Printable View
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/po...65df79&ei=5087
Rehnquist succumbed to thyroid cancer, creating another vacancy on the Supreme Court. There is no real way both vacancies can be filled before the new court term starts in early October. How this alters the already volatile political landscape remains to be seen.
Discuss.
It is a great loss indeed. If I am not mistaken he was appointed by regan.
Anyways, I am discusted by the suppreme court in any fashion of the word. I really hope that they are replaced by any means necessry. The emminant domain ruling was a stab at American rights and was nearly all the cases they have been refusing to hear. Then they deside not to rehear the case when it is validly petitioned by over half the populace of New London, Conneticut.
It is always sad to loose a person. I must admit I know little of him or his lagacy, but I am over all discusted with our judicial branch as a whole.
Bipper
It's a shame he died. :(
May he rest in peace.
I have many, many misgivings about how the vacancy will be filled. It could turn out quite badly indeed.
Who knows, its the demmecratic justices i lothe. With republicans in power, I hope they fill it soon.
Bipper
The apointment of John Roberts is far more significant in terms of the ideological balance of the Court than this new appointment to fill Rehnquist's vacancy will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
Rehnquist was a thoroughly conservative voice in the Court. So that seat was, and will continue to be held by a conservative, shifting the dynamics of the court very little. I think who Bush chooses to move up to Chief Justice will be more important than who he adds as an Associate Justice to the court.
What I'd really like would be for a female appointmen to be made.
He's obviously going to be replaced by another conservatve, which is bad enough as it is. However, with somebody like Bush in power, he's probably going to be replaced by a nonsensical conservative.
The last thing this country needs is another conservative with a voice.
I must say I whole heartidly feel this is the case. As the judicial branch will suffer more from abuse of the higher seats. Sure the executive branch seems to be more prone to abuse, the judicial branch doesn't have the regulation the executive branch does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Miriel
Bipper
Are you out of your frelling mind? The executive branch is more prone to abuse?! The judicial branch has done nothing but abuse its powers for a long time. Their job is to interpret the law, not make it. Ever since Roe vs. Wade the judicial branch has been abusing its power (largely due to a stupid oversight by our founding fathers).Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
I said it seems more porne to abuse. Because you know... its the executive branch... maybe if you read the line before the bold one? I agree that the judicial branch is a lit brown paper tird on the porch of our government. Read my posts.
Bipper
Without Judicial Review, racial segregation would still exist in our schools, and sodomy would be outlawed is most states. Are you saying that declaring extremely dated and prejudicial aspects of the law as unconstitutional is an abuse of power by the Judicial branch?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
In case anyone doesn't know, Bush has nomiated Roberts to be Chief Justice.
Yeah, I just heard about that. And I cried.Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm
John Roberts is quite insane, and you know if you've actually researched about him. He doesn't need to be in the supreme court, especially not in the place of someone like Judge O'Connor (who in my opinion was one of the best ever, seeing as she thought for herself and didn't give awhat her colleagues did in placing her votes). They're like polar opposites.
This may be good as well. He is a political puppet, and will bend to the will of the court. (prehapse) Haveing O'connar up there would create strong leadership and the influence to bend votes. Having the Looney up there, and subject to swaying his vote, makes for weak leader, but a more digressed Supreme Court.
I do agree with ya entirely, I just wanna see how it plays out :p
Bipper
Oh, quite right. I misunderstood you. My apologies, my good sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
However, I think that the judicial branch is more prone to abuse, mostly because judges are appointed for life, and they are a real pain to kick out. I don't remember exactly what the purpose of this is, but all it really does is allow them to do whatever the hell they want with no fear of reprisal...
I think it's really freaking ridiculous that Bush is nominating someone with NO EXPERIENCE as a Justice of the Supreme Court to be freaking Chief Justice. This man, with no experience, is supposed to lead discussion? Supposed to solve conflicts with a firm, but OPEN mind? Please.
This is stupid. period. The end. I've never, ever, ever been one of these rabid "liberals" who takes stabs at Bush's intelligence, and I've always tried to find reasons for his decisions. But the most recent events and the handling thereof by his administration have led me to believe this man is quite possibly the worst domestic policy President the United States has ever had. I think he should go back to throwing his father's old chums back into political positions, because he obviously doesn't know what he's doing.
[/end rant]
...Or, it could be that he thinks that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of idiots (a position I will second), and promoting one of them to head justice would simply be making the problem worse.
I will third that notion :D Also, It is for the sole resoning of president Bush to appoint that position. The man is a looney, and will kiss whatever butt he can. He bends like a blade of grass. What a great asset to have 'owe you some favors'. The man has no independant thinking in my recoloegtion. DMKA's post is a good one to read on that matter.Quote:
Or, it could be that he thinks that the Supreme Court is made up of a bunch of idiots (a position I will second),
What we are saying is that that is thier power. When they abuse it to fit thier likings, and take bribes or work outside thier guidelines, they are abusing that power. A LOT of what we have seen of late. Emminant domain being a prime example of this. They have undesputed power in thier hands, and can affect the Executive branch and esspecially the legeslative branch. This power given to such a small ammount of people leaves a potentially weak spot in our system.Quote:
Are you saying that declaring extremely dated and prejudicial aspects of the law as unconstitutional is an abuse of power by the Judicial branch?
Bipper
- Sorry If i am slightly incoherant at this point. I am on pain killers for the day.