Printable View
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
And it's on more news sites than CNN, so they probably aren't making this up. ~;)
Any bets? Nervousness? Apathy? ~;)
He/she better be pro gun and pro small government. ~:cheers:
I think that's 2AM GMT, but I could be mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
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
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
Fixed time...
Dude! ~:cheers:
Holy shit. This should be interesting....
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
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.
Was he picked or not? It's not even 9 EST.
From NRO.
Quit jerking me around guys.Quote:
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.
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.
Its Roberts.Quote:
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')
With all due respect sir, I will acknowledge your accuracy in 14 minutes. ~D Until then... W has done stranger things.
Well they just anounced he and his wife finished dinner with the the President Its Roberts without a doubt.
I read the Clement thread and was red with anger. Roberts would be a shot of relief.
All right, time to acknowledge my accuracy. :book: ~D ~D
Woohoo!
~:cheers: ~:cheers: :balloon2: :charge: :charge: ~:cheers: ~D ~:cheers: :balloon2: ~:cheers: :charge:
Crazed Rabbit
Scalia on Roberts, via Stuart BuckQuote:
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."
http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2005/07/roberts.html
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.
Yes Red you truly are a moderate. ~D
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.
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.
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. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
And I thought we had total domination over the government before.. imagine the possibilities now!
Yes but the constitution strictly interpreted coincides with conservative ideology 95% of the time if not more. ~;)Quote:
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 we can't help that, now can we ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
I see you catch my drift ~DQuote:
Yes but the constitution strictly interpreted coincides with conservative ideology 95% of the time if not more.
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 (!!!) - she 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Maybe we should just clone Scalia and fill the court with him. ~D
I'm praying Coulter turns out to be wrong - which one might argue to be a minor miracle.Quote:
I just hope they did their homework on Roberts.
^Hehe.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Roberts during his 2003 Senate Confirmation Hearing
Bwahahaha!
~:smoking:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.Quote:
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.
Clement, the person you originally thought would be bad for State Rights?
C'mon, buddy. www.google.com
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
simply overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
And you think shes stupid. Shes playing you lefties almost as well as Bush is.Quote:
I don't see much to not like, and having Coulter say you're bad is like a seal of good housekeeping.