Details are coming out soon. Get ready for a fierce fight.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/01/oconnor....s.ap/index.html

beat me to it! just saw it on ABCNews

Let the fighting begin....

More than a few of my liberal freinds are upset by this. I'm indifferent. I believe the important issues right now like Abortion and Gay Marriage should be left up to the state governments. Now, with O'Connor gone, it comes closer to being decided by the supreme court and conservative judges.

 

I could go either way on both issues, I see evils and good in both sides of the arguement. However, I do believe that if The Conservatives ever did get Gay Marriage and Abortion outlawed it would be a huge plus for the democratic party voter wise. I care first and foremost about economic issues, social issues like those are far behind. Without marriage and abortion to rally up the extreme right, The Republicans have less weapons to get their guys to the polls.

 

I'm certainly in favor of that.

we all know bush will nominate a neocon.

 

fight will follow.

 

nominee doesnt get elected.

 

 

rinse. repeat.

we all know bush will nominate a neocon.

 

fight will follow.

 

nominee doesnt get elected.

 

 

rinse. repeat.

835220[/snapback]

 

Yep, that about covers it.

I heard a rumor on TV that Bush might first let a far right candidate get shot down, and then nominate a slightly less conservative person, who he then believes will pass when compared to the previous one.

It's possible... but is the congress to stupid to notice that?

It's possible... but is the congress to stupid to notice that?

836408[/snapback]

What do you suggest congress do about it?

It's possible... but is the congress to stupid to notice that?

836408[/snapback]

What do you suggest congress do about it?

836413[/snapback]

add half of a brain to each and every one of them

 

p.s. trade me some pitchers FTF, you are stacked.

It's possible... but is the congress to stupid to notice that?

836408[/snapback]

What do you suggest congress do about it?

836413[/snapback]

add half of a brain to each and every one of them

 

p.s. trade me some pitchers FTF, you are stacked.

836427[/snapback]

I guess youre right, congressmen with half a brain would be better than no brain.

 

p.s. yeah my pitching rocks in that league...send me offers Ill trade anyone...the league is no fun

More than a few of my liberal freinds are upset by this. I'm indifferent. I believe the important issues right now like Abortion and Gay Marriage should be left up to the state governments. Now, with O'Connor gone, it comes closer to being decided by the supreme court and conservative judges.

 

I could go either way on both issues, I see evils and good in both sides of the arguement. However, I do believe that if The Conservatives ever did get Gay Marriage and Abortion outlawed it would be a huge plus for the democratic party voter wise. I care first and foremost about economic issues, social issues like those are far behind. Without marriage and abortion to rally up the extreme right, The Republicans have less weapons to get their guys to the polls.

 

I'm certainly in favor of that.

835016[/snapback]

Thinking about, I dont know if Roe v Wade would get overturned via a social conservative. Looking at the vote count for Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it was Kennedy who swung and not OConner.

 

So those upholding Casey:

 

Kennedy

Ginsburg

Breyer

Souter

Stevens

 

This is occuring because Ginsburg replaced the conservative Byron White.

 

Gay marriage wont get to SCOTA since most of the rulings have been under state Constitutions.

 

But the fear, for me at least, is the destruction of teh economic and enviromental issues that democrats who are socially moderate tend to lean toward.

 

Here is an except from a blog that makes the point:

 

That really is up for grabs, but it really, really, really, really doesn't make sense for Democrats to decide to put this issue front and center. Much better cases where O'Connor was the swing vote include Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, which is about whether the EPA can step in when state environmental agencies don't do their jobs; Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, about HMOs that screw over their clients; or Tennessee v. Lane about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/20...dex.html#006982

 

There are other cases like this too. It seems to me Kennedy has moved away from the right and at the least, to the middle on social issues. His citation of international law in the teenage death penalty case pissed off a lot of conservatives.

 

But on economic issues, the ones you tend to support, he goes with the conservative block from what I recall. Except he didnt do that with the eminent domain case.

More than a few of my liberal freinds are upset by this. I'm indifferent. I believe the important issues right now like Abortion and Gay Marriage should be left up to the state governments. Now, with O'Connor gone, it comes closer to being decided by the supreme court and conservative judges.

 

I could go either way on both issues, I see evils and good in both sides of the arguement. However, I do believe that if The Conservatives ever did get Gay Marriage and Abortion outlawed it would be a huge plus for the democratic party voter wise. I care first and foremost about economic issues, social issues like those are far behind. Without marriage and abortion to rally up the extreme right, The Republicans have less weapons to get their guys to the polls.

 

I'm certainly in favor of that.

835016[/snapback]

Thinking about, I dont know if Roe v Wade would get overturned via a social conservative. Looking at the vote count for Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it was Kennedy who swung and not OConner.

 

So those upholding Casey:

 

Kennedy

Ginsburg

Breyer

Souter

Stevens

 

This is occuring because Ginsburg replaced the conservative Byron White.

 

Gay marriage wont get to SCOTA since most of the rulings have been under state Constitutions.

 

But the fear, for me at least, is the destruction of teh economic and enviromental issues that democrats who are socially moderate tend to lean toward.

 

Here is an except from a blog that makes the point:

 

That really is up for grabs, but it really, really, really, really doesn't make sense for Democrats to decide to put this issue front and center. Much better cases where O'Connor was the swing vote include Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, which is about whether the EPA can step in when state environmental agencies don't do their jobs; Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, about HMOs that screw over their clients; or Tennessee v. Lane about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/20...dex.html#006982

 

There are other cases like this too. It seems to me Kennedy has moved away from the right and at the least, to the middle on social issues. His citation of international law in the teenage death penalty case pissed off a lot of conservatives.

 

But on economic issues, the ones you tend to support, he goes with the conservative block from what I recall. Except he didnt do that with the eminent domain case.

836955[/snapback]

 

Kennedy is the best guy on the bench. Social liberal, fiscal conservative. See what we forget about judges is that theyre supposed to decide on a case based on case facts not ideology, and in the eminent domain case, kennedy saw what the law said and determined his decision to be the correct one, it doesnt necessarily mean he feels it was the best choice, but its what the law says.

More than a few of my liberal freinds are upset by this. I'm indifferent. I believe the important issues right now like Abortion and Gay Marriage should be left up to the state governments. Now, with O'Connor gone, it comes closer to being decided by the supreme court and conservative judges.

 

I could go either way on both issues, I see evils and good in both sides of the arguement. However, I do believe that if The Conservatives ever did get Gay Marriage and Abortion outlawed it would be a huge plus for the democratic party voter wise. I care first and foremost about economic issues, social issues like those are far behind. Without marriage and abortion to rally up the extreme right, The Republicans have less weapons to get their guys to the polls.

 

I'm certainly in favor of that.

835016[/snapback]

Thinking about, I dont know if Roe v Wade would get overturned via a social conservative. Looking at the vote count for Casey v. Planned Parenthood, it was Kennedy who swung and not OConner.

 

So those upholding Casey:

 

Kennedy

Ginsburg

Breyer

Souter

Stevens

 

This is occuring because Ginsburg replaced the conservative Byron White.

 

Gay marriage wont get to SCOTA since most of the rulings have been under state Constitutions.

 

But the fear, for me at least, is the destruction of teh economic and enviromental issues that democrats who are socially moderate tend to lean toward.

 

Here is an except from a blog that makes the point:

 

That really is up for grabs, but it really, really, really, really doesn't make sense for Democrats to decide to put this issue front and center. Much better cases where O'Connor was the swing vote include Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA, which is about whether the EPA can step in when state environmental agencies don't do their jobs; Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, about HMOs that screw over their clients; or Tennessee v. Lane about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

 

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/20...dex.html#006982

 

There are other cases like this too. It seems to me Kennedy has moved away from the right and at the least, to the middle on social issues. His citation of international law in the teenage death penalty case pissed off a lot of conservatives.

 

But on economic issues, the ones you tend to support, he goes with the conservative block from what I recall. Except he didnt do that with the eminent domain case.

836955[/snapback]

 

Kennedy is the best guy on the bench. Social liberal, fiscal conservative. See what we forget about judges is that theyre supposed to decide on a case based on case facts not ideology, and in the eminent domain case, kennedy saw what the law said and determined his decision to be the correct one, it doesnt necessarily mean he feels it was the best choice, but its what the law says.

840378[/snapback]

 

 

If Bush nominates a Kennedy, OConnor, or Souter(also tends to be fiscally conservatve and socially liberal), the Christian right will revolt. Theyve already made that abundantly clear.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAF0894DD404482

If Bush nominates a Kennedy, OConnor, or Souter(also tends to be fiscally conservatve and socially liberal), the Christian right will revolt. Theyve already made that abundantly clear.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...DAF0894DD404482

840849[/snapback]

The good thing about Bush is that Bush will do what he thinks is right. Doesnt matter what the "Christian right" will do.

Bush will play it intelligently, nominate a social conservative that will never be approved, fight hard to get him in, albeit futile. Thennominate a kennedy/oconnor which will make it in. An overall victory for conservatism *crosses fingers*

Bush will play it intelligently, nominate a social conservative that will never be approved, fight hard to get him in, albeit futile. Thennominate a kennedy/oconnor which will make it in. An overall victory for conservatism *crosses fingers*

841142[/snapback]

 

 

 

That all depends on how hard he fights the dems and their filibuster.

 

btw, here is a great article on how Presidents dont always get what they want from justices they appoint for political reasons. ie conservative judges becoming liberal and liberal professors becoming staunch conservatives. Really worth the read:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics.../05history.html?

 

I think if Bush nominates a conservative political figure, that person will end up being a moderate. But if a he nominates a judicial figure that has a certain "political philosophy", that person could end up being like Thomas and Scalia.