wskin44 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Chris Mathews is on MSNBC now. I think that between this disaster and the potential indictments coming tomorrow, Chris is having an orgasm on camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Gotta be Ted Olsen or Alberto Gonzales.I'll hold out hope for Luttig, but I dont think Bush has the stones. Kilmer, I really hope you do not want Luttig. You seem like someone who can actually have a conversation with both sides of the political spectrum and Luttig is someone who really cannot. Gonzales would make a good choice in my book. Olsen less so, but I think he would be ok as well. Luttig would be a nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsD Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I think this counts as one of the things that makes this one of the Toughest terms for a President (Like Henry said) And again most of Bush's problems are of his own doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Kilmer, I really hope you do not want Luttig. You seem like someone who can actually have a conversation with both sides of the political spectrum and Luttig is someone who really cannot.Gonzales would make a good choice in my book. Olsen less so, but I think he would be ok as well. Luttig would be a nightmare. Strictly for entertainment value. The fight between the right and left would be epic. It would make for better entertainment than anything on tv/movies or books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Those are pretty much my exact sentiments. Particularly following what any fair-minded person would characterize as a stellar choice in John Roberts, I never got the Miers nomination. Sounded to me all along like Bush took some bad bad advice.Hope they get it right this time around. The Bush Team needs to get it together. They have appeared to be in disarray for a while now. Roberts was an absolutely stellar pick. The guy is brilliant, is a true judicial conservative (i.e. no axe to grind and no political agenda either way on the bench, solid respect for precedent), and has the personality to build coalitions. We really need an evolution on this court away from this 5-4 siege mentality, it is poisonous to the judicial process. Adding a couple more votes will note help, it is the base corruption of the judicial process into a vote tally game that is the inherent problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Strictly for entertainment value.The fight between the right and left would be epic. It would make for better entertainment than anything on tv/movies or books. I must admit to a sick part of me wanting a bowl of popcorn to watch those hearings, but it really at heart is against our national interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gallen5862 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I am a Republican and a big Bush supporter. I am hoping President Bush nominates a highly qualified conservative Judge to be the next justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I am a Republican and a big Bush supporter. I am hoping President Bush nominates a highly qualified conservative Judge to be the next justice. Why? Why would you want a conservative judge? I obviously agree with you on the highly-qualified part, but why does the nominee have to be conservative? That's what's wrong with this country. With the courts, it shouldn't be about liberal or conservative. It should be about qualified and impartial. I wouldn't care if the next democratic president appointed a conservative, so long as they didn't impose their political beliefs on their rulings. Of course, no one on the court is impartial, and that's a problem. But rather than upholding the politicizing of the courts and wishing for someone who can be biased in favor of your politics, you should be hoping for someone who upholds the law impartially, someone who would begin to break the courts down to what they were intended for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 There's no chance of putting that genie back in the bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Does anyone else think that this woman looks incredibly creepy?She gave me the heeby jeebies each time I saw her. I think she's hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Why is this President opposed to just an Up or Down vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 It would be tricky to nominate Gonzales now, after the stated reason for Meirs' withdrawal being the need to protect executive documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 "Bush blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege." ROFL As if a single person in the world could believe this - why even bother to use such a lame excuse? There are plenty of rock-solid conservative jurists with the credentials, integrity and intellectual firepower for this job. Roberts was one. Let's hope he chooses another, rather than just choosing the most extreme conservative nominee to placate the angry folks over at FreeRepublic.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonez3 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Those are pretty much my exact sentiments. Particularly following what any fair-minded person would characterize as a stellar choice in John Roberts, I never got the Miers nomination. Sounded to me all along like Bush took some bad bad advice.Hope they get it right this time around. The Bush Team needs to get it together. They have appeared to be in disarray for a while now. Bush took bad advice? Maybe this was solely his urging. Ya gotta love ole W. Is there anything this man can't screw up. Yes, this is a hit and run, but if you need support and evidence, just read between the lines for the last 5 years. This man and his croonies are a trainwreck- even when it is a 'slamdunk'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I think its safe to say, that any "Political Capital" the President had after the election..... Is just about gone. If indictments come tomorrow (Which, I'm not even sure anything will). Then "Defense" is going to be the name of the game until 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Pick someone who's NOT a judge!!! Seriously!! I don't care much either way about the R vs W, since even if it's overturned abortion will still be legal in most states. What I HATE about SCOTUS is that they're getting picked solely on that one issue, and the result is we end up with a bunch of nitwits with little or no real world expericence, who consequently pass idiotic decisions Kelo vs New London. Pick someone with a corporate background, who understands how the real world operates. You're not going to get that by continually scouring the Superior/Appellate courts. The greatest justice of the 20th century - Warren - would likely never have gotten past today's insane nominating process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Pick someone who's NOT a judge!!! Seriously!!I don't care much either way about the R vs W, since even if it's overturned abortion will still be legal in most states. What I HATE about SCOTUS is that they're getting picked solely on that one issue, and the result is we end up with a bunch of nitwits with little or no real world expericence, who consequently pass idiotic decisions Kelo vs New London. Pick someone with a corporate background, who understands how the real world operates. You're not going to get that by continually scouring the Superior/Appellate courts. The greatest justice of the 20th century - Warren - would likely never have gotten past today's insane nominating process. Actually, virtually all appellate judges did something else first in the real world - that's how they got the appointment. Being a Supreme Court Justice is an appellate judge job, and I'd like to see how they performed in the minors before I send them up to bat in the major leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Ted Olsen would be a slam dunk. I don't understand why he wasn't nominated in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Why? Why would you want a conservative judge? I obviously agree with you on the highly-qualified part, but why does the nominee have to be conservative? That's what's wrong with this country. With the courts, it shouldn't be about liberal or conservative. It should be about qualified and impartial. I wouldn't care if the next democratic president appointed a conservative, so long as they didn't impose their political beliefs on their rulings. Of course, no one on the court is impartial, and that's a problem. But rather than upholding the politicizing of the courts and wishing for someone who can be biased in favor of your politics, you should be hoping for someone who upholds the law impartially, someone who would begin to break the courts down to what they were intended for. Because a conservative judge won't see rights that don't exist in the constitution or ignore American law and go to europe for precedents. And so far this year the liberals have screwed up enought with the death penalty, sodomy, and in Connecticut eminent domain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Actually Bush has plenty of political Capital if he has the sense to cut out listening to democrats who have made it known they are out to destroy his candidancy and nominate 100% Conservatives. I just don't see him putting Gonzalez a potential moderate up for nomination whrn it has been known that the conservatives don't want him. I'd love a Ludig or Janice R Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Can you imagine Dubba ya selecting a black female born again christian judge from Alabama? That would be a beautiful battle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Can you imagine Dubba ya selecting a black female born again christian judge from Alabama?That would be a beautiful battle I agree with Riggo-toni, why does it have to be a judge, why not a constitutional scholar? There is plenty of precedence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 Why Not? If we have the credentials and a conservative track record to prevent another mistake like with o'connor or Souter we should go with a judge. Enough of this stealth nominee without a paper trail nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 But all academics are liberals along with the press. (read lots of sarcasm in this post) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted October 27, 2005 Share Posted October 27, 2005 I didnt say I wanted an egghead I'm superior type from academia which Judge Janice R Brown isnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.