Reply
Tue 20 May, 2003 02:58 am
This came from cbsnews.com's "Washington Wrap; I have excerpted most of it below:
Quote:Citing unnamed but "well-informed court observers," New York Newsday says there could be as many as two Supreme Court resignations next month. Chief Justice "Rehnquist's resignation is considered likely though not certain and Sandra Day O'Connor's is considered likely by some court observers but less likely by others." And yet another seat could open if Justice John Paul Stevens, 83, retires; though that is considered "unlikely."
There has been no change in the court since President Clinton appointed Justice Stephen Breyer in 1994 -- the longest period without turnover in 180 years -- and partisans on both sides are getting ready for a fierce battle.
Conservatives are split between Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to fill the chief justice's slot, and over the question of whether potential nominee White House counsel Alberto Gonzales has a strong enough anti-abortion record.
Democrats are gearing up, as well. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, in a speech on Saturday night at the Ohio Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, talked about the potential resignations as "sounding bugles in a tremendous struggle." He said President Bush's judicial nominees shared a common goal of wanting to take the U.S. back to 1952. "The term right-wing extremists doesn't even begin to capture how out of the mainstream these folks are ... and George Bush wants to put them on the highest Court of the land."
How do you feel about Bush potentially nominating three Supreme Court justices before the election in 2004? Will we see the destruction of
Roe v. Wade? Will the erosion of civil liberties (such as Patriot II) increase?
Weigh in, please...
(Titled edited for topicality...)
What are the top 6 reasons you vote for a president?
It's not enough to vote for a president because of Supreme Court candidates (although that is my own personal first criteria), there are other issues that should be of concern to all citizens.
What are the top 6 reasons you vote for a presidential candidate? Is you vote based solely on political party or on issues?
My presidential voting record reflects my civil rights and social justice concerns for my country.
!. SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS (and Federal Judge nominations.)
2. Is the candidate a uniter or divider of the American people?
3. Appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.
4. Appointments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Communications Commission.
5. Appointments to the Treasurery Department.
6. Appointments to the FBI and CIA.
If a president performs well in these six areas, almost everything else will be protected.
-----BumbleBeeBoogie
I have to admit that the Supreme Court appointments
are SO HUGE on my agenda of what's important about
who is in office - I would LOVE to see Sandra O'Connell
resign, but that's doubtful. I thought these appointments
were generally for life - and many members never leave
the Supreme Court until they are put in a pine box.
I would hate to see ANY Supreme Court openings until
we have a different president in office. Who the Pres.
appoints to other key positions is critical also, but then
at least THESE can change with whoever is in office,
whereas a Supreme Court Judge is for life, if they want
it. We already have a highly conservative panel of SC
judges .... I would just shudder to think of the persons
who Bush et al might consider as possibilities. I don't
think that a sufficient number of Americans are given
sufficient education about the immensity of importance
about WHO gets Supreme Court appointments. Based on
who gets appointed to this the highest of all courts, we
will ALL have to live with "their version" or interpretation
of our Constitution for as long as they live in many cases
& that can be a very, very long time.
I will be supremely disappointed if the Democrats hand Bush what he wants in this matter.
edgar:
If Owen and Estrada are any indication, Jusidical nominatios are one of the few areas where Democrats have shown a real consistent SPINE!
I wonder if we're helping!
And Souter did not turn out as Bush (senior) expected.
Since the Supreme Court decision on Roe vs Wade,
it doesn't seem very likely or intelligent to bring up
this issue again at THIS late date. There will always
be anti abortionists, just like there will always be
PLENTY of unwanted children who are out there, as
we speak - unfed, uncared for, abused, BUT unless a
move is made to stop these daily horror stories, I
truly do doubt that a move on Bush's part to appoint
someone with a strong anti abortion history will not
pass ... even WITH congress in his corner in some
ways. There are too many women who are pro choice,
but who, unlike their opposition, simply are not prone
to commit violent & illegal acts to prove it. The fact
that WE are out here in vast numbers isn't a fact that
is lost on anyone in Washington. The fact that we do
not bomb buildings or kill people to assert our position
simply shows who is more intelligent and far larger
in numbers of voters. As I always say when it comes
to this topic ... there is only ONE THING that will make
a believer out of me that these antiabortionists are
truly following a just cause - and that will be the day
when they START ADOPTING ALL OF THESE UNWANTED
KIDS, for whom our country can't even find enough
foster homes for, let alone permanent homes...even if
the child is beaten at home - chances are that kid is
STILL safer at home than he/she would be in a foster
home situation. So, YES by all means - get on out
there and SHOW US THAT YOU CAN PUT YOUR MONEY
WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS- and the only way to do that
in MY book, is for these fervent antiabortionists to
start adopting all of these unwanted children.
Otherwise - shut the he** up!
yes, BBB, your list is great, but who do you believe fits that bill among the current crop of pretenders to the throne of the Shrub?
Who should/could beat W?
SC, who should (not could) beat President Bush in 2004? My first choice would be Main Governor Howard Dean. I think he has the courage to take on Bush et al as the best representative of the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
John Kerry would be my second choice because he has enough name recognition and some courage to take on and beat Bush.
However, the Democrats would have to demonstrate to me that they are returning to the heart and soul of the Democratic Party before they would have my support. Yet I'm not sure that sufficient numbers of political independents are ready to support those true democratic party positions. I'm afraid too many people have swallowed the Bush myths and vote against their self-interests by manipulation based on devisive wedge political issues that have nothing to do with governing.
I've not voted for democrats or republications in the last two presidential elections.
---BumbleBeeBoogie
BBB: In both 1996 and 2000 I voted for Nader, but I am so afraid of what has happened already and what is quite possibly in store for our 'future' that I am just about to the point where I am willing to suck it up and just vote Democratic. I don't think you should be pessimistic about Dean's chances; at this early point, he is ahead in state polling and we do vote state by state. When they do a nationwide poll, he drops. I don't have the reasoning behind that, but hey, I saw it on the news so it must be true
.
Zogby Poll re Democratic Candidates
Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is the most popular Democratic presidential candidate in New Hampshire polling by Zogby International for the state's primary election next January, followed closely by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, 25% - 22%. Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman was a distant third at 10%.
Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt, regarded as likely to win the Democratic caucus in Iowa, finished fourth in New Hampshire polling with 7%. North Carolina Senator John Edwards and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich each earned 2% of the vote, and the three remaining declared candidates, Florida Senator Bob Graham, civil rights activist Rev. Al Sharpton, and former Illinois Senator Carol Mosely Braun, tallied less than one percent each. More than one in four (27%) likely voters remain undecided.
More than three-fourths (76%) of the likely Democratic primary voters said they think it is very likely (34%) or somewhat likely (42%) that President George W. Bush will be re-elected, regardless of how they intend to vote.
Wll, PD - the summer session has ended, and all nine justices have indicated they will be returning for the fall session. Not only that; they have handed down some decisions that had to be a surprise to the WH, all things considered.
Is the situation changed? Have they - O'Connor and Rehnquist - decided to stay on because of changed attitudes? Is Scalia disappointed not that it looks like he won't be appointed Chief Justice soon?
What a difference a day makes.
Let's just hope no one kicks suddenly...
I found a great essay by Mark Steyen at the Chicago Sun-Times. Here's a small piece of it:
Quote:The correct term is ''racial quotas,'' but that's too bald, too clear. So its proponents came up with the coy evasion of ''affirmative action.'' But over the years that also became tarnished. Hence the invention of ''diversity.'' Who could be against ''diversity''? Who wouldn't want to celebrate it? It's the perfect enlightened vapidity.
But whoever thought it'd fly as a legal concept? Last week, the court had before it two models of University of Michigan diversity: In the first version--the undergraduate school's system--they give you 20 points for being black. You need 150 points to get in. So, by being born black, you're 13 percent of the way there.
Tough for whitey, but he knows the rules. If Albert Gore IV wants to get into the joint, he understands Jesse Jackson XXVII has got a head start and he's gonna have to make up those 20 points somewhere else. Being a scion of the first Android American to run for president is not an approved minority group. Nor is being a Jew or Asian or a Pacific islander from Tuvalu.
Cruel, but it's all there in the fine print. Down the road at the Law School, the same thing goes on in practice, but it's all swathed and swaddled in vague, soothing multiculti mumbo-jumbo and is ''flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according them the same weight,'' whatever that means. But whatever it means, it's less vulgar than handing out points for pigmentation.
As Swingin' Sandra put it, approvingly, the Law School (like Sandra) ''engages in a highly individualized, holistic review . . . flexible, non-mechanical . . . soft variable . . . nuanced judgment . . . potential to enrich . . .'' Zzzzzzzz.
Which is the point. The court's message is: As long as we don't see how the sausage is made, you're OK. Take your ''soft variables'' into the smoke-filled room. Worse, the court has dignified ''diversity''--a flag of activist convenience, a wily obfuscation--as a compelling state interest, and on its promoters' terms.
Here's the rest of it.
Wow, PDiddie, I read the entire article and that is a good one!
Wanna get ill? Go to "Should Bush Be Punished", start from page 10 and read through to the end. (sorry I didn't get the link, but I'm fairly certain it's under Politics...) It was enough for me to change my usual Dubya signature quotes to what I now have, at least for a while. . .
I'm not touching that thread, sweetie...
if only I hadn't acted on the PM I received . . . if only . . . now Sweetie's hurting . . .
Sweetie - there are many difficult threads. And some of the worst are the ones where people speak up as self-proclaimed experts wishing for the role of phrophet. After long experience with abuzz (on which so many here participated), it's better to keep one's distance from those threads, unless............ But you do learn some basic opinions of people. Some are eye-opening. Some are surprises on the other side. But sooner or later, they tend to get nasty.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace