any thoughts on the new nominee? he seems awfully young...

and a LOT of issues at stake here.

i was kind of in and out of sleep while MSNBC was on in the background talking about what conservatives want in a nominee... something did pull me from my haze. someone said they wanted a pro-lifer AND pro-death penalty. it struck me as really ODD. so which IS it?



anyone think this timing is odd with ROVE's publicity? and did anyone notive Dumbya's flip-flop on the "firing" of any staff from leaking an agents name to committing a crime? what do they really have to do?? kill someone in broad daylight caught on tape with a thousand witnesses?

you're spot on about his timing. typical bush. deflecting attention from other issues by throwing something else out there for the people to chew on.

i haven't heard this guy's political positions. i'm curious. but i did hear something about him saying he couldn't find any constitutional support for abortion.

He is Clean.

What does that mean?

20 months of case history is all we have to get dirty over ... that's the point, he's a stealth Right Winger


Connect the dots ...

He's Catholic

Appointed by Reagan

Promoted by G.H.W. Bush

Worked with Ken Starr in 2000 to get G.W. Bush elected

Pro business, Anti regulation

Anti Civil Rights



A DC insider worth over $3M who has given money only to **********s his whole life.



So do you mean "clean" like 'grease us up the ass' here comes the 1920's ???

I'll withhold judgment for the moment. But first impression is that its not as bad as it could have been, which from this group of scum is about as much as I could hope for.

the big problem with him is he has virtually NO track record as a judge and he was a corporate wh0re as a lawyer...


no constitutional support for freedom eh? he certainly sounds like a big ole weiner.

What did you expect?


Their middle of the road is the right of the right.


It will take a long time for it to come back around.

so canada passed gay marriage i hear...



wasnt amerika supposed to be free?


so on the chopping block.
roe v wade
affirmative action.

what else?

lawsuits with large damages ... "frivolous" lawsuite ... like the tobacco suit,

and product liability? forget it!

(buyer beware baby, here come a great oppotunity for the greedy and irresponsible to make some jack!)

What else?? How about taking your property and giving to someone else to build a condo?

no, they already did that one.... hopefully one of them gets their house swiped from em.

aj, from what I have read, it was the liberal side of the court that upheld this ridiculous anti-constitutional law. Yeah, it would be interesting if it happened to one of them or the land around them.

It was, yes. Conservatives, liberals... they both have their strengths and weaknesses... it's never a bad time to be a centrist. Too bad there ain't to many of em.

And by the way, has anyone heard anything about Justice Souter's home getting seized? I know I started a thread about it awhile back when the story broke lol... haven't heard much since.

fwiw, there should be NO side on the supreme court. they all should be independants.

In theory yes lol. On paper... well, I guess one can't avoid being labeled liberal or conservative judging by track records.

Why are we still doing lifetime appointments? I hate the idea of people becoming comfortable with power. There are floods of qualified people practicing law, with morals, ethics, and an understanding of accurate constitutional interpretations. I don't see why The Supremes lol should be hanging onto their seats with dying breaths before they relinquish their positions.

technically, they are simply there to uphold the consitution... and thats IT.

they're doin a grand job. dfegad

in a changing world there is no "uphold" without "clarify" and "relate"

and this is where interpretation comes in.

Absolutely.
How, exactly, does that affect displaying the ten commandments in a court?

alienation of OTHER religions.... its like me swearing on the bible.... i dont give a f'uck its a bible, isnt gonna make me tell any truth or lies. its just a waste of paper. in fact pull back my thumb, index, ring and pinky when i "swear" on it in court....

Yeah, well I would say it means absolutely not.

huh?

Sorry, should have quoted the reference. I meant that, to me, the First Amendment absolutely prohibits explicitly religious displays in US courtrooms.

well that ruling was very open-ended. 50/50 in a way... the whole historical argument can't be entirely nullified.... at the same time, you make a fair point as well. which is probably why they ruled so inconclusively

Extreme Makeover

That is why it is ridicules to suggest the court should not "interpret" the constitution. I think the first amendment, in Jefferson's words, creates a "wall of separation" between church and state. But how do you apply that to specific cases? I actually think the Court, by taking both cases at once, reached a reasonable compromise. One display was explicitly religious and one was not. So one was acceptable and one was not.

no religion is acceptable in the government... politicians should be forced to be athiest.

that's actually too far left to be in line with the US Constitution ... and it sounds like the far right in the "should do" category! At the extreme L and R Fascism and Communism are both full of "should" ... while a moderate Capitalism with heavy Socialist restraints against Coporate exploitation of power is more in the "could" mindset of Compromise and Choice.


A Representative Government is by definition full of Reps who look like the people of the country and at best reflect their needs and desires. the goal in the US was for the Senate to be more wise and the House to be more emotional and selfish.

In the view of the brilliant founders, Religion as a faith-based thing, is actually ABOVE or OUTSIDE of the scope of the civil service's fact, fairness and justice based work we call "the government". In other words, the family was the be all end all of morality and the Government was supposed to protect the family and individuals right to choose. Even if they choose the wrong thing. (This is a Christian view to some extent, where God allows free beings to **** up, as a way of self-education.)

The goal situation in the US is for the Reps to see Government for what it is, and for them to choose to not to legislate their own religious view for all people, but to protect the little guys at all times against the excessive power that Royalty had under the previous system.

This has been lost in the extreme competiton of an advanced capitalism's energy spread into US politics, where winning is more important than serving the good of the country as a whole, and where Big Money interests are a more powerful infuence than the will of the people the Reps actually represent.

it was tongue in cheek... snide sarcasm.