I'm a Republican and this is scary

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041005/ap_on_re_us/abortion_states_2

That will only happen if George Bush appoints the next few Supreme Court justices. If he's not in office, he can't make those appointments.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr That will only happen if George Bush appoints the next few Supreme Court justices. If he's not in office, he can't make those appointments.

Well Bush will be prez and I hope Ruth Bader doesn't die (that statement made me gag).

O'Connor is the vote keeping Roe in place. She wants to retire. If Bush appoints her replacement, he will appoint another Scalia; he's said so. That swings the court against Roe.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr O'Connor is the vote keeping Roe in place. She wants to retire. If Bush appoints her replacement, he will appoint another Scalia; he's said so. That swings the court against Roe.

No matter who a president appoints, that person may take on very different views when being a justice. My belief is that the court will refuse to hear any further cases in the near future, because the courts are still stuck in a phase of aggrandizing state rights. The civil rights era of the supreme court is dead and will be unless a true crisis erupts. The court will ignore Falwell, etc.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> O'Connor is the vote keeping Roe in place. She wants to retire. If Bush appoints her replacement, he will appoint another Scalia; he's said so. That swings the court against Roe.

No matter who a president appoints, that person may take on very different views when being a justice. My belief is that the court will refuse to hear any further cases in the near future, because the courts are still stuck in a phase of aggrandizing state rights. The civil rights era of the supreme court is dead and will be unless a true crisis erupts. The court will ignore Falwell, etc.

Bush is on record as saying that his Supreme Court appointments will be in the mold of Scalia. It's an open secret that if Rehnquist retires during Bush's second term, which he wants to do, Scalia will be the next Chief Justice. O'Connor also wants to retire during Bush's second term.

While it is possible that a Justice may decide cases differently than the appointing President would have liked, expecting that that will be the outcome of Bush's judicial appointments indicates a denial of reality.

Scalia replacing Rehnquist will really have no effect. I hope O'Connor stays because she is a good justice. Anyways Bush will never be allowed by Congress to bring an over the top Scalia type guy in this day and age.

And which party runs Congress?

denial -- (psychiatry) a defense mechanism that denies painful thoughts.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr And which party runs Congress? denial -- (psychiatry) a defense mechanism that denies painful thoughts.

The Repubs control the House, and the Senate is even steven. After this election, I think both cam.s will sway a little to the left.

Originally posted by The Man Up North Tristan, just out of curiosity, why are you a Republican?

Clinton

I'd rather have Cheney as president.

Originally posted by Spotnick Funny though, it seems like if it's Canada or USA, the geographical situation is the same everywhere.Western Canada is conservative (like Republicans) while the East is Liberal (like Democrats)Ah well, I still wonder why it seems that the only people on 6 billions people on the earth think George W. Bush is not an idiot are the Republicans though :pI'd prefer Arnold over him

The majority of the Pacific west is liberal. California is strongly Democratic, but there are pockets of conservatism here and there (SD is much more conservative than LA and the Bay Area). Oregon is in the middle, and Washington is liberal. The rest of the West is either to the right or in the middle. The Northeast is liberal, the South is to the right, and the Midwest is in the middle but sways to the right. Anyway nearly all of the 6 billion people of this world aren't versed well enough in American politics to even be allowed to have an opinion who would serve the US best.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by The Man Up North> Tristan, just out of curiosity, why are you a Republican?

Clinton

Yes, the Republicans were horrified-- horrified-- that somebody, somewhere was getting a BJ.

Like they would have turned it down.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan> > > > > > > Originally posted by The Man Up North> > Tristan, just out of curiosity, why are you a Republican?>

Clinton

Yes, the Republicans were horrified-- horrified-- that somebody, somewhere was getting a BJ. Like they would have turned it down.

Whitewater, bombing the Chinese embassy, going to a practically useless war in Kosovo, having an ugly daughter, ineffective bombing in Iraq, not doing anything effective to halt Al Qaeda ever sine 1993, riding the growing economy of Papa Bush (look at the charts of the last year of the Bush presidency), letting millions die in Rwanda (the very Democratic thing to do), failing to get a handle on the uncontrolled surging economy of the tech boom (which hence led to a precipitous drop in 2000-2001). Clinton in eight years did nothing except for look good and ride a tech-driven economy. Gennifer, Paula, Monica... Mambo Number 5!

We don't need pro-choice judges. We need pro-abortion ones.

Originally posted by His Holiness, The Pope We don't need pro-choice judges. We need pro-abortion ones.

We need pro-sterilization of men and women who have two kids and have no means to support a third kid judges

Why and when the Supreme Court would overturn the case? It has vality? Is there another trial going on?

Explanations, please...

Originally posted by Server Error in "/" Application Why and when the Supreme Court would overturn the case? It has vality? Is there another trial going on? Explanations, please...

All speculation right now, but if Bush is re-elected and a middle or leftist judge steps down, then many people fear that Bush will appoint a pro-life judge, and this will spark a movement to overrule Roe v. Wade.

We need Judge Mills Lane on the Supreme Court, he'll get to the bottom of the issues

Scalia's a nut, I hope he goes the way of the Neanderthal in terms of his relative existence still left on this earth. Ever since the SC handed the election to Bush, I've had no reason to expect they'd make the right call on anything. I do hope the Court gets around to finding the Patriot Act unconstitutional, though

Originally posted by Taboo # 7 We need Judge Mills Lane on the Supreme Court, he'll get to the bottom of the issues Scalia's a nut, I hope he goes the way of the Neanderthal in terms of his relative existence still left on this earth. Ever since the SC handed the election to Bush, I've had no reason to expect they'd make the right call on anything. I do hope the Court gets around to finding the Patriot Act unconstitutional, though

The SC legally handed the election to Bush!

The only two overly biased cunts I would love to see off the bench would be Scalia and Ginsburg. I hope they both rot in hell.

I just hope Judge Judy never comes up for consideration....the very sight of that "woman" makes me yearn for an all-out nuclear war to erase the very thought of such a sight :barf:

Judge Milian from People's Court would do well on the Supreme Court

Originally posted by Tristan going to a practically useless war in Kosovo, letting millions die in Rwanda (the very Democratic thing to do)

So in Kosovo, preventing genocide was the wrong thing to do, and in Rwanda, not preventing genocide was the wrong thing to do?

And that's why the Republicans spent years, and millions of taxpayer dollars investigating a BJ?

Originally posted by Spotnick > Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr> > > > Originally posted by Tristan> > going to a practically useless war in Kosovo, letting millions die in Rwanda (the very Democratic thing to do)>

So in Kosovo, preventing genocide was the wrong thing to do, and in Rwanda, not preventing genocide was the wrong thing to do? And that's why the Republicans spent years, and millions of taxpayer dollars investigating a BJ?

Well, hum, actually they investigated the fact that Clinton really LIED when he said he never had sex with that woman.

If he's not considering oral sex as sex... I don't know what it is...

I wouldn't feel that confident with somebody that lies to my face like that.. but we had a pretty worst case in Canada, where our prime minister gave contracts of sponsorships to "friends of the party" and they had 10% comissions, 2M$ for doing a phone call and stuff like that...

Well, as they say here now, nobody died when Clinton lied.

I think it's rather despicable that Clinton cheated on his wife. And let's be clear; getting a BJ was cheating. That said, is there anybody in this forum who would go on national television and humiliate their spouse and children by admitting to an illicit affair? It's one thing to admit to your spouse that you cheated; it's another thing entirely to do it on national television. It's not so much that it's humiliating to the cheater; it's that it's humiliating to his family. And that was the Republican objective-- to force Clinton into making a choice between humiliating his family, or perjuring himself and lying on national TV. I think given the circumstances, he did the right thing in sparing his wife and daughter the humiliation.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr > Originally posted by Tristan> going to a practically useless war in Kosovo, letting millions die in Rwanda (the very Democratic thing to do)

So in Kosovo, preventing genocide was the wrong thing to do, and in Rwanda, not preventing genocide was the wrong thing to do? And that's why the Republicans spent years, and millions of taxpayer dollars investigating a BJ?

thousands died in Kosovo

millions died in Rwanda