I know that there are a few of us that pay attention to what is happening in our government. This Supreme Court nominee is getting a lot of press, as any one would during this administration. We've seen what the talking heads on the evening news have to say and have had time to read about it in the paper (with a slant this way/ or this way\).

I'm just qurious what people here might be thinking about all this. Will he make it throught the gauntlet and be nominated? If he is will he "change this country forever" as we are being told? Is it possible that he coud be good for the Supreme Court?

Can we discuss this with out belitteling each other? I don't know about you folks but I think it's good to hear what others are thinking, even if it's not what I'm thinking.

If a thread like this already exsists, sorry. I tried to find it.

 

I personally think that the current Supreme Court is effing nuts, legislating from the bench and searching international laws and applying them here in the US. In fact I think that just over half of the justices are treasonous SOB's. I think it's a crying effing shame that a certain group of individuals have pledged not to let ANY strict constitutionalist on the bench and I think it's even sadder that they threats were taken seriously and no one has nominated a truly conservative Judge thus far. I really have no idea if he'll make it or not, but I surely hope Speedy Gonzales does NOT even get a nod. JMHO


Edited for spelling

 

I agree with Pony Driver in that we should just replace the whole damn court. Their ONLY function in life is to INTERPRET the Constitution.

That means it does NOT matter what other countries are doing or not doing. It also means such cases as Roe v. Wade is NOT a Constitutional issue. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that states a women has a right OR not have a right to an abortion and therefore, as per the United States Constitution, it is up to the States to decide.

I am not saying I am for or against abortion but the FACT of the matter is there is NOTHING in the Constitution about it and thus nothing to INTERRPRET therefore the 9 in black robes need not concern themselves about it.

There is however issues concerning equal rights for all Americans and thus the Court should be ruling on issues dealing with equal rights. That has NOTHING to do with color/race or gender but rather EVERYBODY of ALL colors/races and both genders be treated equally. There is nothing to INTERRPRET about how many of what color/race or gender should be eligible for jobs, school, or any other activity as that is AGAINST equal rights and IS unconstitutional.

I do NOT care if they have a conservative, liberal or moderate background as that does not matter to me. The ONLY thing that matters is they have a brain that functions and can READ and UNDERSTAND the Constitution.

It’s quite simple really. Listen to and/or read arguments brought before the court. Read the Constitution. If there is something from the argument that pertains to the Constitution then fine INTERPRET what particular Constitutional right it pertains to and rule.

For example, if a case were to come before the court about someone being charged for two seats on a jetliner, due to them being extra wide read the Constitution and see what particular right in the Constitution states extra wide people have a right to two seats for the price of one. Since there is NO right to that the court simply makes no ruling and ignores the lawsuit because it is NOT a Constitutional issue.

If a lawsuit comes before the court about particular guns and that they should be outlawed and citizens of America should not be allowed to own them it should take the court all but 60 seconds to slap the idiot that brought it up side the head and point them to the Second Amendment, no interpretation needed…

 

Judge Roberts is a step in the right direction IMO

 

That's pretty much how I feel at this time. I suppose something could come out in the hearings that could change my mind. It doesn't seem likely at this point though.

I just found it strange watching the late news shows last night. It was a very tense, defensive mood. People were saying that Roberts is an intelligent, intellectual guy who was a good pick, BUT.......
I'm concerned that we are going to see obstructionism in it's highest form with these hearings. For what though? I guess I have a different perspective than thoes who feel the need to criticize the current administration, for any move it makes. It seems rather counterproductive to me.

 

I do think there will be a violent display of obstructionism from some. No matter whom the President picks, you’re never going to satisfy the likes of Kennedy, Schumer and Durbin

 

Unless they getto pick the justice. They are prime reasons why I support term limits for CONgress critters. I also like the ancient Roman practice of Senators going on trial as soon as their term is up and must answer for ALL of their actions.

 

Politics......it is what is ruining this country...it is pitting us against each other...mostly due to one "issue" or another...

I don't think that ANY of the judges should be serving "indefinte" terms...times change and we need to adjust to them, and when you have old hags in there that are dead-set on their ways and refuse to change with the times, it only hurts us as a nation...

And I agree with the statement that THEY ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION!!! what is with making all these new "constitutional rights"...if something is going to be added, we have to let the states decide....not 9 individuals who are far from representing us as a whole nation...

Anyhow, I hate politicians...all they care about is power and they decieve their constituants so they can stay in power...

I say, show me a politician that truely cares and I will show you a pig that can fly...

 

I'll chime in cause I love this stuff.

He is probably a reasonably safe pick but there is no way to no for sure.

I agree with Pony and XLT, I want a constructionist on the bench, in fact 9 of them. I don't want to know what the justices think the writers thought about or what public sentiment is, just rule on the printed word.

Seperation of Church and state? Where...not there.

I could go on but basically I want a "Where...not there" justice who doesn't legislate from the bench.

We don't have a republic or a democracy. We are ruled by a judical oligarchy made up of lifetime appointees with absolute power.

There is no check and balance on the Supreme Court. It hasn't existed since John Marshall made Judicial review a reality.

 

Bush, he’s like Popeye the Sailor Man; he says what he means and he means what he says

 

Well to keep buds like Raoul from choking on whatever they may be consuming I've got to say (as a true Conservative)

Uh...no.

I voted for Bush, twice. I think he is a good man but he is a big ole disappointment on a number of fronts.

I'll leave Iraq along cause that upsets my neo-con buddies the most so staying on our shores I'll say this:

Conservative? Not....governement has become more intrusive and larger with Bush, not smaller. Heck I'd have settled for the same size but alas that isn't the case.

The Republicans have had both houses of congress and the White house for years and they are anything but conservative. I'll take a deadlocked Washington rather than either party in complete control.

 

 

Just remember vader,the alternative was Kerry

 

Oh I know the alternative and like I said voted for Bush but in the end I think it makes getting bent over and holding your ankles easier when it is your guy grabbing your hips.

I'm getting screwed regardless but I guess its easier if you like the guy screwing you.

 

Don't drag me into it, I just read and move on.
We've pretty much established that minority viewpoints are neither tolerated nor welcomed.