Reinquist is certain to go soon as well (cancer is not going to allow him a choice) and we'll have two more conservative judges on the bench for lifetime appointments.
We're sooooo fucked.
Your opinions?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, if Bush's nominee is even somewhat moderate, it's possible the Democrats will let them through to avoid having things blow up. However, in the far more likely event that the nominee is a total nutter, I suspect Harry Reid has the requisite balls to call for a filibuster. If that happens, the Republicans will pull out the nuclear option again. Then it becomes a question of convincing the compromisers that the nominee constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance". Chances are, that won't happen, though, and you can wave goodbye to the last reins on Republican power.
I believe, though, that there was some plan, should the nuclear button get pushed, for the Democrats to somehow flood the Senate with their own agenda, but I don't recall the details of how it would help at all.
But, with any luck (and a fair dose of intelligence on the part of the American people... no, better rely on luck...), things will be very different on 3. Jan. 2007.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
A lot of people (people, of course, referring to those media pundits who did an oh-so-wonderful job of predicting the verdict in the Michael Jackson case, so take ample grains of salt) seem to think that Bush is going to avoid the huge battles and pick someone relatively moderate like Alberto Gonzales. What they're basing this one is anyone's guess, aside from Gonzales having a legal background and is a friend of Bush. What makes them think Bush is going to do anything to avoid a judicial battle is anyone's guess. One article I read said Janice Rogers Brown is a possible nominee, which is interesting in that she only got her current judicial posting this month. The local media has also been trumpeting Senator John Cornyn possibly being nominated, and thus clearing the path for someone new to take up the mantle of "least popular US Senator". In short: no one knows what Bush's plan is except Karl Rove.
O'Connor retiring is a cause for concern, but a replacement with a conservative justice would just balance the conservative and liberal wings (now standing at 3 to 4) with only one swing vote. We'll see a lot more 5-4 decisions and probably a lot swaying of the swing vote. Rehnquist retiring or dying won't make much of an impact on the court unless Bush appoints a moderate to replace him.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
My horrific prediction: Bush nominates a total nutter- someone that pleases the holy-rollers, anti-abortionists and Rush Limbaugh crowd of SUV driving yokels. Someone high-profile. Hitler's brain in a jar prahaps.
The Democrats scream "Fillibuster! Oh shit, we have to stop this monster now!"
The Republicans announce they are using "the nuclear option".
Democrats, fearing they'll lose they only remianing (though obviously ineffectual) weapon, send Liberman or some other press-hungey fool to negoitate a "bi-partisan solution".
Seeming genuinely disappointed, Bush nominates a candidate with little official record for the Democrats to to publicly object to without their seeming uncooperatiive and "partisan".
HItler's brain will just have to serve honorably as ambassaor to Israel or something.
The democrats fold, and allow this new nominee into the court where he will be just as conservative as the high-profile nutter.
Mabye we can put Reinquist on life-support: then the holy-rollers will keep him alive at least long enough for a new administration to gain office. ....of course, judging from the shambles of Democrat leadership, and overall voter stupidity, we may have Hitler's Brain as the next President.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Democrats, fearing they'll lose they only remianing (though obviously ineffectual) weapon, send Liberman or some other press-hungey fool to negoitate a 'bi-partisan solution'."
That already happened.
"Seeming genuinely disappointed, Bush nominates a candidate with little official record for the Democrats to to publicly object to without their seeming uncooperatiive and 'partisan'."
What?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: What?
I think what Jason's trying to say is that Bush will try to push a "stealth conservative". He'll originally nominate someone very conservative that will ignite the fillibuster debate again. Bush'll either pull the candidate or the candidate will be rejected. Then Bush will nominate another person who doesn't many of his opinions on the public record (either from a short judicial career or who just kept his or her mouth shut about politics) and who happens to be just as conservative as the first candidate. Since this person doesn't have much of a background, the Democrats can't start off right away bashing the candidate for conservative views; the candidate can probably get away with fudging his true opinion on a lot of things to secure the votes of enough senators to get voted to the Supreme Court. Once on the high court, his true colors will be revealed.
It seems possibly, but not probable (in my opinion). This is a Supreme Court nominee, and I doubt that many senators on either side would want to vote for someone who doesn't have an extensive record of service and experience in the judiciary or legal fields.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I think what Jason's trying to say is, that Bush's Bunch is going to try to see how far they can push, threaten the "nuclear option" for the first nomination, when really they're going to try to force the Democrats into "compromising" on their second candidate, who's the person that they want to get in office all along. It's like asking for double what you really want, in order to make half look like something that's fair to both parties.
Of course, that's an incredibly stupid way to strategize, but then, the Neo-Conservatives are an incredibly stupid bunch, too. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You're both correct. I think the Bush bunch will try the "bait and switch" thing- offering up a unacceptable first choice among the possible nominations for everyone to balk at, while intending to settle an someone less objectionable but still very conservative.
Who know though? Mabye the Republicans will nominate someone not too nuts as a PR concession to "bipartisanship" and head off the circus the media is already starting.
I doubt it though.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, here's some good news at the outset -- hopefully, anyway. It's way too early to say that it's "going well".
Thanks to all the gods who ever have or ever will exist for that ray of hope.
Maaaan, we do not need a justice that wants to "re-define the definition of torture to apply to the current times".
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
That's the reason free speech in the EU is a conditional right, a very conditional one at that, we don't get wackos trying to redefine torture...
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
It's not a matter of free speech, Marauth. It's a matter of an advisor to the President (namely, Gonzales in his role as chief general counsel for the White House) telling the President in a memo that the Geneva Convention is outdated and specific things that might once have been deemed torture really aren't in this day and age.
Jason: I'd rather put up with Gonzales on the Supreme Court (who does seem to be moderate in some of his views) than the likes of Ted Olsen, Edith Jones, and some of the other litmus-test passed, Religious Right approved, socially conservative justices that are probably being compiled into a list.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
And Hitler's Brian, of course.
Y'Know, today is my birthday, so I should get to choose who is the next Supreme Court Justice. Hmmmm..... Jonny Cochrane. He's dead, but we could just ad lib some snappy catchphrases from a hidden speaker in his embalmed throat and make do.
No, I dont think that's wrong.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Thanks for an excellent new sig, Jason! Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No sweat. I wont even charge royalties (Nim's got me paying through the nose).
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
All we need now is for someone to change their publicly-displayed name to "Hitler's Brian."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dont look at me: I'm half Jewish- they'd revoke my deli privleges.
Plus, I'd stop recieving my Zionist Conspiracy Newsletter. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Lee: Is that "Hitler's Brian" or "Hitler's Brain"? Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The former. But either works. 8)
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
Reinquist is certain to go soon as well (cancer is not going to allow him a choice) and we'll have two more conservative judges on the bench for lifetime appointments.
We're sooooo fucked.
Your opinions?
Reinquist is doing so well these days that they are now saying he may not retire. One Senator was on TV this weekend, and had just seen Reinquist, and said that he looked much better then he did at the swearing in party.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Yes, but can he hold out until Bush is out of office?
Here's praying for a long remission.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Because otherwise, the conservative Rehnquist might be replaced by, uh, another conservative?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, an uber-conservetave. That one falls into the "devil you know" category for me.
Posted by Marauth (Member # 1320) on :
As the thread title says, you guys are indeed, so boned. This guy wrote a brief in 1990 saying the SC should overturn Roe v Wade - the legalisation of abortion.
From the article:
'his record appears to suit Bush's desire to nominate a judge who will apply the law, as written, and leave policy decisions to the elected branches of government.'
Let me be the first to welcome our new theocratic overlords...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Oh, no, he doesn't want to write law!!! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!
*runs and hides under his desk*
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hopefully this is the "hitler's brain" first choice that the Democrats (fucking better) go nuts over and demand anyone else.
Of course, the Dems have been spouting the ol' "work together" bit of crap, so who knows?
Worst of all, the guy looks young and healthy- he could serve for-fucking-ever if confirmed.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You guys recall what i said about Bush nominating "hitler's brain"? It's coming, baby.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)