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  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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


0 posted 07-01-2005 02:40 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


http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/01/oconnor.letter.nobanner/index.html

In a suprising move to many, assuming Rehnquist would be the first to go, who is currently battling thyroid cancer, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor offered her letter of resignation to President Bush today.

O'Connor has been known to be the swing voice on a number of decisions, including these:

*

*

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act.

Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor’s opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment.

Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.

Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled.

Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary.

Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person.

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports.

Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events.

Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor.

Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates.

Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits.

McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties’ use of unlimited soft money contributions.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion.

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.

*

*

Now, with O'Connor slipping off the black robe, what direction may the Supreme Court move, especially with Rehnquist likely to also step down in the coming months?

Both sides of the aisle have begun voicing out on who should fill the position.

Current possible nominations include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III, though it can certainly be someone else entirely.

Will the next nomination be more moderate, or will it lean more conservative?

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


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

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 07-01-2005 05:35 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The stage is set for the same melodrama. Bush will nominate someone, Democrats will refuse it and filibuster if necessary, repubicans will threaten to break the filibuster, Democrats will threaten to shut the government down if the filibuster is broken.....so it goes.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


2 posted 07-01-2005 07:24 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Isn't it a shame we don't have statesmen instead of partisans.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


3 posted 07-01-2005 08:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

yep, somewhere i think it was written that there was not supposed to be politics involved in supreme court selections....their abilities to judge was to be the criteria....or maybe that was a story in Mother Goose. I get confused...
LoveBug
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 01-08-2000
Posts 5015


4 posted 07-01-2005 11:13 PM       View Profile for LoveBug   Email LoveBug   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LoveBug

Deer?

You rock!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 07-01-2005 11:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hey, there, love bug!!!
LoveBug
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 01-08-2000
Posts 5015


6 posted 07-01-2005 11:51 PM       View Profile for LoveBug   Email LoveBug   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LoveBug

Hey :P I love reading your political commentary!

My thoughts? She's served for many years, she's elderly, I think she has a right to retire. I know it will be a mess, replacing her. Of course, every time our president tries to do ANYTHING, his foes make it a mess. It's childish, really..

Love's a lovely lad
His bringing up is beauty
Who loves him not is mad
For I must pay him duty
-Anonymous

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


7 posted 07-02-2005 01:14 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

Well, I think this could be a decisive turning point in terms of the leadership on Bush's part here; if he'll be more of a uniter or more of a divider.

The next few weeks, possibly longer, will indeed be a real mess I believe. Bush is facing a lot of pressure right now from both sides of the aisle here, where if he goes with someone far to the right, it will encourage the Democrats to filibuster. However, if he goes with someone more moderate, it may appear to be a sign of weakness among his faithful.

I believe it's very likely he'll go with the former strategy, but I think as Bush decides a nomination, he should consider what Howard Dean said, someone who I've disagreed with his approach as chairman for the Democratic party as of late, which I believe he was right on in his press release:

"President Bush should follow the example established by President Reagan when he nominated Justice O'Connor. President Reagan had the courage to stand up to the right wing extremists in his party by choosing a moderate, thoughtful jurist.

"A President faces no more important decision in terms of protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans than nominating a Supreme Court Justice. President Bush has a constitutional responsibility to do what presidents before him have done -- seek the advice of senators from both parties before making a nomination, and choose a mainstream nominee who will protect our most important rights and freedoms.

"Democrats hope this process can be one of consensus, rather than confrontation, but that will be up to President Bush."


I certainly hope Bush puts some thought and discipline into selecting a nomination after the G8 summit in Scotland that indeed proves to be consensus-minded with the spirit of O'Connor.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

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

Mother Teresa

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


8 posted 07-02-2005 07:23 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

I think Bush should follow Clinton's example and nominate a middle-of-the-road moderate like Justice Ginsberg.

Contrary to Dean's oddly selective recollection of things, Reagan THOUGHT he was getting a conservative jurist when he nominated O'Connor.  The trend, however, is for Supreme Court Justices to move toward the middle during their time on the bench.

Noah, I'm surprised you missed O'Connor's vote (and Majority Opinion) in Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey which upheld Roe v. Wade by a vote of 5-4.  Bush will nominate a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court.  If Renquist turned out to be the only retiree during Bush's second term, there would not likely be any significant ramifications to Roe v. Wade.  Now that O'Connor is leaving, I think Roe v. Wade's days are numbered.

Jim
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


9 posted 07-02-2005 04:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Democrats hope this process can be one of consensus, rather than confrontation, but that will be up to President Bush."

Considering the fact that they have made EVERY nomination by Bush a confrontation, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee, this statement is humorous. It WILL be confrontational and I don't think they would have it any other way.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


10 posted 07-02-2005 05:49 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 not surprised, however, that many of Bush's nominations have been confronted. It's because their positions are quite questionable and in the periphery of the mainstream scope.

That's why John Bolton is currently being stalled. He is seen as more of an antagonizer rather than a reformer. Most agree the United Nations should be reformed, as do I. We just have different ideas in how it should be reformed, and Bolton is seen as someone who cares less about international relations and wants to weaken those ties.

Many of his nominees are partisanlly-driven, and so there has been little consensus. I certainly hope this time he makes an effort to nominate someone of a centrist heart, who doesn't operate in a partisan manner, which is why I believe many have respected O'Connor because she has been known to make both conservative and liberal decisions.

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


11 posted 07-02-2005 06:06 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

The President could nominate the most moderate and skilled judge, and I can think of 4 Senators who would criticize: Boxer, Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy, if for nothing else than to get even more air time.  Within a few hours of Justice O'Conner's decision, moveon.org already had attack ads aired about President Bush and his possible choices.  Immediately after the resignation was accepted, those mentioned Senators were already before microphones, making veiled and overt threats of judicial filibuster.  It's gonna happen, irrespective of the candidate.

Though judicial filibuster had never been used prior to President Bush's first term, it's now a tradition, having been used excessively for the past 5 years.
LoveBug
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 01-08-2000
Posts 5015


12 posted 07-02-2005 09:46 PM       View Profile for LoveBug   Email LoveBug   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LoveBug

Byrd is an expert at filibuster... West Virginians DO have a hard time shutting up! Bwah!

Love's a lovely lad
His bringing up is beauty
Who loves him not is mad
For I must pay him duty
-Anonymous

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


13 posted 07-02-2005 10:57 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Byrd...how could I have forgotten him?  He looks like he's done talked himself to sleep.
LoveBug
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 01-08-2000
Posts 5015


14 posted 07-03-2005 01:05 AM       View Profile for LoveBug   Email LoveBug   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LoveBug

I don't think a filibuster takes much skill.. I could probably pull one off! hehe
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


15 posted 07-03-2005 10:25 AM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

It would take stamina if they really followed the rules and made you actually stand up there and talk. Now it seems all they have to do is say I'm filibustering and everything stops. Meanwhile the senators all go back home, even the talker, until it's all over.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


16 posted 07-03-2005 02:38 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

The right to debate is really what is at stake in terms of the filibuster. The right to express both dialogue and dissent prior to nomination, which many have made an effort to eliminate that form of dissent.

It's certainly not true either that only within the last five years that the filibuster has been used or attempted to be used.

You speak of that the Democrats are nothing but confrontational, when over 60 judicial nominees during the Clinton era were blocked by the GOP Senate.

It was Frist himself who tried using the filibuster on Clinton's nominee of Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. For four years he was blocked, then Frist and others tried capping it off with a filibuster.
The same Frist who proposed the "nuclear option" and said at the Federalist Society last November that filibustering is "radical".

There was also the effort to filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994.

In addition, within Clinton's second term, twenty of his nominees were never granted access to Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

Plenty of times the GOP made an effort to filibuster prior to Bush's first term, including Frist, the man who says filibustering is radical and must be overcome yet it is OK to do it once on Paez.

And I certainly would have respected them doing it if they wanted to get additional information or discuss the nominee's credentials. That plainly wasn't the case much of the time.

*

*

Anyway, the point I am making is, we need to remember why it is that O'Connor has been, quite possibly, the most popular, admired Supreme Court Justice in our nation's history.

She had an esteemed independent voice which I believe most Americans yearn to see more of. She was more conservative in my mind, but she was inclusive to both sides in a non-partisan manner. One article I read made a good metaphor of it, she was the "rudder of the ship", and was a great independent thinker and probably has offered more consensus than any other justice at least within my lifetime.

And hey, I didn't like some of her decisions, like closing the 2000 vote when further votes and information hadn't been considered yet for instance. Nevertheless, my, how Reagen's instincts were right when he said, declaring her nomination in 1981, that she was "truly a person for all seasons, possessing qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to public good."

When Rehnquist retires, I support a conservative to replace him to keep the balance going. But I believe the proper way to pay homage to O'Connor is to nominate someone who has that spirit of consensus. Someone who makes independent decisions rather than partisan decisions.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


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

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


17 posted 07-03-2005 02:51 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer



By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Sun Jul 3,11:31 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Democratic senators said Sunday a filibuster is one of the weapons in their arsenal when the time comes to vote on a nominee to replace retiring Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.

Well, that didn't take long. They are already talking filibuster even before names are submitted.....just laying the groundwork for the inevitable.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


18 posted 07-03-2005 03:43 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Could be purely semantics, but I really don't think the Republicans during Clinton's tenure actually used judicial filibuster.  True, they would hold up candidates in committees and starve em out, but that's not filibuster.  Filibuster is, or at least used to be, taking the floor and keeping the floor for as long as humanly possible with no sleep, and with very very short bathroom breaks, and you had to have someone take your place during those breaks.  I believe that was instituted during the more rambunctious Senate days, when spitoons had multiple functions.  There's the difference, Noah: committee in chambers verses the Senate floor.

If it is indeed true that all one has to do to call filibuster is simply to state 'Ok, I'm filibustering' and everyone files out for a set period of time, then perhaps the filibuster should be done away with completely unless we get some people up there who have the stamina, integrity and loquidity to actually use it correctly.  I'll admit to not watching much Capital innards coverage, but the only time I actually witnessed a true filibuster was on a TV show.  Think it was called 'Mr. Sterling' or similar, about young Senator without cutthroat senatorial experience, who got elected due to his father's name without PAC backing.  Was an interesting, if very shortlived, show.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


19 posted 07-03-2005 04:04 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

(giggles) Hey, I think I know that show you're talking about. My uncle told me about it last year when he came to visit. After hearing his name, I already thought it was playing off of Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the now retired Colorado senator.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

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

Mother Teresa

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


20 posted 07-03-2005 06:17 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

If I remember right, "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" gave the classical example of the filibuster.

LoveBug
Deputy Moderator 5 Tours
Moderator
Member Ascendant
since 01-08-2000
Posts 5015


21 posted 07-03-2005 09:54 PM       View Profile for LoveBug   Email LoveBug   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for LoveBug

Yeah, no breaks should be allowed. It should be like the contests like, to win a free car. Whoever can stay there without leaving to go potty or drop dead wins! :P

Byrd wouldn't have a chance! Teddy Kennedy wouldn't last long either :P

Love's a lovely lad
His bringing up is beauty
Who loves him not is mad
For I must pay him duty
-Anonymous

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


22 posted 07-03-2005 10:21 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Kennedy?  Sure he would.  Just promise some stiff whiskey and a lady of questionable morals at the end, and he'd outlast everyone!
ice
Member Elite
since 05-17-2003
Posts 3059
Pennsylvania


23 posted 07-04-2005 07:53 AM       View Profile for ice   Email ice   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for ice

­Noah quoting Howard Dean:

"Democrats hope this process can be one of consensus, rather than confrontation, but that will be up to President Bush."

Balladeer replies:

"Considering the fact that they have made EVERY nomination by Bush a confrontation, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee, this statement is humorous. It WILL be confrontational and I don't think they would have it any other way.

If by "confrontation" you mean questioning the history of the nominees and their qualifications, you are right.
I  believe that the Senators must speak their feelings, regardless of their party.Isn't that their job?

The record shows that they have  not made "Every nomination by Bush a confrontation"
The Senate has approved 208 judicial nominees. (as of May, 2005)  With Democratic Senators filibustering 10.
Does this not show that the vast majority of Bush nominees have received bipartisan support?.
----------------------------------------------------
Alicat"
"Though judicial filibuster had never been used prior to President Bush's first term, it's now a tradition, having been used excessively for the past 5 years."

Noah:
"It's certainly not true either that only within the last five years that the filibuster has been used or attempted to be used."

It has been used before, the first time by Republicans in 1968.

Lyndon Johnson tried to elevate Abe Fortas from Associate Supreme Court Justice, to Chief Justice.

After several days of filibustering by the Senators, the Johnson Administration gave up the motion to proceed with the nomination, at the request of Mr. Fortas.
----------------------------------------

There are other, hidden ways to filibuster...

One of them is the use of the "Blue Slip" law.
"Blue Slips" are approval papers that senators are asked to submit on nominees for federal judgeships in their states.
A senator from a nominee's home state can block a nominee by failing to turn in "blue approval" papers.

Senate Republicans, led by Judiciary Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and former senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), used the "blue slip" law to block Clinton nominees.

Alberto Gonzales has said that Republican senators "partisanship over judicial nominations" during the Clinton era was "improper" and "wrong."

Hatch relaxed the "Blue Slip" policy after Bush became president.
------------------------------------------

The Republican-led Senate left 102 Clinton nominees unconfirmed, which pales in comparison to the 10 that Democrats have blocked by traditional filibustering, upfront, in your face and unhidden.

I'll shut up now, don't want this reply to turn into a filibuster....

Peace---------ice
        ><>
­­
­

[This message has been edited by ice (07-04-2005 10:06 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


24 posted 07-04-2005 09:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If by "confrontation" you mean questioning the history of the nominees and their qualifications, you are right.
I  believe that the Senators must speak their feelings, regardless of their party.Isn't that their job?


Yes, that is their job and the Democrats have NOT spoken their feeling BECAUSE of their party. They were not questioning nominees, not even doubting their qualifications. There was no, "We think this nominee is questionable because...". The records showed that they were eminently qualified so, to avoid that, they simply resorted to filibustering, tying up the floor NOT to have to discuss the issue. They did it  in an "in your face" way? Of course...how could they hide it? When their filibuster was threatened, they countered with a threat to shut down the government....strange threat for a party so committed to the good of the country, wouldn't you say? Their objectives are much more important to them than the good of the country and the "common man" they profess to have such regards for.

In order for your figures to have the proper validity, one needs to look at which positions they let in and which were shut out. They seemed to let in judges without complaint which would be restricted to local impoortance but not ones who might be in more powerful positions. Anyway, it will be easy to tell. We will see when the nominations come out. If you are a betting man, I'd love a small wager that, no matter who Bush names, they will oppose. They are already laying the groundwork for that. Wanna bet?

Their game plan has always been to paint the asministration and Bush in the most unfavorable light possible, either with facts, twisted facts, distortion or downright lying. Anybody hear of Gitmo lately? I mentioned in the other thread that Gitmo would sort of disappear from the headlines after their last attempt at smear went awry...so where are those big drives for the truth they promised? No, I can't see them accepting a Bush nominee without a fight, regardless of the person's qualifications. It's just not their way.

Your comments would never turn into a filibuster, ice. Filibusters are designed to avoid the truth and hide facts by speaking nonsense. Not your style at all..

Have a happy Fourth!
 
 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