Bush Picks Judge Samuel Alito for Supreme Court

Ticomaya:

Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about.

Roberts joined Scalia's opinion in the death penalty case making it the majority opinion by a vote of 5-4.

Roberts joined Scalia's dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Oregon. He did NOT join the majority opinion that carried 6 votes.

I guess Bush got what he wanted: someone who would follow Scalia's lead.

I was hoping that Roberts, as the CHIEF JUSTICE, would be his own man instead of someone who would hide behind someone else's words.

I am WAITING for Roberts to actually lead the ROBERTS' COURT. I am waiting for Roberts to write an opinion that would signal that he actually follows the rule of law rather than his religious beliefs.

I am not opposed to the death penalty. Case in point: Joseph Edward Duncan deserves the death penalty. The death penalty, however, is the ultimate punishment and should be used sparingly and only in cases where its application cannot be reasonably questioned. Given the facts and circumstances of the death penalty case, the imposition of the death penalty was highly questionable.

If you had read Scalia's commentary on the government as God's minister and wielding the sword (the death penalty) on God's behalf, maybe you might also have concerns whether it is actually the rule of law that is being applied--or the will of God as perceived by members of our highest court.

Thus far, Roberts has joined Scalia's opinions that conveniently adhere to their shared religious beliefs. Again, how convenient for them.

I was hoping that Roberts, as the CHIEF JUSTICE, would be his own man instead of someone who would hide behind someone else's words. I am WAITING for Roberts to actually lead the ROBERTS' COURT. I am waiting for Roberts to write an opinion that would signal that he actually follows the rule of law rather than his religious beliefs.

If you had read Scalia's commentary on the government as God's minister and wielding the sword (the death penalty) on God's behalf, maybe you might also have concerns whether it is actually the rule of law that is being applied--or the will of God as perceived by members of our highest court.

Walter, now you have made the same mistake as George.

The important issue is Bush's Supreme Court appointments is not abortion, which was a smoke screen to divert attention away from their favor of increased presidential power. Bush's SC appointments have all been advocates of Unitary presidential-Executive Branch power. Bush is looking for their support when he is accused of breaking the law and violating the Constitution. Bush is successfully packing the court to protect himself.

BBB

The important issue is Bush's Supreme Court appointments is not abortion, which was a smoke screen to divert attention away from their favor of increased presidential power. Bush's SC appointments have all been advocates of Unitary presidential-Executive Branch power. Bush is looking for their support when he is accused of breaking the law and violating the Constitution. Bush is successfully packing the court to protect himself.

Libertarians should be alarmed at Bush's goals.

BBB

The important issue is Bush's Supreme Court appointments is not abortion, which was a smoke screen to divert attention away from their favor of increased presidential power. Bush's SC appointments have all been advocates of Unitary presidential-Executive Branch power. Bush is looking for their support when he is accused of breaking the law and violating the Constitution. Bush is successfully packing the court to protect himself.

Libertarians should be alarmed at Bush's goals.

BBB

I believe BBB is confusing virtue with the mere absence of opportunity for sin.

Thomas wrote:

Walter, now you have made the same mistake as George.

Indeed.

Thomas, The use of Court Packing language is common today with regard to Bush's attempt at it. It appears you prefer to get into a snit over a passe use of a word than address the real issue of Unitary Executive Bra

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Thomas, The use of Court Packing language is common today with regard to Bush's attempt at it. It appears you prefer to get into a snit over a passe use of a word than address the real issue of Unitary Executive Bra

Yes, it's a phrase commonly misused by the anti-Bush crowd for its pejorative negative effect.

It remains a misuse of the term.

The use of Court Packing language is common today with regard to Bush's attempt at it. It appears you prefer to get into a snit over a passe use of a word than address the real issue of Unitary Executive Branch, be my guest, but Im not impressed. ---BBB

Ticomaya wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Thomas, The use of Court Packing language is common today with regard to Bush's attempt at it. It appears you prefer to get into a snit over a passe use of a word than address the real issue of Unitary Executive Bra

Yes, it's a phrase commonly misused by the anti-Bush crowd for its pejorative negative effect.

It remains a misuse of the term.

Darwin was right. Words do evolve.

BBB

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

The use of Court Packing language is common today with regard to Bush's attempt at it. It appears you prefer to get into a snit over a passe use of a word than address the real issue of Unitary Executive Branch, be my guest, but Im not impressed. ---BBB

A lie doesn't stop being a lie just because the liar is telling it in boldface, or because many people tell it. It is just plain dishonest to use the word 'court packing' in the way you do, and even your own source explicitly states this. ("However, this use of the term is a misuse with political value. ") You are playing a game of "heads my lie sticks, tails I'll put down my opponent for calling me on it". I am not impressed either. And that's all I have to say about your agitprop terminology.