- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Rehnquist dead
Rehnquist deadFollow
Box of Chocolates to be appointed soon.
Edited, Sat Sep 3 23:20:41 2005 by trickybeck
/mourn
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Bring back the worm!
kundalini wrote:
Crap.
/nod
Do you monitor the news 24/7 or something? You had this posted before Google News.
I like to watch women pleasure themselves with fully-loaded shotguns at pumpaction.com.
All you had to do was visit CNN.com, they had a huge blazing all-caps headline up like the minute he died.
This makes me really uncomfortable. This means that Bush gets to appoint yet another Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court is conservative enough as it is. Too much in my opinion. I'm just worried they'll get rid of Affirmative Action, abortion rights for women, and delay gays the right to have at least some sort of civil union for even longer.
Rehnquist was a conservative. A conservative will replace him. I don't see any major ideological shifts in the near future.
I just hope that a reasonable person is nominated as the replacement and that we get it over and done with.
The job of the SCOJ is to interpret our laws, not to make them. It doth grow tiresome to hear drivel like:
Each and every of those should be addressed legally by Congress. The whole reason why they're prevalent issues is because our legislators are more worried about looking good than passing a law that takes a clear stance.
I swear, they should be paid at the end of their terms, and only if their constituents vote that they are satisfied with their performance. No gifts, no lobbyists allowed, etc.
While I understand that some of the actions taken by legislating judges in the past were the right thing to do, it was still not their place to take that action. It all goes back to our lawmaking bodies not doing THEIR jobs.
The job of the SCOJ is to interpret our laws, not to make them. It doth grow tiresome to hear drivel like:
Quote:
I'm just worried they'll get rid of Affirmative Action, abortion rights for women, and delay gays the right to have at least some sort of civil union for even longer.
Each and every of those should be addressed legally by Congress. The whole reason why they're prevalent issues is because our legislators are more worried about looking good than passing a law that takes a clear stance.
I swear, they should be paid at the end of their terms, and only if their constituents vote that they are satisfied with their performance. No gifts, no lobbyists allowed, etc.
While I understand that some of the actions taken by legislating judges in the past were the right thing to do, it was still not their place to take that action. It all goes back to our lawmaking bodies not doing THEIR jobs.
I am fully aware that Rehnquist was a conservative. The only reason why he'd be replaced by another conservative is because a Republican is in office. Sandra Day O'Connor was a liberal and she's being replaced by a conservative. There's no rules or laws that state that there has to be an even amount of conservatives and liberals on the Supreme Court. There couldn't be anyways since there's 9 judges.
Yes, the Supreme Court does inrepret our laws, but they also make them in a sense. It was the Supreme Court that decided back in the 70's in Roe vs. Wade that abortion should be legalized, and they made it legal. It wasn't before then. They're decision that women should have the right to abort their baby if they so chose, made abortion legal. They interpret our laws and interepret our constitution, but they can also make laws, even if it is in an indirect way. It's called the system of Checks and Balances.
Yes, the Supreme Court does inrepret our laws, but they also make them in a sense. It was the Supreme Court that decided back in the 70's in Roe vs. Wade that abortion should be legalized, and they made it legal. It wasn't before then. They're decision that women should have the right to abort their baby if they so chose, made abortion legal. They interpret our laws and interepret our constitution, but they can also make laws, even if it is in an indirect way. It's called the system of Checks and Balances.
Quote:
Yes, the Supreme Court does inrepret our laws, but they also make them in a sense. It was the Supreme Court that decided back in the 70's in Roe vs. Wade that abortion should be legalized, and they made it legal. It wasn't before then. They're decision that women should have the right to abort their baby if they so chose, made abortion legal. They interpret our laws and interepret our constitution, but they can also make laws, even if it is in an indirect way. It's called the system of Checks and Balances.
No, it's called "not how it should be done."
Should abortion be legal/illegal? That question should be up to our legislators. When our legislators make a law that is in contravention of the Constitution or another law, or when the circumstances of a case make it unclear as to whether a law is being applied properly... that's when the courts should judge the situation.
When courts create rights out of thing air, they do so because the presiding officers see a clear and overwhelming need to do so. Which goes back to what I stated, that our legislators need a hoof in the *** for not doing their jobs properly.
Checks and Balances are intended to see to it that no portion of the government becomes too powerful for the others to resist, something that has already happened with the SCOJ. Legislating judges have made it into the ultimate trump card for anyone with an axe to grind. It doesn't matter what my axe is, all I have to do is get the SCOJ to rule in my favor and the whole country is powerless to gainsay me. That's WRONG. Why do we even need legislators if the SCOJ makes the laws? Why not do away with Congress and just have a finance comittee instead?
Methinks you have a corrupted view of the purpose of the courts.
You're talking about how you think it SHOULD be. I'm talking about how it IS. And to be honest, I agree with you. I don't care for how our government works. I don't like the fact that a bunch of old farts get to decide what I can and can't do. There's a lot of things about our government I don't like. And theres probably a lot of other people out there that are like us. The problem is, not enough people have the time or the want to actually do anything about it. We're all too busy living our own lives and getting by as best we can to have much time to worry about the governement ******** us over.
Agreed. I AM hung up on how things should be as opposed to how they are.
On a tangetn, as far as I'm aware (I haven't bothered to look it up and can't recall from my school days) there isn't a required number of ***** to have on the bench in the Supreme Court. Just have to have justices, not a set number of them.
On a tangetn, as far as I'm aware (I haven't bothered to look it up and can't recall from my school days) there isn't a required number of ***** to have on the bench in the Supreme Court. Just have to have justices, not a set number of them.
Off the top of your head, who appointed O'Connor? Souter?
I'm not worried about the politics of the justices. I'm concerned with their commitment to the Contitution.
I'm not worried about the politics of the justices. I'm concerned with their commitment to the Contitution.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Supreme Court does inrepret our laws, but they also make them in a sense. It was the Supreme Court that decided back in the 70's in Roe vs. Wade that abortion should be legalized, and they made it legal. It wasn't before then. They're decision that women should have the right to abort their baby if they so chose, made abortion legal. They interpret our laws and interepret our constitution, but they can also make laws, even if it is in an indirect way. It's called the system of Checks and Balances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The constitution never adressed abortion issues, and the supreme court at the time decided that abortion was covered under the right to privacy, thus protected by the constitution. I think that interpretation is a far stretch. Personally, I think the issue should be tossed to the states and let each state make up its mind about the matter, as things are now, I feel it violates the 10th Amendment.
------
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
-------
Agree or disagree with me as ya want. I have no opinion about abortion itself, just the way its legality is decided. I have serious reservations though that Roe v Wade is going to be overturned. Even most conservative judges aren't going to overturn a precedent set that far back ago. The possibility is there, but I don't see this as a brown v board of education/ plessy v feurguson (sp?) situation here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the Supreme Court does inrepret our laws, but they also make them in a sense. It was the Supreme Court that decided back in the 70's in Roe vs. Wade that abortion should be legalized, and they made it legal. It wasn't before then. They're decision that women should have the right to abort their baby if they so chose, made abortion legal. They interpret our laws and interepret our constitution, but they can also make laws, even if it is in an indirect way. It's called the system of Checks and Balances.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The constitution never adressed abortion issues, and the supreme court at the time decided that abortion was covered under the right to privacy, thus protected by the constitution. I think that interpretation is a far stretch. Personally, I think the issue should be tossed to the states and let each state make up its mind about the matter, as things are now, I feel it violates the 10th Amendment.
------
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
-------
Agree or disagree with me as ya want. I have no opinion about abortion itself, just the way its legality is decided. I have serious reservations though that Roe v Wade is going to be overturned. Even most conservative judges aren't going to overturn a precedent set that far back ago. The possibility is there, but I don't see this as a brown v board of education/ plessy v feurguson (sp?) situation here.
This whole thing smells funny.
and who is this young whipper-snapper Bush is putting in there and why?
no no..
none of this is right!
and who is this young whipper-snapper Bush is putting in there and why?
no no..
none of this is right!
Quote:
no no..
none of this is right!
none of this is right!
This is my world.
Some of you are so ignorant that it passes amusement and gets downright frightening. Roe does not make abortion legal. Roe simply guarantees a woman's right to have one. The justices don't make laws, they simply set a standard of constitutionality that must be upheld by laws created in the legislative process. Sandra Day O'Conner is not a f'ucking liberal. She is a moderate and plays the role of swing vote on the court in a great deal of cases and opinions. I will grant you that the first point is a fine one, but too often in this day and age we broad stroke things that need fine points made of them. The devil is in the details and the minutia is too often where people foul up the whole process.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was indeed a conservative, but throughout his 30+ years on the bench he has been a strong advocate of less judicial activism, and not more. Most will point to his handling of the 2000 election case as a counter to this, but it is simply a red herring and none who fall back on that single case have the desire or the ability to argue the point intelligently.
Rehnquist's leaving the court, by whatever road he took, was a fore gone conclusion. The balance has always hinged on other openings, which Sandra Day O'Conner so nicely provided. What really bothers me about the process for of finding her replacement is the emphasis on finding a woman to replace her. A woman on the radio yesterday said repeatedly, as did her interviewee, that Bush should give "serious consideration" this time around to appointing a woman. This is meant to imply that he did not last time. The bothersome thing about this is that people don't mean he should give "serious consideration" to appointing a woman. They mean, and should come out and say, that anything other than a female nominee will be a giant step back, and if he doesn't appoint a woman it will be a huge disappointment.
Why does it need to be a woman to replace O'Conner? For the same reason Martha Burke protests the Masters. Because special interest groups in this country have their heads too far up their asses to think intelligently and focus on the good of the country over their own agenda.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was indeed a conservative, but throughout his 30+ years on the bench he has been a strong advocate of less judicial activism, and not more. Most will point to his handling of the 2000 election case as a counter to this, but it is simply a red herring and none who fall back on that single case have the desire or the ability to argue the point intelligently.
Rehnquist's leaving the court, by whatever road he took, was a fore gone conclusion. The balance has always hinged on other openings, which Sandra Day O'Conner so nicely provided. What really bothers me about the process for of finding her replacement is the emphasis on finding a woman to replace her. A woman on the radio yesterday said repeatedly, as did her interviewee, that Bush should give "serious consideration" this time around to appointing a woman. This is meant to imply that he did not last time. The bothersome thing about this is that people don't mean he should give "serious consideration" to appointing a woman. They mean, and should come out and say, that anything other than a female nominee will be a giant step back, and if he doesn't appoint a woman it will be a huge disappointment.
Why does it need to be a woman to replace O'Conner? For the same reason Martha Burke protests the Masters. Because special interest groups in this country have their heads too far up their asses to think intelligently and focus on the good of the country over their own agenda.
Youshutup the Vile wrote:
What constitution?
The one we're burning, one article at a time?
Recent Visitors: 178
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (178)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Rehnquist dead
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC