Rehnquist died

[Moses]

What are we going to see on Capitol Hill in the next few months?

-Da Mose

[Aestro]

beaten by a few minutes - but mine had a link!

[esquila]

HOw do you guys know he's dead?

[Flagrant da Nut]

Originally Posted by esquila

HOw do you guys know he's dead?

uhhhhh, the news

[esquila]

Yeah, I just realized. I'm oblivious.

[Aestro]

Originally Posted by esquila

HOw do you guys know he's dead?

They pre-empted FOOTBALL to announce it, so we figure they were pretty sure

also, my thread had a link to Yahoo news

[daeceg]

Best guess is that Antonin ("Screw the Bill of Rights") Scalia becomes new Chief Justice. As to who will fill that hole? Anyone's guess. I'm sure Bush has some ideas, I just can't think of any front runners.

Also, two vacancies (well, one vacancy, one pending-O'Connor won't retire until a replacement is approved) puts added pressure on Congress to approve Roberts.

The thing about liberal vs. conservative judges that bothers me is that the self-identified conservatives and "originalists" very seldom take the time to read the Constitution. This happened in Bush v. Gore-where the conservative judges, if they had remained true to their supposed principles, would have deferred to the Florida Supreme Court. (that's called federalism, people) Conservative judges seem to forget all about that 9th amendment, for some reason. tsk,tsk,tsk.

[Inquartata]

Historically, naming an existing Justice to replace a Chief Justice is uncommon. I expect Bush to name someone from the outside.

Regarding the TV coverage, I was watching the announcement on Fox last night. They were doing a recap of Rehnquist's life and career, and saying he had done thus and such, and suddenly the station switched to an episode of "America's Most Wanted". And the point at which the latter program picked up was...unfortunate. John Walsh was just narrating some unsavory facts about one of the criminals for whom they were looking. So it went almost seamlessly from "he was best known for his role in the impeachment of President Clinton and in the Bush-Gore election" to "acquaintances say he's a major user of cocaine---that he'd buy thousands of dollars' worth and go through it in a single weekend"...

[esskreemr]

Don't everyone panic. I'm sure Bush will recieve the name of the next Supremie when he prays to save his political a$$ in the next few days.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Historically, naming an existing Justice to replace a Chief Justice is uncommon. I expect Bush to name someone from the outside.
{snip}

Also--in this circumstances, appointing someone new as Chief Justice would mean there only needed to be two hearings, instead of three. Elevating Scalia or Thomas to Chief Justice would be.... contentious. For very little actual effect.

--Philistine

[Aestro]

Bush nominates Roberts to fill the Chief Justice position. Bush must really like this guy, which makes me suspicious.

[Westley]

The country's last line of defense was Rehnquist and O'Connor. Now there really is no hope except to curl up and wait for the next election.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Aestro

Bush nominates Roberts to fill the Chief Justice position. Bush must really like this guy, which makes me suspicious.

Hmmm. It strikes me that no one really has anything to say about Roberts. Democrats aren't talking about conservative or shady actions of his in the past which they think might lose him popularity, and the Republicans don't seem to be bringing up anything positive or conservative or moderate about him. Am I missing all this information, or is there simply a real lack?

[daeceg]

Well, Roberts has some strikes against him from both liberals and some religious conservatives....

Roberts' wife is an important figure in the anti-choice movement. So, some lefties are afraid he'd easily vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Roberts himself has argued in favor of gay rights in court, which doesn't endear him to some religious nuts.

What is troubling to me is that the White House is refusing to release some documents he wrote when he was an attorney for the Reagan administration. Something in there must be somewhat troubling to his nomination.

[Inquartata]

Not necessarily about Roberts himself, though. There may be other information in the documents that are thought to be unwise to release.

Plus, I begin to think this is a tactic. Ask for documents, if you get them ask for more, then more, and still more. Never stop asking. When "they" eventually balk, scream that they're hiding something. And if they don't balk, well, then the "discovery" process can go on until Bush is out of office. And no vote need ever actually be taken...

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Hmmm. It strikes me that no one really has anything to say about Roberts. Democrats aren't talking about conservative or shady actions of his in the past which they think might lose him popularity, and the Republicans don't seem to be bringing up anything positive or conservative or moderate about him. Am I missing all this information, or is there simply a real lack?

Robert's is smart, well-educated, funny, and apparently a meticulous organizer. There problem with delving into his legal past to determine his position on certain issues. His time on the bench was limited but his political history is not. He was Rehnquist's clerk and was a political activist for Republicans. If the right wanted another 'Activist Judge' for their side, they will get it with Roberts.

Now we have a situation where a President who was voted in by the Supreme Court after losing the popular vote, won the last election by a few percentage points, has presided over a massive intelligence failure (9/11), initiated an expensive war with few positive outcomes, and presided over the dismantling of FEMA now has the authority to appoint 2 Supreme Court replacements.

Let's just hope the next Congressional election goes ALOT better than the last Presidential one.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Now we have a situation where a President who was voted in by the Supreme Court after losing the popular vote,

Still rehashing the last war, I see. "Selected, not elected", and all that...and they say the Israelis and Palestinians nurse grudges!

won the last election by a few percentage points,

As though that's some sort of mark of failure. Dude, wake up and smell the mandate!

has presided over a massive intelligence failure (9/11),

Which he inherited...say it...

now has the authority to appoint 2 Supreme Court replacements.

Hurrah for democracy.

Bitterness is SO unattractive. Or so I'm frequently told.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Still rehashing the last war, I see. "Selected, not elected", and all that...and they say the Israelis and Palestinians nurse grudges!

You think this is rehashing? Wait until the next round of Congressional elections...

Bitterness is SO unattractive. Or so I'm frequently told.

I'm not bitter, I'm cynical.


Oh yeah, I forgot that he has also presided over 4 straight years of an increase in the poverty level of Americans after 7 years of decline.

[Have At You]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Now we have a situation where a President who was voted in by the Supreme Court after losing the popular vote,

Not by any count or recount that I've heard of.

Originally Posted by esskreemr

won the last election by a few percentage points,

A win's a win. That's how it works. Would you deny Clinton's legitimacy though he failed to get a majority the first time?

Originally Posted by esskreemr

has presided over a massive intelligence failure (9/11),

"presided over" does not mean "caused." I'd say he's presided over a failure to properly fix the failures created by the Clinton administration.

Originally Posted by esskreemr

initiated an expensive war with few positive outcomes,

Not sure the vast majority of Afghanis and Iraqis would agree with you there.

Originally Posted by esskreemr

and presided over the dismantling of FEMA

I seem to have missed that.


Anyway, 2 justices in 2 terms isn't such a big deal.

Even if he were inclined to nominate unqualified people, which I doubt, morons and incompetents are unlikely to be nominated, and less likely to be okayed by the Senate, so what's your beef?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Have At You

Not by any count or recount that I've heard of.

Not that it really matters--but according to the FEC--the popular vote was 50,999,897 for Gore, and 50,456,002 for Bush.

FEC 2000 Vote Totals

I seem to have missed that.

I think he's referring to the fact that FEMA was demoted from a cabinet-level position in 2003 and thrown into the Department of Homeland Security--where funding for portions of its mandate have languished. Also, questions have been raised that the current (and immediately past) director are political hacks with no emergency management experience (the prior one was Bush's campaign manager).

But this is getting a bit far afield of the original topic....

--Philistine