Judge pick at 9!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Sorry, that's 9PM Eastern Standard Time (US). That's... 2:00AM GMT, right?

I've seen it on the news. Bush's nomination for the Supreme Court will be announced at nine...

Linky (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html)
And it's on more news sites than CNN, so they probably aren't making this up. ~;)

Any bets? Nervousness? Apathy? ~;)

[scooter_the_shooter]

He/she better be pro gun and pro small government. ~:cheers:

[Marcellus]

Sorry, that's 9PM Eastern Standard Time (US). That's... 1:00AM GMT, right?

I think that's 2AM GMT, but I could be mistaken.

[Spetulhu]

Eastern is GMT -5, so that would mean 9 pm Eastern is 2 am GMT the next day. Reasonable people call those times 21 and 02, BTW. ~;p

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's Roberts!
http://www.drudgereport.com/

EDIT: Roberts: 'No support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution' for legal reasoning in Roe vs Wade...

Booyah!

Crazed Rabbit

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Fixed time...

Dude! ~:cheers:

[Don Corleone]

Holy shit. This should be interesting....

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, this is good.

We're going to cram this constitutionalist down the dem's throats and make them like it!

Good bye Roe vs Wade! Bwahahaha!

Crazed Rabbit

[Don Corleone]

1) You don't really know who Bush is picking yet. This is the 3rd selection I've heard made today (and confirmed by 'reliable sources')

2) Nobody has been confirmed.

3) You have no idea how he'll vote if 1 & 2 happen for him.

Calm down.

[Proletariat]

Was he picked or not? It's not even 9 EST.


From NRO.

John Roberts was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit court of Appeals in the last few years, though he was first nominated in 1991 by Bush 41. He is a "middle-aged white guy," but he is universally regarded as among the best Supreme Court advocate in the nation, bar none. He clerked for Rehnquist, was deputy SG, is a remarkable oral advocate and a sharp legal mind. He is liked and admired by all of the current justices, who regularly look forward to cases in which he is representing one of the parties because of the quality of his work. If a case is winnable, he will win it. It is a travesty he was not confirmed to the D.C. Circuit in the 1990s when first nominated. Setting aside ideology — and he has a sterling conservative reputation despite the relative lack of a paper trail — he is close to the Platonic ideal of what a Supreme Court nominee should be.

Quit jerking me around guys.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

We'll find out officially in about 30 minutes...

If NRO likes him, how bad can he be?

Of course, he already has at least 3 strikes against him: he's white, male, and he's been nominated by Bush.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

1) You don't really know who Bush is picking yet. This is the 3rd selection I've heard made today (and confirmed by 'reliable sources')

Its Roberts.

[Don Corleone]

With all due respect sir, I will acknowledge your accuracy in 14 minutes. ~D Until then... W has done stranger things.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well they just anounced he and his wife finished dinner with the the President Its Roberts without a doubt.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I read the Clement thread and was red with anger. Roberts would be a shot of relief.

[Crazed Rabbit]

All right, time to acknowledge my accuracy. :book: ~D ~D

Woohoo!
~:cheers: ~:cheers: :balloon2: :charge: :charge: ~:cheers: ~D ~:cheers: :balloon2: ~:cheers: :charge:

Crazed Rabbit

[Proletariat]

For what it's worth: A few years ago, Justice Scalia said to a friend of mine that he and other Justices thought of John Roberts as far and away the best Supreme Court litigator in the country. I asked the friend why Justice Scalia said that, and (paraphrasing from my memory) the answer was something like this: "No matter how intense the questioning, Roberts is never flustered, and is always able to calmly answer any question whatsoever, while skillfully weaving in the substantive points that he wanted to make in the first place."

Scalia on Roberts, via Stuart Buck

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2005/07/roberts.html

[Red Harvest]

He is not a moderate as best I can tell. I saw a quote saying that he was a "100 Percenter" as far as conservatism. I find that just as hard to swallow as 100 percent liberal would be. About what I expected of Dubya who is rather predictable.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what he really stands for. With conservatives being so pleased, he can't be good for the country.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes Red you truly are a moderate. ~D

[Xiahou]

As long as he sticks to the original text and intent of the Constitution most of us "conservatives" are happy. Just none of that wishy-washy 'living document' crap, please.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well with if we do get conservative judges do you think the liberals would still want them to be advocates like the current Court? I dont think so. ~;) All we ask is that they do what the constitution says. You liberals should be asking them to do the same.

[PanzerJaeger]

And I thought we had total domination over the government before.. imagine the possibilities now! :evilgrin:

[discovery1]

And I thought we had total domination over the government before.. imagine the possibilities now! :evilgrin:

Damn good thing you'll make assault rifles legal. ~D

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by PanzerJager
And I thought we had total domination over the government before.. imagine the possibilities now!

Again I dont want them voting along party or political lines but solely on what the constitution says. There should be no politics invoved intheir desicions. This isnt about conservatives vs liberals but whether the constitution means what it says or not. It wasnt wriitten to favor one party over another.

[PanzerJaeger]

Again I dont want them voting along party or political lines but solely on what the constitution says. There should be no politics invoved intheir desicions. This isnt about conservatives vs liberals but whether the constitution means what it says or not. It wasnt wriitten to favor one party over another.

Yes but the constitution strictly interpreted coincides with conservative ideology 95% of the time if not more. ~;)

[Laridus Konivaich]

Yes but the constitution strictly interpreted coincides with conservative ideology 95% of the time if not more. ~;)Yes, but we can't help that, now can we ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes but the constitution strictly interpreted coincides with conservative ideology 95% of the time if not more.

I see you catch my drift ~D

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Why Cube?

As a proclaimed anti-Federalist, the best thing could happen would be the nomination (and confirmation) of strict constructionists. Roberts sounds like he fits that bill.

Interestingly, Roberts is drawing flak from none other than Ann Coulter (!!!) (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm) - she is protesting Roberts nomination. More proof that she's nuts? :book:

[Xiahou]

Interestingly, Roberts is drawing flak from none other than Ann Coulter (!!!) (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm) is protesting Roberts nomination. More proof that she's nuts? :book:Sadly, there have been some who have changed their stripes after joining the SCOTUS.... I just hope they did their homework on Roberts.

Maybe we should just clone Scalia and fill the court with him. ~D

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I just hope they did their homework on Roberts.
I'm praying Coulter turns out to be wrong - which one might argue to be a minor miracle.

[PanzerJaeger]

^Hehe.

[Goofball]

Ah, this is good.

We're going to cram this constitutionalist down the dem's throats and make them like it!

Good bye Roe vs Wade! Bwahahaha!

Really?


"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. . . . There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Now, what was the word I was looking for? Hmmm. What was it, now... It's just on the tip of my tongue. Oh, yeah, got it:

Bwahahaha!

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

Now remember Goof, that was for his circuit court confirmation. As a Supreme Court Justice you set the precedents and its up to the lower courts to follow them. There would be no conflict in him saying that as a circuit court judge, he would follow the precedents set by the SCOTUS and when on the SCOTUS reversing that precedent. He's already been on record as saying Roe V Wade has no Constitutional basis.

[Goofball]

It was more the "nothing in my personal views" part I was talking about. Because I believe that Roe v. Wade was a correct interpretation of your Constitution and that only a judge whose personal views were against abortion would think otherwise, that part of his commentary gives me hope.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It was more the "nothing in my personal views" part I was talking about. Because I believe that Roe v. Wade was a correct interpretation of your Constitution and that only a judge whose personal views were against abortion would think otherwise, that part of his commentary gives me hope.


Hope for what? You live in Canada. You already have your own lack of laws regarding abortion. Overturning the Roe v. Wade decision would do what in your eyes?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Because I believe that Roe v. Wade was a correct interpretation of your Constitution and that only a judge whose personal views were against abortion would think otherwise, that part of his commentary gives me hope.

Can you show me where in the constitution this is interpreted from because constitutiinal scholars here cant find it. Tell us you come to this conclusion. He is saying that he has to uphold Roe vs Rade because its the law of the land. That doesnt meah he doent favor changing the law.

[Proletariat]

Clement, the person you originally thought would be bad for State Rights?

C'mon, buddy. www.google.com

[Goofball]

Hope for what? You live in Canada. You already have your own lack of laws regarding abortion. Overturning the Roe v. Wade decision would do what in your eyes?

Well, for one thing "in my eyes" overturning Roe v. Wade would force American women with unwanted pregnancies back into the back-alley-coat-hanger zone. While some may believe that is nothing more than what the sluts deserve for letting somebody shag them out of wedlock, I personally don't subscribe to that belief. Just because I'm Canadian, doesn't mean that I don't care about Americans.

While I don't believe that your abortion laws are perfect (i.e. I don't like the idea of late-term abortions any more than the Pope does), simply overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal without any kind of alternative discussions would be devastating to American women.



It was more the "nothing in my personal views" part I was talking about. Because I believe that Roe v. Wade was a correct interpretation of your Constitution and that only a judge whose personal views were against abortion would think otherwise, that part of his commentary gives me hope.Can you show me where in the constitution this is interpreted from because constitutiinal scholars here cant find it.

Maybe the armchair quarterbacks disagree, but what counts is that a majority of the folks who made the cut and got called up to play in the show seem to think that there is constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade. I'll take their opinions over those of the ideology-driven pundits you're talking about any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Maybe the armchair quarterbacks disagree, but what counts is that a majority of the folks who made the cut and got called up to play in the show seem to think that there is constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade. I'll take their opinions over those of the ideology-driven pundits you're talking about any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

How can anyone get it so backwards ~:confused: In other words your cluless on how they came to this decision. As long as they agree with you its correct.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

simply overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal
The two don't go hand-in-hand, you know. Overturning Roe v. Wade just allows for the possibility of such legislation. It doesn't immediately outlaw abortions. Then the states can make their own laws about it.

[Lemur]

Interestingly, Roberts is drawing flak from none other than Ann Coulter (!!!) (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3acj.htm) - she is protesting Roberts nomination. More proof that she's nuts? :book:
Certainly proof that this Roberts is worth looking at. He seems okay to this lemur, especially considering some of the idealogues Bush could have picked. I don't see much to not like, and having Coulter say you're bad is like a seal of good housekeeping.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't see much to not like, and having Coulter say you're bad is like a seal of good housekeeping.

And you think shes stupid. Shes playing you lefties almost as well as Bush is.