Bush Fools Everyone
I think Dick Turban was already howlin’ too. Teddy will chime in when he’s through observing Chappaquiddic Day and puts down the empty bottle. Somebody wake the Klansman and tell him. He’ll be indignant and self righteous, of course.
I’m curious how the jr. Sen from NY will react. Probably weighing her options as we type.
Lessee…
His bio here states that he graduated from Harvard College, summa cum laude, in 1976, and received his law degree, magna cum laude, in 1979 from the Harvard Law School.
Look at that one line and just TRY to wrap your mind around that. I can’t. And naturally the DU types are having grand mal hissy fits over it.
*sits back with beer and popcorn* This should be FUN…
*does some more reading and finds this...ok someone put a microphone in front of that idiot Dean again *headdesks*
Severa: ED-ZACHARY! Dean & Co. (much less the DU’ers) are probably having apoplectic fits right about 5-4-3-2-1 .... BOOM!
Thanx fer the link. I see Dean, The Scream Machine is already needing his medication again.
Pass the popcorn!
I see a Republican plot in Dean being named as DNC chair. That Karl, what a sneaky bugger he is. Sheer genius!
Whew. Two or three more like Judge Roberts and we might get our country back. Now let’s see how loud the Left screams while they twist and squirm on the point of the Filibuster Fourteen spear Bush just shoved right up their ass.
Anybody wanna bet the list of “extreme circumstances” will get very long between now and September when Congress returns to session? Damn shame Bush gave the Dems ~six weeks to dig for dirt rather than have the Judiciary Committee put him on the floor next week for a vote.
He was first nominated for the DC circuit seat by GHW Bush in 1992, and the Clintonoid Senate never gave him a hearing. GW Bush nominated him again in 2001 to the DC Circuit, but Jeffords (spit) defected giving the Senate back to the Dems. who once again stalled on Roberts. Bush renominated him in 2003 after the Senate Republicans regained control, and he sailed through on a unanimous vote.
If the Dems had any sense, they would lay low and save their ammo for the next nomination, because this guy is so squeaky clean and qualified they will look foolish if they seriously try to reject him.
But I bet they won’t, and we’ll alternately rage and laugh at those seditious socialist ratbastards while they lie and make fools of themselves.
Not only do I want to see the Senate Donks try to filibuster Judge Roberts, I also would like to see NARAL (co-sponsored by NOW) stage massive ”Screw Abstinence” rallies, where participants would not chant, not chain themselves to a fence...but just fuck and fuck and fuck and fuck and fuck and fuck and fuck and fuck...and fuck until it hurts and then fuck some more!
That way, the country can see how disgustingly fucked up the Democrats have become now that they are owned lock, stock and barrel by MoveOn.org!He picked a 50 year old to do it, could probably pull a good 30 years on the bench considering the advances in medicine.
No surprise with the age group. I think Rehnquist was about 42 when he was appointed in 1972.
Anyway the youngest justice, Joseph Story, was 32 when appointed and the oldest, Horace Lurton, was 65 when appointed.
Roberts is actually near the top of the age bracket, considering the ages of the present justices when appointed. A little work with Excel and some info I gleaned off of the net gives me these ages for the present justices when appointed:
Rehnquist; -42
Stevens; -50
O’Connor; -46
Scalia ; -43
Kennedy; -45
Souter ; -44
Thomas; -36
Ginsburg; -53
Breyer; -49These ages don’t account for birthdays and whether they were appointed before or after their b’day. Live with it.
Geeze, the shit I get into when I can’t sleep.
I guess next time I’ll actually look into it.
Nothing wrong with what you posted, Elliott. It raised a question in my mind, considering that Rehnquist is closing in on the longevity record: nearly 34 years.
Your point is still valid: This guy should last a good long while. I think this is one of the longest courts to have served together without a new appointment.
I’ve heard some disgruntled rumblings about term limits and age restrictions, mostly from the party not making the apointments.
appointments, that is.
I saw Teddy on the tube this morning trumpeting up and down about how qualified and well-respected Roberts is. I just sat there listening...waiting for the “But...we’re gonna slam him hard anyway...” Seriously, if Bush appoints someone, they’re in for rough waters. The only way someone could get a pass on this is if they think like the Left. Hell, you could stick someone in there with less qualifications than Vinny Gambini...as long as he agrees w/ Roe v. Wade. It boils down to a plain and simple power struggle. It’s becoming more and more obvious with each passing day and, God willing, the people might wake up and notice it someday soon. Politics is nothing more than a team sport with a more heated rivalry than the Sox and Yankees. The Dems are not out for the people, rather their own agenda. They lost the White House...they lost the Senate and House. What’s the last avenue open to push their personal views? The SCOTUS...batten down the hatches, there’s a storm brewin’ off the Port side…
Um StinKerr-Hugh Hewitt was list the nomination ages of the current Justices last night.
Thomas was in his early 40’s-not his last 30’s.
Thank-see.
Btw-The Tribune profiled Roberts and Luttig a few weeks back.
Roberts sounds like he’ll be just what the SCOTUS needed.
Posted by Annoying Little Twerp
07/20/2005 at 09:12 AM
Picking the most qualified canidate was more important that filling some quota!
Bush done good!Posted by Annoying Little Twerp
07/20/2005 at 09:40 AM
Still should have been a woman
Why? The above statement just smacks of racism.
(insert black/white/hispanic/etc. in place of “woman")
The best qualified for the job regardless of race or gender is what is required and should be the rule of thumb everywhere.
Posted by gdonovan
07/20/2005 at 10:58 AM
Sorry Cat, you’re caving to the femiNazis with that attitude!
Ahh Ruth Bader GInsberg is enough.. what they need is a Transvestite.. LOL.... JK
The court should have the best people for the job regardless of race or gender.
Gender or race is NO guarantee of balance! Just look in the real world where “balance” has been tried in governments, schools and business over competence and see how well that has worked out.
Posted by gdonovan
07/20/2005 at 01:21 PM
Not fearful at all (’cept for the Hildabeast,lol)
Just pointing out the elephant in the room.
Can you explain to me please what term limits has to do with race & gender in regards to picking someone for a job? I fail to make the connection.
Posted by gdonovan
07/20/2005 at 01:38 PM
You are correct, Barb. It seems that the information I was using was out of date by seven years My apologies to all.
Here’s a hastily updated version:
Rehnquist; -49
Stevens; -57
O’Connor; -53
Scalia ; -50
Kennedy; -53
Souter ; -51
Thomas; -43
Ginsburg; -60
Breyer; -56This is sure to be wrong too, but it’s closer to being correct than the other.
Since I didn’t credit my source, I can’t bitch about them now. Just be careful with online encyclopedias.
Term limits that coincide with presidential terms........would balance the Court.
Are you saying that every new President gets to appoint a new court? Oh yeah, that’ll be sure to remove the court from any tinge of politics.
Balance?
Still need to explain how race & gender have anything to do with term limits.
Posted by gdonovan
07/20/2005 at 05:13 PM
Sure, can’t answer, avoid.
Posted by gdonovan
07/20/2005 at 05:24 PM
To answer the question- What color the court is doesn’t matter to me a whit as long as the Constitution is followed as the founders intended and judges don’t legislate from the bench.
Posted by gdonovan
07/20/2005 at 05:31 PM
You have no case to rest.
Posted by gdonovan
07/20/2005 at 05:35 PM
As a matter of fact we DO elect new representatives every time we elect a President. If fact we have the opportunity to change them every two years. The Senators are staggered six year terms. So we get the opportunity to replace 1/3 of them every election. But you knew that.
The intent of making the Supreme Court and Federal Judgeship appointments a lifetime tenure was to remove politics and the influence of politics from the position. Judge X can make a decision based on his/her judgement without having an eye cocked towards the next election or political rewards or retribution.
Appointing and ratifying the appointment of someone to a lifetime position must be a sobering one, requiring deep consideration and investigation. After all, the only way to remove them is if they commit an impeachable offense.
It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty damn good.
Federal judges have been impeached. One of them, Alcee Hastings, is serving in Congress. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and if you fool enough you can get elected to Congress.
U.S. Constitution, Article III Section 1, Frank. ”The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour...” I thought I had outlined the reasons for it in my earlier post.
If you would make an argument for term limits, OCM, I’d be glad to discuss it further. I’m sure others would join the discussion.
I would consider long terms that were non renewable, given enough reason to change the way things are.
By long term, I’m thinking of ten years or so and I’d make them non renewable (everybody only ever gets one term) to keep the incumbent from being influenced in decisions by the prospect of being reappointed. This would serve to the same effect as lifetime appointments which give a certain immunity to political pressure and other considerations which reappointment or election could cause.
Congress can be bypassed in the amendment process by 2/3 of the state legislatures voting for a convention to propose the amendment(s).
It would still require 3/4 of the states to approve though, so it could be done without Congress but the approval/adoption standards are just as high. At least that’s the way I read Article V. Congress is not the sole initiator of an amendment. Those framers were some pretty bright guys.
I’m sort of inclined to support term limits for Congress, but that’s just my sneaky way of eliminating Congresscritters I don’t like and have no vote to excercise against.
It’s hard not to support term limits when Kennedy, Byrd, Hatch or McCain (to be thoroughly bipartisan) start bloviating. I’m waiting to put the blocks to cryin’ George Voinovich in five years. I want to give him something to cry about. Unfortunately I can’t do anything about the four I mentioned or quite a few others whom I didn’t mention. I’ve got a list.
Good arguments can be made for and against term limits, which is probably another reason why we’ll never see them enacted.
I have imagination in spades; I do agree we agree to disagree.
Posted by gdonovan
07/21/2005 at 02:09 PM
All right, OCM. Go ahead. Give me a good reason for ‘em.
I think a few people will enjoy this insightful column in regards to what we have been discussing:
Posted by gdonovan
07/21/2005 at 08:37 PM
Very interesting, gdonovan, but hardly a point that will be taken up by the chattering class. I mean, come on, merit being the priority for a Supreme Court Justice? [gasp] Who’d have thunk it? Certainly not the moonbats. Which is another point in it’s favor.
Dubya sure likes to drive ‘em nuts, doesn’t he?
I’m not following your logic- “deserve” has nothing to do with it since the the period of time to serve was chosen for a reason for this office.
You ask me to apply common sense so I shall- History has shown the current system to work for the most part and I see no reason to change it. Common sense tells me that humans being humans some judges will try to leave their “mark” on the system if they have a short term in which to sit on the bench.
A short term allows the system to be exposed to more judges of lesser quality as well, since in any group of people there are a small number of exceptional choices and a greater number of mediocre ones.
Posted by gdonovan
07/22/2005 at 09:54 AM
Washington could have served for life had he chosen to, but he set the example for his successors, with the notable exception of Franklin Roosevelt. Nobody wanted another Roosevelt so the Constituion was amended to prevent that. Good idea? Bad idea? I dunno. I do know that Bubba wants the job back again. He has said as much. If you’d like to have him back again term limits are a bad idea. If you don’t want him back again, term limits are a good idea. Your pick. I dunno how Dubya feels about it. You can substitute him for Bubba and see if you feel any differently. Fair enough?
Let’s face it, the President is a high profile individual. Not one of 9, 100 or 435. One person who heads one entire branch of government. No one person has that kind of power in the other branches. I suspect that the Legislative branch is jealous. Almost all of them want to be President, you know. It’s the epitome of the political realm.
Give me a reason for Supreme Court Justices to be term limited. That’s where this discussion started. I’m willing to consider and discuss any good reasons you might have. I’ll bet we could get a good discussion going on the subject.
We have term limits- they die or retire.
Stop thinking short term.
Posted by gdonovan
07/22/2005 at 10:33 AM
Calling it by another name doesn’t change what it is, doublespeak anyone?
Posted by gdonovan
07/22/2005 at 11:01 AM
