Bush Nominates Roberts to Replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Re: Exploiting Katrina

nbcrusader said:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, said ... "As one nation under God, we cannot continue to ignore the injustice, the inequality and the gross disparities that exist in our society."

Wait, isn't it unconstitutional for Senator Kennedy, as a U.S. Senator, to refer to us as "one nation under God"?

~U2Alabama
 
Re: Re: Exploiting Katrina

U2Bama said:


Wait, isn't it unconstitutional for Senator Kennedy, as a U.S. Senator, to refer to us as "one nation under God"?

~U2Alabama

:rolleyes: Yeah Republicans are the only ones who believe...
 
Re: Re: Exploiting Katrina

U2Bama said:


Wait, isn't it unconstitutional for Senator Kennedy, as a U.S. Senator, to refer to us as "one nation under God"?

~U2Alabama

Shhhh. Please direct your attention to what Bush was or was not doing!
 
i voted for chuck schumer the last time he was up for re-election because for the most part he shyed away from the national spotlight and enhancing his own political career and concentrated on actually :gasp: helping the people of new york.

i see those days are gone.

he's now just another ideological douche who cares only about advancing his own political agenda. he's no better than hillary.

all my senators blow... please, rudy... hold off on the presidency and run for senate.
 
Last edited:
from what i can tell, Roberts poses no threats to either privacy or Roe v Wade.

can't wait to hear the outcries from Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell. i also fully expect Brownback, Santorum, and Ivanhoe to vote against his confirmation.

oh, wait ...
 
I really have to say that he's handled the pressure very well. I've listened to much of today's question on the NPR stream, and he seems incredibly cool and quick on his feet. Not to mention pretty darn intelligent and well-spoken.

Maybe Dubya should hang out with him more? :whistle:
 
Regardless of his specific stances, Roberts' appearance of being intelligent and logically consistent will likely ensure his confirmation. Considering some past Republican nominees like Scalia, Thomas, and (of course) Bork, I find it interesting that Bush *didn't* pick some hysterical fanatic like some of the people on his original short list of justices.

Melon
 
"Hysterical fanatic" is just how I would describe Scalia, Thomas and Bork.... :rolleyes:

It seems clear that certain members of the judiciary committee are the ones that come across as "hysterical fanatics"
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:


I doubt I'll approve of Bush's nominations any more than you do, but don't forget that Clinton appointed two Justices, as did the first President Bush. It's not as though Bush has been handed a golden opportunity to pack the court with conservatives any more than Clinton had a chance to pack the court with progressives.

I'm drawing a blank :reject:.

Who was the other Clinton appointee besides Ginsberg?
 
nbcrusader said:
"Hysterical fanatic" is just how I would describe Scalia, Thomas and Bork.... :rolleyes:


Nope, probably something like "hard-line, right-wing, misogynist, homophobic ideologues" would be more accurate. ;)
 
r2839689154.jpg
 
It was amazing seeing the difference between a Rep. interviewer and a Dem. The Dem. was 30 minutes of butting heads and Roberts evading questions....I think he is evading so much it could really hurt him.....

Rep. wasn't even 30 min. of questions; more like 30 min. of praise.

It seems like everyone is just going to vote along party lines....though Ginsberg is so liberal and as someone pointed out, she got 96 votes so it's possible to sway some from the other side.

At any rate, I do like him as a person and he is extremely smart. Brilliant is more like it.
 
Irvine511 said:

i think this is absolutely correct.

on this line of thought, check out _What's the Matter With Kansas_. the essential point is this: those who are most concerned with "moral" issues tend to be the devout working classes of the midwest and the south; they've been voting republican since the 80s or so with the promise that those who they elect will deliver on these moral issues, yet, all they have to show for it are tax breaks for the rich, service industry jobs, and dwindling public services that would benefit them the most.
VertigoGal said:
right. like the guy who helped us move, who has 10 children and proudly tells us he's voting for George W. Bush. my mom's parents live in rural TN and say they see this all the time...poor people voting against their own self-interests, but doing so because they sincerely believe in the values touted by conservative politicians.
So, so true. I've had this exact conversation several times after the last couple of presidential elections with some older, working class, conservative friends who are jubilant that 'they' won. They just don't understand that they are actually the big losers with this administration in office.

On topic - Since it's inevitable that the Republicans will try to get as conservative a judge on the Court as possible, it may as well be Roberts. He seems to be truly brilliant and he's young enough that he may adapt to changes in society.
 
Just watching parts of the confirmation hearings today, I have to say I really like the guy. You never know I suppose, but he doesn't strike me as a Thomas or Scalia type and he seems very intelligent and balanced to me. That was just the general feeling I got.
 
Here's something interesting:

Tradesports.com, which is like a stock market that mostly deals with sporting events, but also covers some political events as well. It's essentially a mechanism for quantifying "conventional wisdom." Roberts' stock yesterday was trading very well on the question of whether he will be confirmed. With respect to the number of votes he will get, there are a lot of people thinking he will get over 70 votes. Earlier I noticed there had been an uptick in trading at the "over 90" votes level.
 
I've got the hearings on again, and Roberts just made a very interesting comment about examining the likely "real-world impact" of Supreme Court decisions. The comment was made in the context of questions about affirmative action policies in the military, and Roberts seems to have agreed with O'Connor that real-world concerns can be factored into these decisions.

Again, this makes me think that Roberts has more of a pragmatic approach to law than some of the hard-line ideologues. The more I listen to the man in his own words, the more I think that, conservative or not, he could be a very good presence on the Supreme Court.
 
pax said:
I've got the hearings on again, and Roberts just made a very interesting comment about examining the likely "real-world impact" of Supreme Court decisions. The comment was made in the context of questions about affirmative action policies in the military, and Roberts seems to have agreed with O'Connor that real-world concerns can be factored into these decisions.

Again, this makes me think that Roberts has more of a pragmatic approach to law than some of the hard-line ideologues. The more I listen to the man in his own words, the more I think that, conservative or not, he could be a very good presence on the Supreme Court.



Pax: ever thought about law school?

bet you'd be good lawyer and one-day judge.
 
Back
Top Bottom