Well, if he “hates niggers”, no wonder he’s no good at NBA Jam. The Bulls were always the best team, with Jordan and Pippin. Assuming we’re talking about the old SNES game.
Sorry, but I find this amusing as well. And I don’t really know anything about Roberts, so it’ll be a while before I can debate appropriately.
As I understand it, circuit court judges typically try to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court (although I suppose they could rule however they wanted and just let the Supreme Court keep overruling them). But how much do Supreme Court justices typically consider themselves bound by the precedent set by previous courts? I’m guessing it varies widely from justice to justice – in which case, I could see how Roberts’ claim that he considered it settled law when he was up for an appelate court position wouldn’t necessarily convince people that he wouldn’t change that precedent as a Supreme Court justice.
In a topic as politically hot as RvW I can’t honestly think that, regardless of statements out there by nominees. I would almost have to regard such statements as designed to get one through the nominatory process.
Otherwise there wouldn’t have been 30 years of incremental challenges to Roe v Wade that have worked their way through the court system.
Also, even if this is a beard by Bush and he wants to avoid the fight there are independent groups out there who will see this pick and begin the process of getting direct challenges to RvW into the court system right away.
As I said, politically RvW is the hottest potato since possibly slavery and admits of the same ‘us vs them’ mentality. I don’t think any decision is locked in stone on this one.
FTR, I’d be interested in seeing the political impact of the overturning of RvW. I suspect, but am not sure, that it would cause great consternation among the elected because now the fight would be state-by-state and confusion would be greatest. How that would impact either parties fortunes is effectively unpredicatable.
But it makes it appear as if he would overturn Roe v Wade. This could eaily be enough for a Senate filibuster.
Oh goody.
This is where I get to ask you to pint out Clinton officials listed below are out of the “Democratic mainstream.” (which kind of makes me wonder why Clinton would appoint them to such important positions)
Lloyd Cutler (White House Counsel to Carter and Clinton) or Seth Waxman (his Solicitor General) or another Clinton Solicitor General, Walter Dellinger
http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_member_statement.cfm?id=579&wit_id=51
http://judiciary.senate.gov/print_member_statement.cfm?id=739&wit_id=51
(The list above is not meant to be an all inclusive list of the Clinton officials who supportred Roberts…I have yet to find a source with the original letter and ALL of the signatories…)
There’s a difference between supporting someone for an Appellate Court vs. the Supreme Court. Let’s see how the Clinton officials sound off on Roberts as a Supreme.
What…they’re gonna say he was a “wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.” or “John Roberts represents the best of the bar” or “Mr. Roberts was attentive and respectful of all views, and he represented the United States zealously but fairly. He had the deepest respect for legal principles and legal precedent” back then…but NOW he’s Chumpy Von Chumptstein?
:dubious:
I’m sure we’ll hear from the usual suspects (on BOTH sides of the aisle) applying their usual litmus tests. I suspect that we won’t hear the above folks retracting their statements…unless they don’t care how foolish they look.
BTW, The question I asked (which you still haven’t answered) was…which of those Clinton officials was out of the “Democratic mainstream”
Looks like in about 10 minutes the President is going to stand before the cameras, flip the digital salute and say, in effect, “Fuck you, 'luc, fuck you and all your friends. I got me an overwhelming landslide of a mandate, damn near three percent! and I can ram whatever I want right down your throat! Fuck consensus, fuck compromise, and fuck you!”
Here was a chance to do what was right. Didn’t have to suck up to us, just treat us with the respect due. A moderate conservative would have sailed through like shit through a goose. Some healing might have begun.
[Belushi]…but…NOOOOOOOO!..[/Belushi]
Another great contribution to Great Debates. :rolleyes:
Here’s hoping Roe v. Wade is destroyed. Just for spite, and to give the idiotic liberals of this board something to really be upset about.
Well, gloat while you can. Goes around, comes aroung, and today’s pig is tomorrow’s bacon.
Some of us liberals think Roe v Wade being overturned would be politically advantageous. This would mean that nay pro-choice Republicans might switch to voting Democrat.
Notihng surprising in the speech, God knows. Now we go to the hearings.
Definitely. Bring on the back alley abortions.
Thank goodness you made the effort to raise the tone.
Your right. Your post does deserve a rolleyes as another great contribution to Great Debates.
Overturning Roe would be, in my opinion, disastrous for the Reps. That doesn’t mean, no matter how fed up I am with them, that I want it to happen. But then, the majority of Americans apparently don’t want it, either.
Do you want to upset the “idiotic conservatives” who don’t want it overturned either?
This guy is toast. I’m sure he probably asked out a co-worker at some point in his career. The shameless Dems will dredge her up, push her out in front of the cameras and pay her to tearfully confess that he was a “monster.” Or I’m sure the Dems will find someone to say they once heard him tell a slightly off-color joke. Or maybe he laughed a bit at an non-PC raunch comedy. I’m being serious. I don’t think he stands a chance in hell.
Where is Roberts on some of the other hot button stuff…gun control, gay rights and SOCAS issues, for instance?
[QUOTE=beagledave]
What…they’re gonna say he was a “wonderful professional colleague both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.” or “John Roberts represents the best of the bar” or “Mr. Roberts was attentive and respectful of all views, and he represented the United States zealously but fairly. He had the deepest respect for legal principles and legal precedent” back then…but NOW he’s Chumpy Von Chumptstein?
:dubious:
QUOTE]
Of course not. The Dems will say that some “troubling” information has recently come to their attention. I guarantee you someone will come forward to tell the media that the guy is a serial rapist.
Piffle. There’ll be some grandstanding, a show of force so the Dems feel like they have a little power, but he’ll be nominated in a walk.
Wow…kinda makes you wonder why liberal Dems like Biden, Feingold and Kohl voted for him (according to Tim Russert) to be on (what is often considered to be) the highest appelate court in the land in the 14-3 judiciary cmte vote…