Bush Nominates Roberts to Replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-21-2005, 12:10 PM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Democrats are scrambling for a strategy to get better control of the next nominee.

Roberts did the right thing by "playing it safe" with his answers. The alternative is that judicial appointments would essentially buy votes by taking stances on issues before they are confirmed. That would be a pure political model for appointment of Justices.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-21-2005, 02:25 PM   #77
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 11:55 PM
from John Edwards..

Dear Friend,

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the most important judge on the most important court in our country, responsible for protecting and upholding the rights and freedoms outlined in our Constitution. I have carefully reviewed Judge John Roberts' testimony and listened to him give unsubstantial, boilerplate answers and avoid answering even the most basic questions about his own views today.

Based on everything I have seen and read from Judge Roberts' work in the Reagan Administration, his past opinions, and his most recent testimony, I wanted you to be the first to know that I must oppose his nomination to be our country's Chief Justice.

I do so because we do know the views and positions he took prior to the recent hearings. Judge Roberts opposed efforts to remedy discrimination on the basis of sex and race. He opposed measures to protect voting rights. He denigrated the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose. He wanted to allow Congress to strip away courts' jurisdiction over controversial subjects.

Although he has presented himself as a supporter of judicial restraint, I do not see enough evidence that Judge Roberts would show restraint when his own political commitments are at stake. In light of his past positions, I believe he had an affirmative obligation to make the case to those who might confirm him that he repudiates the positions that he had previously advocated in his professional career. He made a choice and refused to meet that obligation. I cannot support someone who I am not convinced will preserve the liberties and freedoms that are enshrined in our Constitution and our laws.

Please join me in fighting for the principles and values that each of us cherish. Contact your Senators and tell them to vote no on Judge Roberts' nomination.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-21-2005, 02:29 PM   #78
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 12:55 AM
As much as I do love John Edwards, I think it would be very counterproductive to mount an opposition to Roberts. I stand by my earlier statements that liberals could do far, far worse than John Roberts, and that no one can argue with his credentials--they're sterling to say the least.

I think the Dems should hold their fire on this one and wait and see who the next nominee is. I suspect you may see less Rehnquist/O'Connor and more Scalia/Thomas in Bush's next pick, and that's who the Democratic Senators would really need to fight.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-21-2005, 02:32 PM   #79
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Leahy to vote for Roberts

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday he will vote to confirm John Roberts for chief justice of the United States after leading lawmakers met with President Bush to discuss candidates for the other high court vacancy.

The announcement by veteran Sen. Patrick Leahy came amid virtually unprecedented executive-legislative branch jockeying over not one, but two high court openings, seats left vacant by the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the retirement of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Roberts' confirmation was virtually assured even before Leahy's announcement. The Vermont senator's decision, made public shortly after he and three other leading senators met privately with Bush at the White House to discuss candidates for O'Connor's place on the bench, came on the eve of the Judiciary panel's vote on whether to favorably recommend Roberts' confirmation.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 01:35 PM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Senate Judiciary Committee votes 13-5 in favor

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved John Roberts' nomination as the next Supreme Court chief justice, virtually assuring the conservative judge confirmation by the Senate next week.

Three Democrats joined the committee's 10 majority Republicans in a 13-5 vote to advance the nomination to the full Senate.

Five Democrats -- Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Joseph Biden of Delaware, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois -- opposed Roberts.

Feinstein, the committee's only woman, announced she would oppose Roberts, while Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, decided to support making the conservative judge the nation's 17th chief justice.

"I will vote my hopes today and not my fears," Kohl said.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-22-2005, 02:42 PM   #81
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Democrats are scrambling for a strategy to get better control of the next nominee.

Roberts did the right thing by "playing it safe" with his answers. The alternative is that judicial appointments would essentially buy votes by taking stances on issues before they are confirmed. That would be a pure political model for appointment of Justices.


i think you're right. Roberts was the best politician in the room.

the fight is coming up. as i mentioned in another post, i predict a fire-breathing right-wing activist minority judge. and a brutal battle.

the country is united (or at least collectively aghast) at the gross incompetence of the Bushies, post-Katrina and as Iraq crawls towards 2000 dead. also, if you read the two opposite ends of right wing columnists (the lovely Peggy Noonan http://www.opinionjournal.com/column...?id=110007291, or the bat-shit insane Ann Coulter, http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi), they are rather appalled at the post-Katrina spending grotesqueries.

time for Bush to rile the base with a little fire and brimstone.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 01:15 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Roberts confirmed as chief justice

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Judge John Roberts was easily confirmed Thursday to be the 17th chief justice of the United States, winning Senate approval with a solid majority.

He is expected to be sworn in to the post later in the day during a ceremony at the White House. He will be sworn in by the senior associate justice, John Paul Stevens.

The 78-22 vote ended a nearly three-month roller coaster ride for the 50-year-old federal appeals judge.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 02:11 PM   #83
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:55 PM
it's done.

now, get ready for the equivalent of "revenge of the sith."

got your popcorn?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 02:28 PM   #84
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:55 PM
also, methinks that the DeLay bru-ha-ha will make Bush that much more likely to nominate a fire breathing social conservative in the Scalia mold in order to change the conversation to the silly emotionalism of "moral values" and divert media attention away from all the GOP scandals and the newest catch-phrase "culture of corruption."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 04:36 PM   #85
New Yorker
 
Sherry Darling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,857
Local Time: 12:55 AM
From Wonkette

http://wonkette.com

Roberts First Act: Installing Bush as Senate Leader

From the official White House transcript of today's swearing in of the Chief Justice: The process we have just completed epitomizes the separation of powers that is enshrined in our Constitution.

My nomination was announced some 10 weeks ago here in the White House, the home of the executive branch. This morning, further up Pennsylvania Avenue, it was approved in the Capitol, the home of the executive [sic] branch. And tomorrow, I will go into the Supreme Court building to join my colleagues, the home of the judicial branch, to undertake my duties.

Well, two out of three ain't bad. Also? The White House wishes...

Full remarks after the jump.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
__________________
Sherry Darling is offline  
Old 09-29-2005, 08:54 PM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 11:55 PM
For the big deal that was made about this, it was relatively painless. I just have to wonder who he'll nominate next, this should be interesting.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 01:53 AM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
also, methinks that the DeLay bru-ha-ha will make Bush that much more likely to nominate a fire breathing social conservative in the Scalia mold in order to change the conversation to the silly emotionalism of "moral values" and divert media attention away from all the GOP scandals and the newest catch-phrase "culture of corruption."
If Bush's numbers were much higher, he would nominate Bork. He may just nominate an African American woman.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 02:58 AM   #88
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


If Bush's numbers were much higher, he would nominate Bork. He may just nominate an African American woman.

bork was unfit
during his hearings he defended poll taxes
-a mental weakling

Justice Janice Rogers Brown?



another bad choice
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 08:45 AM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
bork was unfit
during his hearings he defended poll taxes
-a mental weakling
Bork challenged the underlying principles to many concepts - he was willing to ask the hard, intellectual questions (like what is a right of privacy?)

Legally, a brilliant man.

Politically, a sitting duck.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-30-2005, 10:12 AM   #90
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


If Bush's numbers were much higher, he would nominate Bork. He may just nominate an African American woman.


see, i think he's got to rally his base.

i predict a fire-and-brimstone minority female.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com