How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


25 posted 07-04-2005 02:43 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Well, it'll just depend on if a consensus or confrontational candidate is chosen.

The Democrats didn't say they were going to filibuster no matter what the nomination is. They just warned they have the option and they'll use it if they have to.

I'm willing to bet if it's a centrist candidate, it will all run smoothly with only a peep of criticism.

But if it's a candidate that obviously favors extreme-leaning partisanship, of course there will be conflict, and a filibuster is likely.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


26 posted 07-04-2005 08:46 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

How about a nominee who is an 'originalist', who believes that it is the role of the judiciary ONLY to interpret the law and the Constitution on the basis of its clear and original intent when written, doesn't believe in legislating from the bench (that's what legislatures are for), doesn't believe that the Constitution is a 'living, breathing, ever-evolving document', and doesn't believe that we need to look to Europe for guidance when issuing rulings and proclaiming public policy, most often at odds with the will of the governed, 'we the people' (that's what elections are for)? Would that be considered extreme-leaning partisanship? I suspect for most of the Left such a nominee would be most unacceptable. We threw off the chains of British tyranny once and have now settled for judicial tyranny? What a waste of the vision, courage and blood of our ancestors.

I would like Bush to nominate such a person. I don't know if he will, but that is the type of person I would like to see nominated. And I agree with Balladeer, whomever he chooses will be dragged through the mud and the Democratic leadership will fillibuster.

Maybe someday we will again have our rights restored, upheld and respected, where life is protected, and people are not deemed less than human and therefore unworthy of Constitutional protections due to illness, age, infirmaty and the burden or inconvenience those in such conditions may place on others. Maybe someday the exercise of religious expression in the town square will be fully restored. Maybe property ownership will once again mean ownership, with the owner retaining the right to sell or not to sell, and can't be forced to sell because the government can use the property for a lucrative tax windfall.

If so, then we can celebrate the true meaning of Independence Day again. As it stands now I can only celebrate the vision of our founders and the future possibilities.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


27 posted 07-05-2005 04:58 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

quote:
How about a nominee who is an 'originalist', who believes that it is the role of the judiciary ONLY to interpret the law and the Constitution on the basis of its clear and original intent when written, doesn't believe in legislating from the bench (that's what legislatures are for), doesn't believe that the Constitution is a 'living, breathing, ever-evolving document', and doesn't believe that we need to look to Europe for guidance when issuing rulings and proclaiming public policy, most often at odds with the will of the governed, 'we the people' (that's what elections are for)?


You never struck me as someone who would be opposed to women's suffrage, Denise.

Jim
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


28 posted 07-05-2005 05:46 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I personally find it heartbreaking and extremely sad how anyone could think of exploiting such a holiday which is not a leftist holiday nor a rightist holiday, but an American holiday.

I find it very unsettling myself how these days like Independence Day and September 11th, that have valued experiences to us all, regardless of ideology, keep being bended and such a conclusion that gets drawn here from the work we still have to achieve to fulfill America's fullest promise is to compare the Left to the ghosts of King George III and British tyranny, and why Independence Day is only half the holiday it ought to be.

I can't respect that sort of polarizing, confrontational rhetoric.

What I naturally meant by "extreme-leaning partisanship" was someone who operates only among party line, someone who lacks a sympathetic ear for the minority or other side in this polarized climate. Simply that.

I'm all for someone who interprets the Constitution and the law in decision-making. I also want someone who is a competent communicator; flexible, ethical and other-minded, who will work to serve the interests of the collective American public.

Sandra Day O'Connor was a great communicator. I disagreed with her much of the time politically, but the way she thought and decided more than makes up for those decisions I didn't quite agree with. She listened, and it's no surprise why, because of that, she has most likely become the most popular Supreme Court Justice, if not ever, certainly in recent years.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Juju
Member Elite
since 12-29-2003
Posts 3353
In your dreams


29 posted 07-05-2005 08:25 PM       View Profile for Juju   Email Juju   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Juju's Home Page   View IP for Juju

I don't think she meant it that way Noah.  She was simply approaching the arguement differently.  

-JUju

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


30 posted 07-05-2005 08:38 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Balladeer: If you are a betting man, I'd love a small wager that, no matter who Bush names, they will oppose.

LOL. That's certainly one way to look at it, Mike.

How much you want to bet that, in spite of many very suitable candidates, the Bush Administration will insist on putting forth one they know will be opposed?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


31 posted 07-05-2005 08:46 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

How much does anyone want to bet that no matter how much bellyaching the Dems do whomever Bush nominates will be confirmed?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


32 posted 07-05-2005 08:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Ron, suitable to whom is the question. That sounds like a trick bet to me!! Knowing that whoever they put up will be opposed it's logical that they will feel anyone they put up will be opposed. (welcome back, btw)

LR, no bet. Since most of the democratic belly-aching has little basis in fact, of course the nominee will be approved (but not before the dems throw every tantrum they can come up with, threaten, filibuster, threaten to close the government down and only back off when they see public opinion is against them)
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


33 posted 07-05-2005 09:08 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Again, I really do think it'll depend on how flexible and other-oriented the candidate is if there'll be conflict or not.

I'm absolutely for someone who is true to the Constitution. I respect that Denise desires someone who will give town squares the right to have Christmas celebrations and other religious-themed celebrations and property ownership at its fullest promise.

It's just like I would desire someone who is true to the Fourth Amendment, in that no unreasonable searches and break-ins should be allowed unless affirmed and/or accurately describing the place and cause for search, which the Patriot Act is allowing its erosion.

We'll just see after the G8 Summit who Bush nominates and then this discussion can become toned according to the tone of the nominee.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


34 posted 07-05-2005 09:22 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I'm certain the nominee will most likely be approved in any case, Balladeer.

I do believe the Democrats are within their rights to filibuster should the nominee be a confrontational one beyond Bush party lines.

Mind you also that when Frist was calling for the nuclear option before the abrupt surprise "compromise", a vast majority of the American public believed in order for someone to be confirmed as a federal judge, both parties must agree together the candidate deserves to be a judge, not that because one party had the most senators that they should have the right to pass whoever they want.

In addition, a strong majority of Americans believed that the Senate should play an assertive roll in examing each nominee rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.

With that said, I believe if Bush tries to force a nomination through who is potently one-sided and unilaterally-minded, and Democrats take action, Americans will see a fault of leadership in Bush in terms of trying to divide the country further and he'll face a setback as Frist did recently, even when he's likely to get the nomination through.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


35 posted 07-06-2005 09:59 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

LOL I'm not at all, Jim. I'm pretty sure that there was an Amendment to the Constitution on that issue that came out of the Legislative branch and then was sent for ratification to the states (which makes it part of the Constitution unless or until repealed...or struck down as unconstitutional by some nitwit judge somewhere ), so proper procedure was followed on that one and it didn't involve a fiat issued by the Judicial branch.

Tyranny is tyranny, Noah, and I personally don't see that the British had anything over our current Judiciary in that department.

I was not trying to be devisive or denegrate the celebration for anyone, or make the holiday 'less' somehow. I'm just expressing how I now view it. I can only celebrate the vision of what was meant to be (each branch of government being co-equal and not overstepping their respective authority) and the possibilities for that becoming more of a reality in the future, but I can't celebrate how things are today, so out of kilter as they are. And I think all three branches are equally responsible for the situation we have today. We are in dire need of some true statesmen and patriots if we are ever to see things change.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


36 posted 07-07-2005 04:07 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=17197

Obviously this is just one poll, and it doesn't tackle the possibility that Rehnquist's resignation or loss due to his frail health may result in a dual vacancy, but it is rather detailed, non-partisan and explicit and I believe it provides a general frame of where America wants to see our Supreme Court head.

Here's what the poll indicates:

*

1) About half of Americans believe this decision means a great deal to them. A quarter feel it is moderately important.

2) About 2 in 3 Americans believe in a  possible vote on Roe vs. Wade by a justice that it should be upheld rather than overturned.

3) Active churchgoers/conservatives/Republicans are divided/nearly split-even on whether Roe v. Wade should be voted to be overturned or upheld, with liberals and more secular citizens strongly suggesting it be upheld.

4) More Americans want the Supreme Court to become more conservative than liberal.

5) Gonzalez is seen much more favorably than unfavorably, despite half still unfamiliar with his background or don't know enough about him.

6) Roughly two in three Americans say it is at least somewhat likely that the president would appoint someone to the court who would let his or her religious beliefs inappropriately influence his or her legal decisions.

7) More than 8 in 10 Americans say it is very or somewhat likely that the Democrats in the Senate would attempt to block Bush's nominee for inappropriate political reasons.

8) A slim majority believe should the Democrats unite in opposing a nominee that Bush should nominate someone the Democrats find acceptable rather than holding to the nomination he finds appropriate for the job.

9) A slight majority believe should the  Democrats oppose a nomination based on disagreements of important issues that the Democrats should work to defeat the nomination rather than vote to confirm the nominee.

*

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


37 posted 07-19-2005 08:30 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

**************Update**************

Bush has chosen John G. Roberts Jr. as his Supreme Court Justice nomination.

I took some time to research of this man's positions throughout his career, and found three noticeable facts:

*****

1) While working as a counsel in the White House and as a former deputy solicitor for Ken Starr, Roberts supposed a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and would have resegregated public schools.

2) He made strongly anti-choice positions in two Supreme Court cases, one that severely restricted the ability of poor women to gain information about abortion services, and another that took away a key means for women to and clinics to combat anti-abortion zealots.

3) As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

*****

With this said, one message has been made loud and clear tonight; he would rather prefer to divide the country rather than unite it.

In light of this, I believe it appropriate the Democrats should unite and oppose this extreme-toned nomination.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


38 posted 07-19-2005 08:43 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

I'll withhold demonizing and character assassinations until President Bush ACTUALLY tells us who.  There's been wild and rampant speculation for the past week, even moreso throughout the bulk of today.  It might be him, it might not be him, but I'm sure of one thing: we'll find out soon enough.

Ok, found out. New thread.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors