which it has been established that Burdine’s attorney slept through portions of his 1983 court case. Jones defended her decision with, “We cannot determine whether Cannon [Burdine’s attorney, now deceased] slept during a ‘critical stage’ of Burdine’s trial.”
- Age 56
... too old, too white, too christian
Actually, the more I think about this issue, the more likely a (re)nomination of Miguel Estrada becomes - or the express purpose of creating a political media circus with an upcoming election ! Or your white female swapping theory may be extended to white vs black female swapping with Janice Rogers Brown.
Isn't that the damn truth ! Only the most die hard Bush sycophants consider it credible information.Quote:
Originally Posted by stant
As for Supreme Court nominations, it is my hope that we get someone similar to O'Connor.
She was able to maintain a moderate position even in the partisian times. Her opinions generally lacked rhetoric. Her instincts were pragmatic. She had a pronounced tendency to decide cases on their facts, leaving herself room to shift gears when facts were different.
That is what we really need in a Supreme Court judge.