Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DrunkCajun, Jul 1, 2005.
Sandra Day O'Connor Retiring
this can be nothing but good news, now we just need one more to retire.
Sucks that the two justices on the supreme court that are up for replacement aren't ones who voted for that eminent domain garbage ruling. Be nice if a couple of them fell off a cliff so we could put someone in there with common sense . . .
Oh yeah! Helloooooo death penalty for mentally retarded underage individuals, goooodbye choice!
Let the Senate confirmation games begin ...
Well, at least we might be looking at the Constitution a little more than we do at international law.
Give me a call when they actually start reading it.
For some reason I just thought of that "off hook" sound at the end of the Pink Floyd song...
the newsies are going to have a field day for the next 3 months or so. I did like how she basically said she steps down when congress approves her replacement. Or a least that's how I'm reading one of her statments
Yeah, that's basically how the newsies are interpreting it as well--she's going to officially step down no sooner than the day Congress settles on her replacement. I suppose she's anticipating (and probably rightly so) the political equivalent of a nuclear exchange over on the Hill.
I still can't see O'Connor in the same light after seeing her naked in the America book.
Hah. I wiped that image from my head.
I'm wondering how she voted in the ten commandments case that came up recently. Also wondering how she voted in the imminent domain case.
I believe that she voted against the recent emminent domain case (ending up as one of the dissenters), but I'm not sure about the Ten Commandments. If I had to guess based on her track record, I'd think that she voted to keep them out.
Read her decisions:
Ten Commandments (cases): http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500.ZD1.html
Eminent Domain case: http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD.html
This is quite worrysome to me. She was the key vote on issues like Roe vs. Wade and if the conservatives can get in someone to vote the opposite we may see that decision changed and that is nothing but bad news to me. I do not agree with abortion, but I do believe it is a woman's choice and I feel if it were made illegal, it will worsen the situation and the cause more health issues for those who try to find other means to get the abortion.
Yes...evidence that the Ranger isn't on the conservative bandwagon.
Welcome to the United State of Jesusland!
This is the worst news in 2 decades. As if the US trend toward isolationism/unilateralism and right-wing extreme civil-liberties errosion wasn't complete enough, this seals the deal. Potentially two justices and a Greenspan replacement, all in the purvey of GW. I guess it's time to find that nice place up north. This was the greatest country on earth.
What a damn shame. Now we will be governed by the vote of the country and the actual language of the constitution, as opposed to the democracy of the nine and international opinion (and by international opinion I mean those few european countries that happen to support the opinion of the justice and not the other 90% of the world).
Oops. Isn't supreme court supposed to be separate from politics and not vote based on polling, Mr. Garbad? You're the law expert, you tell me. I seem to recall learning in Government 101 that the Supreme Court wasn't supposed to consult with the Christian Coalition before making it's decisions. :uhhuh:
I meant the legislature will make law, not the court.
Yup, you can see why nebby and other Smartlanders can't stomach that prospect. Hey, isn't Canada still open for business?
EDIT - Drunk, neither were the Supremes supposed to be crafting legislation. And if the Eminent Domain decision doesn't qualify in that regard, I don't know what does.