That should have read Everquest. (Stein became active against the game and its makers when his son became “addicted” to it and his school performance declined several years ago.)
Yeah, my bad. Apparently I can’t speel.
IIRC he also was strongly with Terri Schiavo’s parents against removal of the feeding tube.
Attorneys do that all the time, though. The client comes to the attorney, and says, “I want to do X. Can I?”, so the attorney might say, “Ordinarily no, but if you do Y and Z first, it will be ok to do X.”
My guess is Janice Rogers Brown will be on the short list. That is almost as scary as Ashcroft. She is the most ultra con rightwing freak (from personal experience) out there. Plus being a woman she is a natural to fill o’conners spot. That and she’s black. Bush would just love to be the first to appoint an African American woman (who is reliably ultra conservative.
I fear that Bush Jr. will get to fill three seats. with those three plus Thomas and Scalia I’m thinking Kennedy may be the swing vote. Unfortunately its not a swing between conservative and liberal but rather between Ultra right wing neo con and a little less ultra right wing neo con. I see a bad moon a risin…
Hehehehehhehehhahahahhahahhmmmahahahahah
aHAHAHAHAHHAHAhahahhahahh yes YESYSYSYSY!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAWH!!! THE COURTS ARE OURS THE COURTS ARE OURS!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!
Finally a moderate stepped down! I really thought that they would all hold on untill shooken off by the steely hand of death. BUT NO! Heheheh.
Goodbye Ms. O’Choner, hello new Thomas. Goodbye centrist swing, hello conservative stranglehold. 
Based on my one experience in college with Everclear and Hawaiian Punch, I’d have to agree with him.
Hmm…learn something new every day. All I knew was that he did some commericals, had a game show that is now in reruns on GSN, and did a little voice acting for Animaniacs.
fires lightning out of his fingertips at all of the surrounding liberals
Even with all his background he still always struck me as an idiot.
Here is the definition of quaint:
- He said that torture was ok. Our government later recanted that position when his statements came to light. So his view was clearly quite extreme.
- Whether he said that the entire convention was quaint, or that some parts of it were quaint, or that the provisions against torture were quaint, he was willing to marginalize a ratified treaty, which is the supreme law of the land. What other provisions might he find “quaint,” and refuse to enforce?
- This is a perfect example of activism–even legislation by a member of the executive branch–by a conservative. If we don’t want activists on the Court, he disqualified himself right there. If he only did it to serve his masters, what’s to say he won’t do the same thing as a Justice. A restrained approach would have been to seek modification of the treaty–not make fun of it.
- Hi Opal!
- Why are we opening Pit threads to debate politics. I thought we were supposed to do that in GD.
- I can’t see how, even under his view, the convention is quaint. Inapplicable maybe, restrictive certainly, but old-fashioned? How?
Why not? As it stands now the government can make all manner of stupid or petty laws and the fact that they’re stupid and petty doesn’t matter. As long as some hypothetical “reasonable man” can stretch the boundries of intellect to come up with a “rational basis” then that’s it. All the government needs to make something illegal. One of those evil “emanations” and “penumbras” from the constitution(called Substantive Due Process, or SDP) is that having a process isn’t enough. There has to be some sort of substantial purpose behind the process. If the purpose is petty and stupid then the process can be thrown out. In the strict constructionalist world it doesn’t matter how petty and stupid the lawmaking bodies get(and they can get VERY petty and stupid, this is a matter of simple fact), the law is still the law. The history of the constitution and the ideals of limited government support the idea that US lawmakers should not be making petty and stupid laws. Party loyalty and government bloat has made it virtually impossible for legislators to keep up or to oppose things on the “that’s petty and stupid” grounds. It is also virtually impossible for constituents to keep abreast of all the crap going on in all the various lawmaking bodies that theoretically represent them so the visibility to petty and stupid laws at the constituent level is practically nonexistant. Take away the fear of retribution from the electorate for passing petty and stupid laws(after all, odds are they won’t even know you helped pass it) and the rewards from the party for toeing the line and bam! Lots of petty and stupid laws. Fuck that.
I think laws enacted to further petty and stupid purposes should be within the bounds of courts (or juries via Jury Nullification) to strike down. Since the system seems to have broken down, at least in the checks and balances designed to prevent the passage of petty and stupid laws in the first place, then some recourse should still exist. I wish in all this talk of “original intent” there was some nugget of “people should be free from petty and stupid laws” from time to time. I think most of the founding fathers would agree.
Enjoy,
Steven
On his game show, he didn’t know that the Immaculate Conception referred to Mary’s conception, and not Jesus Christ’s.
(He definitely still knew much more trivia than I do, though. That was one of the few things I knew that he didn’t, so it sticks out)
O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! ! O H P L E A S E ! !
N O T
G O N Z A L E S ! ! 
And I would agree. However, it’s not possible the way the system is set up right now. It would require some revamping of the system. And honestly, the way things are set up right now, I’m a lot more comfortable with judges making rulings to accord with some petty and stupid law than I am with a judge striking down the 2006 federal budget because it is petty and stupid.
Jury nullification I can go along with. If twelve of my peers have agreed that someone shouldn’t be convicted because the law is petty and stupid, I got no problem with that.
I got drunk last night (by accident, really). I should have waited a day and done so on purpose.
Go ahead. You got a rule against drinking two nights in a row?
Muad’Dib – I don’t care what your politics are (thanks for the imaginary lightning bolts, though). But please, for the love of Christ, proofread your posts and work on your spelling. Thanks.
Justice O’Connor is 75? I tend to think of justices as the age they were when appointed, but apparently they keep aging. A year ago I was fairly hopeful that Bush would lose re-election (which I think he actually did, but that’s another subject); so I was just hoping the nine justices would hold on 'til the end of 2004. Now, with more than three years of this shit to go (unless the House of Representatives is ever driving behind me and takes my IMPEACH BUSH bumper sticker to heart), I’m really worried about what kind of Supreme Court we’ll have for the next couple of decades. Fuck.
Sorry, it came out in a two second flurry of typing.
Legally OK or morally OK? There’s a difference; did he OK torture as being acceptable to him personally or as being legal according to the laws he’s payed to understand?
The supreme law of the land is the constitution, not international treaties. It wasn’t his job to enforce it (at the time he wasn’t the AG) and deciding whether or not to enforce it is a moot point because the administration’s position was that the treaty didn’t apply.
He didn’t create any laws, he merely determined that some didn’t apply to the situation he was asked to examine.
Because he wouldn’t have masters as a Justice. He was employed by the Bush administration and was acting in a professional capacity as their counsel. If he was a justice, he wouldn’t be in that position to anyone.
It wasn’t his job to seek a modification of the treaty.
Without knowing what he was speaking of, I don’t know. I do think the Geneva convention is a good thing, myself, so I’d be interested in knowing more about his position on the topic.
Again, I’ve said repeatedly that I really, really hate Guantanomoe bay. We’re doing evil shit there, and, corporately, we’re supporting torture and have a lot of blood on our hands. But I place the blame on the key policy makers in the Bush administration, and I don’t think Gonzalez was involved in making policy decisions.