Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.










I was very surprised they had Rehnquist walk so far unassisted and then climb down a flight of stairs to deliver the oath.
Fuckers got moxy!Most impressive IMO.
Doesnt matter if i agree with his views or not.
I do see what your talking about as being one of the biggest things that could happen over the next 4 Bush years,the new judges.(im guessing 3)
I think the biggest change will be to roe/wade in the near future.





I agree that 2 or 3 new 'constructionist' SC judges are probably in the offing in the next 3-4 years. However I'd guess that Roe v. Wade will get back burner status. After all, there isn't a lot of corporate/gov't money involved in the issue but it's absolute political dynamite.I do see what your talking about as being one of the biggest things that could happen over the next 4 Bush years,the new judges.(im guessing 3)
I think the biggest change will be to roe/wade in the near future
I'd sooner think that one of the first issues to be addressed ...
- supposed 'rights' of gays, expanding into ...
- state to state responsibilities under constitution's 'full faith and credit' clause (probably gay spouse benefit obligations of corporations), expanding into
- authority of state courts/legislatures to rule/make laws on issues of national import (probably gay marriage or illegal alien driver's licenses)
also very likely will be ...
- super-majority requirements clarification for US House and Senate (i.e. legality of filibusters on subjects not specifically referenced by Constitutional super-majority votes)
- revisiting of states rights issue re denying illegal aliens social benefits





supposed rights, huh ? Supposed as in not real, not worthy-- Sick point of view,imo, just despicable -- (puke)
One never knows. In this liberal Supreme Court, six out of nine were Republican appointments.





No, supposed in the sense that CLAIMS are being made that such rights exist, but also that the US Constitution makes no specific mention to that effect and no high court which has the authority to legally create a right has ruled on the issue ! Please don't continue to confuse legal and moral, or fact (legal precedent) versus opinion (political agenda).supposed rights, huh ? Supposed as in not real, not worthy-- Sick point of view,imo, just despicable
Bookmarks