Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 123
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Will this hold true this time?
    There is no doubt in my mind that the left (and the right to a large degree...maybe more) will be fighting and posturing because of the significance of O'Connor's retirement.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  2. #82  
    Senators won't rule out filibuster
    'Mainstream' name urged for high court

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...ut_filibuster/

    Lawmakers in both major parties appealed for calm and reason as interest groups gear up for what is expected to be a bruising and expensive battle. But both camps said they were prepared for a fight, with Republicans demanding an up-or-down vote on Bush's eventual nominee and Democrats holding out the possibility they may mount a filibuster if they can't accept the president's selection.
    I don't think it will be Alberto Gonzales either:
    Conservatives are clamoring for a justice they say represents their values -- antiabortion, opposed to gay marriage, and in favor of religious expression in public places. Many have already come out against the potential nomination of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales because they question his antiabortion credentials.
    This is a big jab at the two originalists on the court, Justices Scalia and Thomas.
    The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, a moderate Pennsylvania Republican, suggested he would be concerned about a nominee who believed categorically in ''original intent" -- meaning a strict interpretation of the Constitution based on what the founders intended more than 200 years ago. ''If you followed original intent," Specter said, ''the galleries in the United States Senate would still be segregated, with Caucasians on one side and African-Americans on the other side."
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    There is no doubt in my mind that the left (and the right to a large degree...maybe more) will be fighting and posturing because of the significance of O'Connor's retirement.
    It is already happening!!!! The Liberals (see I was being PC and not saying Dems) already had a petition up to block Bush's nominee within 8 hours after she announced her retirement!!!!!!!

    They are not even waiting to see who it is going be and review the record of the nominee from Bush......simply put from these Liberal's view..."if it comes from Bush it HAS to be wrong and must be stopped with our point of view....because we know that the majority of Americans who voted for him in the last election are only pretty a white Christian party that have never never made an honest living in their lives, so they must be wrong and don't really know what they want....We know what is best for them and Bush must be stopped!"

    MoveOn PAC is a sister organization of MoveOn.org that focuses on electing progressives to national office.

    http://www.moveonpac.org/

    Sandra Day O’Connor, a widely respected and moderate justice, has resigned from the Supreme Court. Now, President Bush will nominate a replacement—and what happens next will either destroy or protect our most basic rights for decades to come. This is an absolutely critical moment for our senators to hear directly from the people—and our message is clear: PROTECT OUR RIGHTS!

    Sandra Day O’Connor, a widely respected and moderate justice, has resigned from the Supreme Court. Now, in anywhere from a few hours to a few days President Bush will nominate a replacement—and what happens next will either destroy or protect our most basic rights for decades to come. This is an absolutely critical moment for our senators to hear directly from the people—and our message is clear: PROTECT OUR RIGHTS! We’ve launched an urgent petition to take your voice straight to your senators in this critical time to show Congress, the president and the media that the American people are engaged and ready to fight for our rights
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/04/2005 at 03:00 AM.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It is already happening!!!! The Liberals (see I was being PC and not saying Dems) already had a petition up to block Bush's nominee within 8 hours after she announced her retirement!!!!!!!
    I was listening to Fox News on Sunday morning (before church mind you ) and Brit Hume said something interesting:

    He said something like "Pres Bush is going to put up a nominee who he thinks will make a good SC Justice. Hes not going to shy away from someone because he is afraid of what the Dems will do and hes not afraid to put up someone that the far right will not support. He will do what he thinks is right."

    (I paraphrased what he said)

    However, I think that will be the best approach. And after hearing that, maybe he will put op Alberto Gonzales? I mean, I am sure that he wants the job (and the SC only comes along so often) and Pres Bush likes him (I love it when he calls him "Al"). Plus, most Senators on the Judiciary Comm have already said that they would support his nomination (Dems might oppose it or ask some questions do to his interpretation of the Geneva Convention and International Law on the Guantanamo Detainees).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #85  
    Well looks like you covered all your bases. Church and Fox News. Somehow, you missed this tid-bit.

    July 01, 2005
    Democrats Recommend Foreign Judge to Replace O'Connor
    WASHINGTON, DC --- With the announced retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Democrats suggested that this was a prime opportunity for President Bush to appoint a unique person to the Supreme Court. Having already appointed people of different races, sexes, religions and sexual preferences to the Supreme Court, the Democrats believe it's time to appoint a foreigner to the Court.


    "What a great opportunity to take the first step in making our Supreme Court into a World Court," said Senator Hillary Clinton. "We could actually start to make the United States more in line with the rest of the world. I think it's finally time for us to take this step in moving the country forward. I hope the president will take this opportunity to do the right thing and appoint a foreign judge to the Supreme Court."


    Senator Harry Reid also had a warning for the president if he didn't appoint a foreign judge. "We're not going to stand for extremists," said Reid. "If he doesn't have the courage to appoint a foreign judge, then anyone to the right of Karl Marx will be filibustered. I shudder to think what could happen to this country if a foreign judge isn't appointed. No same-sex marriage. Limits on baby killing. Inability of the government to take property from private citizens to give to other private citizens. We're digging in our heels."

    Story
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by m00se
    Please count the heads of Republicans that oppose GWB's attempt to "save" social security and then blame Democrats for derailing it.
    I agree that there are plenty of Republicans as well who are selfishly trying to find safer political ground than Social Security. I'm just pointing out that it is inaccurate to portray a Republican agenda to reverse the New Deal.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Well looks like you covered all your bases. Church and Fox News. Somehow, you missed this tid-bit.

    July 01, 2005
    Democrats Recommend Foreign Judge to Replace O'Connor
    WASHINGTON, DC --- With the announced retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Democrats suggested that this was a prime opportunity for President Bush to appoint a unique person to the Supreme Court. Having already appointed people of different races, sexes, religions and sexual preferences to the Supreme Court, the Democrats believe it's time to appoint a foreigner to the Court.


    "What a great opportunity to take the first step in making our Supreme Court into a World Court," said Senator Hillary Clinton. "We could actually start to make the United States more in line with the rest of the world. I think it's finally time for us to take this step in moving the country forward. I hope the president will take this opportunity to do the right thing and appoint a foreign judge to the Supreme Court."


    Senator Harry Reid also had a warning for the president if he didn't appoint a foreign judge. "We're not going to stand for extremists," said Reid. "If he doesn't have the courage to appoint a foreign judge, then anyone to the right of Karl Marx will be filibustered. I shudder to think what could happen to this country if a foreign judge isn't appointed. No same-sex marriage. Limits on baby killing. Inability of the government to take property from private citizens to give to other private citizens. We're digging in our heels."

    Story
    LOL!! That website was just too funny!! I'm going to have to bookmark that one.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    LOL!! That website was just too funny!! I'm going to have to bookmark that one.
    I used it in another thread and the "boys" just couldnt believe it
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  9. #89  
    Rehnquist Denies Rumor of Retirement

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/po...rtner=homepage

    July 14 - Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, ending months of increasingly frenzied speculation about his retirement plans, declared on Thursday night that he would continue to serve "as long as my health permits."

    The chief justice's announcement, released without advance notice by his family, was completely unexpected and took the White House and Supreme Court officials by surprise. It first appeared on The Associated Press wire shortly before 9 p.m.

    The statement said: "I want to put to rest the speculation and unfounded rumors of my imminent retirement. I am not about to announce my retirement. I will continue to perform my duties as chief justice as long as my health permits."

    The 80-year-old chief justice, who learned in October that he had thyroid cancer, had returned hours earlier to his home in suburban Arlington, Va., after spending two nights at the nearby Virginia Hospital Center, where he was treated for a fever.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Rehnquist Denies Rumor of Retirement

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/po...rtner=homepage
    This news should ease up the pressure a little bit (now we only have to confirm one, not two Sup Ct Justices.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. #91  
    Bush drops hints on Supreme Court choice

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...s_x.htm?csp=15

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush gave the nation several clues Saturday about the person he will nominate for a seat on the Supreme Court, except for the most important one — a name.

    In his weekly radio address, Bush said his eventual nominee will be a "fair-minded individual who represents the mainstream of American law and American values." (Related story: Rehnquist stays — but for how long?)

    His candidate also "will meet the highest standards of intellect, character and ability and will pledge to faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country," the president said.

    "Our nation deserves, and I will select, a Supreme Court justice that Americans can be proud of," he said, without revealing the name that many are anxious to hear.

    .........................

    Bush said he and Senate leaders agreed on the need for a dignified confirmation process for his Supreme Court choice. He noted the treatment of President Clinton's nominees — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer — as examples of how it has been done.

    In 1993, the Senate voted on Ginsburg 42 days after Clinton submitted her nomination. Despite philosophical differences with some senators, she was confirmed by 96 of the 100 members.

    A year later, Breyer's confirmation came 73 days after his nomination, and he received 87 votes.

    "These examples show that thorough consideration of a nominee does not require months of delay," he said, and repeated his intention to make an announcement in time for the person to be confirmed before the court's new term begins in October.
  12. #92  
    TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT!


    Bush to name Supreme Court nominee tonight

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...sh-court_x.htm

    President Bush settled on a nominee for the Supreme Court on Tuesday and the White House made arrangements for a nationally televised prime time announcement.

    The tension was palpable in the West Wing of the White House; after a day of intense speculation, White House press secretary Scott McClellan walked into the press briefing room and said bluntly: "The president has made a decision and will be announcing his nominee to the Supreme Court at 9 o'clock." McClellan said the American people expected that the Senate confirmation process would be a dignified one.




    Speculation has circulated around Edith Clement, who has been a federal appeals court judge since 2001.

    .....................

    Other names that have been mentioned are Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Other possible candidates are conservative federal appellate court judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts Jr., Emilio Garza and J. Harvie Wilkinson III; and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson.

    .................

    In anticipation of a selection, officials said the White House had contacted selected Republican senators they hoped would serve as advocates for the nominee in media interviews in the initial time following an announcement. Democrats scoured the rulings and writings of leading contenders, including Clement, a 57-year-old jurist who was confirmed on a 99-0 vote by the Senate when she was elevated to the appeals court in 2001.

  13. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT!


    Bush to name Supreme Court nominee tonight

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...sh-court_x.htm
    HaHa Ha. This admin is so tranparent.
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    HaHa Ha. This admin is so tranparent.
    I am not sure what you mean?

    That a Conservative Admin is going to nominate a Conservative Judge?....just like a Liberal Admin would nominate a liberal judge? That is what being the Pres is about. Those who voted him in expect him to vote accordingly....doesn't matter if Con or Lib.

    Are the Dems just as transparent with their posturing to fight any nominee that he purposes?

    .
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/19/2005 at 04:38 PM.
  15. #95  
    Some facts and figures on the Supreme Court:

    — The current court had been the longest-serving nine-justice lineup since 1823, when Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was president.

    — There have been 145 Supreme Court nominees. Of those, 29 have failed to be confirmed. In the 20th century, only seven have failed.

    — Republican presidents have appointed nine Democratic justices, Democratic presidents have appointed three Republicans.

    Supreme Court firsts:

    — Roger B. Taney — first Roman Catholic justice, appointed 1835.

    — Louis D. Brandeis — first Jewish justice, appointed 1916.

    — Thurgood Marshall— first black justice, appointed 1967.

    — Sandra Day O'Connor — first female justice, appointed 1981.

    — Antonin Scalia — first Italian-American justice, appointed 1986.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161323,00.html
  16. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I am not sure what you mean?

    That a Conservative Admin is going to nominate a Conseravite Judge?....just like a Liberal Admin would nominate a liberal judge? That is what being the Pres is about. Those who voted him in expect him to vote accordingly....doesn't matter if Con or Lib.

    Are the Dems just as transparent with their posturing to fight any nominee that he purposes?
    Don't play dumb Hobbes. The only reason we are getting this justice named tonight is to try and take Rove out of the headlines. The judges do not look so bad on the surface, we will just have to see what they are really about. Most of the people on the Judicary commitee have no idea who Bush will announce.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Don't play dumb Hobbes. The only reason we are getting this justice named tonight is to try and take Rove out of the headlines.
    I must have missed something......is there something specific with the Rove case tonight to qualify for a wag the dog conspiracy theory?

    Historically, Bush has already taken 4 days longer to announce his candidate than the next longest wait for any of the other nominees in the last 80 years or so. The last longest time to wait to announce a nominee during that time I believe was 14 days. Is there anytime he could have made this announcement that was thrown at him from circumstances totally beyond his control, that you would not have made that assumption?

    There is usually about a 6-8 week time of discussions and research before the vote. Which again is right about now.

    (of course you see I didn't mention bombing an aspirin factory of the day of Monica's deposition.....oops... ...I guess I just did say it while saying I didn't say it ....my bad... )
  18. #98  
    John Roberts? I guess we will be in for a long...drawn out confirmation process.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #99  
    Just some info on him.
    John Roberts

    Nominated to: Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

    Status of nomination: Confirmed 5/8/2003
    May 8, 2003: The Committee voted out Roberts 16-3.

    Alliance for Justice Resources:

    * Alliance for Justice to Senators Hatch and Leahy Re: Deborah Cook and John Roberts
    * Alliance For Justice Full Report on John Roberts

    * Born 1955, Buffalo, NY
    * B.A., 1976, summa *** laude & J.D., 1979, magna *** laude, Harvard University
    * 1979-80, Clerk for Judge Friendly, Second Circuit
    * 1980-81, Clerk, Associate Justice Rehnquist, Supreme Court
    * U.S. Department of Justice
    o 1981-81, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney General William French Smith
    o 1989-93, Principal Deputy Solicitor General
    * 1982-86, White House Counsel's Office, Associate Counsel to the President
    * Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Washington, DC
    o 1986-89, Associate
    o 1993-present, Partner

    General Background. Mr. Roberts, a partner at the D.C. law firm Hogan & Hartson, has long-standing and deep connections to the Republican Party. He is a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association and worked as a political appointee in both the Reagan and Bush I administrations. President George H.W. Bush nominated Mr. Roberts to the D.C. Circuit, but he was considered by some on the Senate Judiciary Committee to be too extreme in his views, and his nomination lapsed. He was nominated by President George W. Bush to the same seat in May 2001.

    Reproductive Rights. s a Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Roberts co-wrote a Supreme Court brief in Rust v. Sullivan,1 for the first Bush administration, which argued that the government could prohibit doctors in federally-funded family planning programs from discussing abortions with their patients. The brief not only argued that the regulations were constitutional, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, but it also made the broader argument that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - an argument unnecessary to defend the regulation. The Supreme Court sided with the government on the narrower grounds that the regulation was constitutional.

    Environmental Issues. As a student, Mr. Roberts wrote two law review articles arguing for an expansive reading of the Contracts and Takings clauses of the Constitution, taking positions that would restrict Congress' ability to protect the environment. As a member of the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts was the lead counsel for the United States in the Supreme Court case Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, in which the government argued that private citizens could not sue the federal government for violations of environmental regulations.

    As a lawyer in private practice, Mr. Roberts has also represented large corporate interests opposing environmental controls. He submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the National Mining Association in the recent case Bragg v. West Virginia Coal Association. 3 In this case, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had stopped the practice of "mountaintop removal" in the state of West Virginia. Citizens of West Virginia who were adversely affected by the practice had sued the state, claiming damage to both their homes and the surrounding area generally. Three Republican appointees - Judges Niemeyer, Luttig, and Williams - held that West Virginia's issuance of permits to mining companies to extract coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams did not violate the 1977 Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act.4 This decision was greeted with great dismay by environmental groups. In another case, Roberts represented one of several intervenors in a case challenging the EPAÂ’s promulgation of rules to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.5

    Civil Rights. After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action.6 The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

    Religion in Schools. While working with the Solicitor General's office, Mr. Roberts co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration, in which he argued that public high schools can include religious ceremonies in their graduation programs, a view the Supreme Court rejected.7

    Pro Bono. Mr. Roberts has engaged in significant pro bono work while at Hogan and Hartson, including representation of indigent clients and criminal defendants.

    Other Information. Mr. Roberts is a member of two prominent, right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

    Mr. Roberts lists his net worth as over $3.7 million.

    1 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
    2 497 U.S. 871 (1990).
    3 248 F.3d 275 (4th Cir. 2001).
    4 30 U.S.C. §1201.
    5 State of Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 254 F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    6 See City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 (1980).
    7 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).

    The following organizations have taken an official position on this nominee:

    Organization Position
    Alliance for Justice Opposes
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Just some info on him.
    What's the link for your quote?
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions