chief justice rehnquist dies
Archived33 replies · 593 views
o.k.i guess 2 seats means he was massive..but as most englishman on here would say-'who are ya,who are ya'
bansheeman wrote: o.k.i guess 2 seats means he was massive..but as most englishman on here would say-'who are ya,who are ya'
rehnquist was appointed to the supreme court by president nixon in 1971 and has been chief justice since 1986. there is no official 'chief justice of the supreme court' title, it just means that he was the leader of the court, more or less. the the reason there are two seats open is because sandra day o'connor retired a few weeks ago and the government is currently in the process of confirming bush's selection for the supreme court to replace her seat.
the conundrum is this: the supreme court is supposed to be a separate part of government, independent of the executive and the legislative branches. however, inevitably, as the president is allowed to nominate justices to the supreme court (who are appointed for life) he often chooses justices who reflect his own values and politics. congress has to approve the nomination, but they are usually approved (there are exceptions--robert bork was turned down by congress after being nominated by reagan in the 1980s, for example). one surprise was david souter. he was nominated by president bush (the first) and was expected to be a more conservative judge; he turned out to be one of the more liberal members of the court.
basically, liberals worry that bush will fill the two seats with extremely conservative judges who will tip the balance of the court (which tends to be 5-4 one way or another, depending on the issue, as there tend to be a few 'fence-sitters') push through laws that benefit the right-wing agenda. conservatives hope that bush nominates conservative judges, as they believe that the country needs a more conservative interpretation of the constitution.
It's not as though a Rehnquist vacancy was unexpected. If the nominee is somebody like Luttig or Wilkinson, I expect much more of a fight than seems likely with Roberts, especially since it seems pretty clear that Roberts is more conservative than O'Connor.
Patrick wrote: It's not as though a Rehnquist vacancy was unexpected. If the nominee is somebody like Luttig or Wilkinson, I expect much more of a fight than seems likely with Roberts, especially since it seems pretty clear that Roberts is more conservative than O'Connor.
i don't see too much of a fight with roberts; i've seen some TV ads, but a storm doesn't seem to be brewing. doubt they'll bork him.
luttig's been compared to scalia--that will certainly prick up the ears of democrats. wilkinson doesn't appear to be as conservative, but has much less experience.
no mention of gonzales. what do you think his chances are, p? or edith hollan jones, the woman pundits said was a 'shoo-in' for o'connor's seat. pie in their faces.
Johnny wrote: Right.That`s cleared that one up then for all us Englishmen.
imagine the royal courts of justice--but wielding more constitutional power, hearing fewer cases a year (most cases are decided by lower courts of appeals) and consisting of nine justices (elected for life) deciding said cases. that's our supreme court, in brief. no pun intended.
AgentWood wrote:
Patrick wrote: It's not as though a Rehnquist vacancy was unexpected. If the nominee is somebody like Luttig or Wilkinson, I expect much more of a fight than seems likely with Roberts, especially since it seems pretty clear that Roberts is more conservative than O'Connor.
i don't see too much of a fight with roberts; i've seen some TV ads, but a storm doesn't seem to be brewing. doubt they'll bork him.
luttig's been compared to scalia--that will certainly prick up the ears of democrats. wilkinson doesn't appear to be as conservative, but has much less experience.
no mention of gonzales. what do you think his chances are, p? or edith hollan jones, the woman pundits said was a 'shoo-in' for o'connor's seat. pie in their faces.
I suspect that considering the alternatives, Gonzales might be the choice that Democrats might find least objectionable. In light of the current situation on the Gulf coast, the administration may not want to face a huge fight over Rehnquist's replacement.
There's some questions about Roberts, to be sure, but from everything I've heard he may be conservative but he's more open-minded and mindful of the law than Bush may have thought. Of course, I was watching Fox News for all this, so maybe my sources aren't up to snuff :p
Rehnquist dying is a shame, but I think it's too early to tell if this means the end of American civil liberties in our lifetime just yet. No doubt Dick Cheney is partying with the Devil down at the crossroads right now, playing an amazing guitar solo that he wouldn't have been able to a few years ago 
:p
Taboo # 7 wrote: No doubt Dick Cheney is partying with the Devil down at the crossroads right now, playing an amazing guitar solo that he wouldn't have been able to a few years ago
how dare you sully the name of R.J. by using his myth to describe a cheney scenario!
AgentWood wrote:
Taboo # 7 wrote: No doubt Dick Cheney is partying with the Devil down at the crossroads right now, playing an amazing guitar solo that he wouldn't have been able to a few years ago
how dare you sully the name of R.J. by using his myth to describe a cheney scenario!
Well, I was gonna say Cheney was "down in the bunker with Goebbels and Himmler, having a laugh as Berlin burns", but I thought that might be insulting to Hitler. :p
The difference between Robert Johnson and Dick Cheney? At least Johnson had a soul to sell to the Devil...
Taboo # 7 wrote:
The difference between Robert Johnson and Dick Cheney? At least Johnson had a soul to sell to the Devil...
I've been mercifully spared from having to hear about the details of American politics for awhile now, so I don't know anything about the candidate judges. Who are the best ones to root for from a non-fox news subscriber's point of view?
The thought of le Shrub getting to appoint two supreme court judges is material for a Stephen King tv mini-series, to say the least! 
sweetness wrote: The thought of le Shrub getting to appoint two supreme court judges is material for a Stephen King tv mini-series, to say the least!
yeah. misery.
sweetness wrote:
Taboo # 7 wrote:
The difference between Robert Johnson and Dick Cheney? At least Johnson had a soul to sell to the Devil...
I've been mercifully spared from having to hear about the details of American politics for awhile now, so I don't know anything about the candidate judges. Who are the best ones to root for from a non-fox news subscriber's point of view?
None. Anybody Bush nominates will hold nightmarish political and social views. And despite the rhetoric, these far-right judges are judicial activists.
The only comforting thought, aside from speculation about where Rehnquist is right now, is that it's unlikely that any replacement for Rehnquist could tip the Court further rightward.
The math doesn't change with Rehnquist's death, but Bush will likely nominate somebody young, and that will keep the Court in the far-right camp long after Bush is gone. THAT'S why elections are important, even if the candidates don't seem that far apart on the issues. If Gore had won in '00, or Kerry had won in '04, we'd have a more moderate Supreme Court for the next 30-40 years.
AgentWood wrote:
Johnny wrote: Right.That`s cleared that one up then for all us Englishmen.
imagine the royal courts of justice--but wielding more constitutional power, hearing fewer cases a year (most cases are decided by lower courts of appeals) and consisting of nine justices (elected for life) deciding said cases. that's our supreme court, in brief. no pun intended.
Sorry im just drunk this weekend and am blown away listening to this new Sigur Ros album.First half of it is just emotionally devastating.Cant focus on anything else at the moment .Like LSD.
Time is ripe for Dubbia to give seat to two of his hench(wo)men...
Just what the world needed!
AgentWood wrote:
bansheeman wrote: o.k.i guess 2 seats means he was massive..but as most englishman on here would say-'who are ya,who are ya'
rehnquist was appointed to the supreme court by president nixon in 1971 and has been chief justice since 1986. there is no official 'chief justice of the supreme court' title, it just means that he was the leader of the court, more or less.
I'd have to disagree on that one, Woodsy. The President definitely designates a Chief Justice. For example, when Warren Burger retired as Chief Justice, Reagan nominated Rehnquist as the new Chief Justice, and then nominated Scalia to fill Rehnquist's old Associate Justice seat.
bansheeman wrote: o.k.i guess 2 seats means he was massive..but as most englishman on here would say-'who are ya,who are ya'
Two seats are open because one Justice is retiring and one Justice just died.
Long after the rest of the world has a new president to deal with, we Americans will continue to be fooked and fooked and fooked up the arse by the far right because of this. 
bLuE oRdEr wrote: So you think our leaders are nutjobs?
he was the very model of a modern major general
after all.
blue, i'm assuming you saw this article in the onion:
Genie Grants Scalia Strict Constructionist Interpretation Of Wish
You realize it's historically more common for a chief justice to be a newly appointed judge rather than have one promoted. :P
You realize the last Chief Justice was a racist activist judge who perjured himself in his confirmation hearing?
Can't hardly wait for the perjured testimony the new cunt will be spewing...
Hi, I'm Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, and I just wanted to take this time to assauge your possible fears about my possible succession of Chief Justice Rehnquist should I be confirmed. I want to let you know that you have nothing to fear...because you'll all be in prison in a year anyway, where all "frivilous privilages" such as food, water, and clothing will be done away with in the interest of fiscal conservatism. Thank you, and God bless America.
Sincerely, John Roberts US District Court Judge Supreme Court Nominee Winner of the Richard M. Nixon "Taking The Law Into Your Own Hands" award for 2005 Playa-hater :p
Honestly Blue, who would you rather have? Thomas/Scalia or Roberts? Scalia gives me the shivers.
There's a saying about the Supreme Court-- it's not last because it's right, it's right because it's last.
The interesting thing about the Court is that there are 9 Justices on the Court, and we rarely see a unanimous decision. 9 highly educated legal experts who can't usually agree on what the law is. That's interesting, because Scalia's approach to the Court has been to caustically maintain that he's smarter than the other Justices, and when they disagree with him, they're wrong. He ends up on the losing end of a lot of arguments because of his sarcastic attitude. That's why there was never much chance of Scalia becoming Chief Justice. He's just too divisive to accomplish much.
Thomas, on the other hand, is an intellectual lightweight. Again, not much chance of a nomination for him.
Which brings us to Roberts. He's a stealth candidate-- a smiling face, with little written material to analyze. If he were running for President, and we knew as little about him as we do, would we want this guy to run the country for the next 4 years? Seems rather doubtful that he'd be trusted with that responsibility for the next 4 years. And yet, he's about to be given an equivalent responsibility for the next 30 years.
Who do I want? None of the above.
bLuE oRdEr wrote:
Which brings us to Roberts. He's a stealth candidate-- a smiling face, with little written material to analyze. If he were running for President, and we knew as little about him as we do, would we want this guy to run the country for the next 4 years? Seems rather doubtful that he'd be trusted with that responsibility for the next 4 years. And yet, he's about to be given an equivalent responsibility for the next 30 years.
yeah, i sure wouldn't want someone like that running this country for four years. eight would be even worse.
Taboo # 7 wrote:
Hi, I'm Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, and I just wanted to take this time to assauge your possible fears about my possible succession of Chief Justice Rehnquist should I be confirmed. I want to let you know that you have nothing to fear...because you'll all be in prison in a year anyway, where all "frivilous privilages" such as food, water, and clothing will be done away with in the interest of fiscal conservatism. Thank you, and God bless America.
Sincerely, John Roberts US District Court Judge Supreme Court Nominee Winner of the Richard M. Nixon "Taking The Law Into Your Own Hands" award for 2005 Playa-hater :p
