Author Topic: Supreme Court Noms  (Read 2762 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RottingCorpse

  • Moderator
  • You're a kitty!
  • *******
  • Posts: 23728
  • We got this by the ass!
    • http://www.lonniemartin.com
Supreme Court Noms
« on: October 13, 2005, 10:32:57 AM »
I've been trying to follow the whole supreme court nominee thing that's been happening for the past couple months because, you know, the future of our freedom in America sort of rests on it.

Now, I didn't have too much beef with John Roberts. Sure, I wondered if anybody could be any more vague in answering questions, but it also seemed to me that the dude was doing his best to keep his personal feelings out of the whole affair, especially while being asked directly about those personal feelings. Anyway, my gut says the guy will be all right. He seems to have lived his life around the law and his personal philosophy seems to indicate that in his mind, law trumps politics. Yeah, he's maybe a little right of center, but close enough to center which with this president is going to have to be fine.

This Harriet Miers lady though . . . aside from getting the job due to a religious version of fucking the director to get the role, she's just not qualified. She's never been a judge. Sure, she was a lawyer for eight million years. (About as old as she looks, and she's supposed to be in her sixties right? Haggard, man. I'm willing to bet that not only were she and W "old friends" but they were also hardcore drinking buddies. The lady looks like she never met a bottle of Jim Beam she didn't dance with.)

Alos, isn't thae fact that folks on both sides of the aisle saying that she's teh wrong choice sort of telling here.

I really think Bush literally sits in the office and goes, "How badly can I fuck shit up?" before making any choice. Seriously, the guy's an anarchist in disguise.

Offline nacho

  • Hallowed are the Ori.
  • Walter The Farting Dog
  • You're a kitty!
  • *****
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
    • GS
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2005, 12:23:22 PM »
This illustrates the overall problem with the court.  Executive appointed, legislative controlled.  They're puppets, and always have been to one degree or another.  Funding should be fixed, not used as a punishment/reward system by congress, and congress should be both appointing and electing.  Executive should have no say so.  Does the largely-unelected executive branch deserve this much power?

Tyson

  • Guest
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2005, 01:44:27 PM »
Who *is* elected anymore? Prez, VP, congress, and your happy local government. That's about it. Same with laws and measures and all that. Only a small minority of those papers go up for vote among the public, which is bollocks if you ask me. As it stands, the fact that you only need to buy off a few hundred politicians to push retarded laws through is all too appearant. Shouldn't we be able to vote on the fucking broadcast flag? NooOOOooo. Your friendly special interests are doing it for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_flag

FIGHT THE MAN! SMASH THE STATE!

Offline nacho

  • Hallowed are the Ori.
  • Walter The Farting Dog
  • You're a kitty!
  • *****
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
    • GS
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2005, 02:55:05 PM »
Quote

and inability to skip over commercials


Oh, that's sweet of them.

So if they stop shows from being recorded, I'll have to wait and rip the boxsets.

Offline RottingCorpse

  • Moderator
  • You're a kitty!
  • *******
  • Posts: 23728
  • We got this by the ass!
    • http://www.lonniemartin.com
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2005, 02:59:17 PM »
(I fixed some of my typos above.)

The direct democracy vs. representative republic argument will still be going on long after we're dust, Tyson, but I'm with you.

Nothing is going to change unless we enact serious campaign finance reform and, har-har, hardly any politicians want to even touch it because they'd lose the power to raise money to get elected.

Nacho's point is more worrisome. It can easily be argued that this is an illegitimate administration. I know, it's mostly a moot point now, but the fact that through his supreme court nominees, Bush will probably have a bigger influence on the future of the country than he does the present should raise concern. Any president is far more fluid than congress and I think it's safe to say that Bush acts more on personal philosophy than populism. Fine on most issues. He's president. They're his times to dictate. But the future isn't his, and he should respect that and think of what's best for the country.

Of course, I am remembering which president we're talking about here.

Tyson

  • Guest
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2005, 04:10:23 PM »
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers2.html

Huh huh huh... "Scatology". Huh huh huh.

Offline Matt

  • working through the 1st 10,000
  • Old Timer
  • Wee Bin Hoker
  • ***
  • Posts: 7670
  • tourist
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2005, 05:30:23 PM »
Not to pull a yotoc here, but I don't think George Bush is a significant enough fuck-up to ruin the country more than any other president.

Offline RottingCorpse

  • Moderator
  • You're a kitty!
  • *******
  • Posts: 23728
  • We got this by the ass!
    • http://www.lonniemartin.com
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2005, 10:15:56 AM »
You miss the point, Matt. Supreme court noms are lifetime appointments, so if Miers gets confirmed, she's on until she decides otherwise. If she turns out to be a Bible Banger with no real humility in the judging arena, it could become troublesome.

Nacho says the Premies have no real power, but I disagree. The law is tested in the high court and as far as social issues go, they often set new precedents.

Offline nacho

  • Hallowed are the Ori.
  • Walter The Farting Dog
  • You're a kitty!
  • *****
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
    • GS
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2005, 10:41:31 AM »
I'm saying their paychecks are controlled by Congress and, more so recently, Congress has used that power to gently influence the path of the court.  They sure do have power, but they've been forced to follow the money.  The judges don't have fixed paychecks, and the court itself doesn't have a fixed budget.  Go against the grain too many times and the next budget meeting could make things difficult.  It's an almost subconscious control.

Offline jreale

  • Minty fresh
  • **
  • Posts: 911
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2005, 01:22:38 PM »
On the bright side, it's ecouraging to see that The Old Boys Network is starting to work for women.  On the dark side, this really isn't the time to do a sister a solid.
Insert witty phrase, inspirational quote, or self-promotional blurb here.

Offline RottingCorpse

  • Moderator
  • You're a kitty!
  • *******
  • Posts: 23728
  • We got this by the ass!
    • http://www.lonniemartin.com
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2005, 03:22:15 PM »
It depends on the sister.

Offline RottingCorpse

  • Moderator
  • You're a kitty!
  • *******
  • Posts: 23728
  • We got this by the ass!
    • http://www.lonniemartin.com
Supreme Court Noms
« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2005, 06:28:00 PM »
So, is it me, or is Miers a cross between Tipper Gore and Margaret Thatcher? Physically, I mean. Not politically, though now that I think about it . . .