Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/29/2005 7:30:48 PM EDT
It was reported earlier another nomination will likely be coming as early as Monday. I have almost decided that as long as it isn't Gonzales all will be good. Of course he is "obligated" by his campaign promises of a strict constructionist so I hope Gonzales is out of the picture. Whoever it is will be fun to watch because things are going to get ugly after Roberts sailed through so fast. I would bet we will see a woman for sure, the only question is who ?
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:32:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
It was reported earlier another nomination will likely be coming as early as Monday. I have almost decided that as long as it isn't Gonzales all will be good. Of course he is "obligated" by his campaign promises of a strict constructionist so I hope Gonzales is out of the picture. Whoever it is will be fun to watch because things are going to get ugly after Roberts sailed through so fast. I would bet we will see a woman for sure, the only question is who ?



+1
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:35:14 PM EDT
I know who it aint gonna be if he got my email. That job would take time away from my hobbies and I thought the noble thing to do was to disqualify myself before he got embarrassed by asking me then being rejected. Sorry George, I'm busy. Maybe The_Red_Goat is available.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:35:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Misery:

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:
It was reported earlier another nomination will likely be coming as early as Monday. I have almost decided that as long as it isn't Gonzales all will be good. Of course he is "obligated" by his campaign promises of a strict constructionist so I hope Gonzales is out of the picture. Whoever it is will be fun to watch because things are going to get ugly after Roberts sailed through so fast. I would bet we will see a woman for sure, the only question is who ?



+1



+2
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:35:59 PM EDT
I was suprised at how easy it was to get Roberts through.

Who ever is chosen had better be as squeeky clean as roberts, because whoever it is, is going to be raked through the coals with alot more media intensity than we have seen in the last two weeks.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:36:31 PM EDT
I can describe the nominee in 4 words.....


Middle Aged with Breasts

I've been losing faith in W's ability to make the right decision without caving in a little....
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:37:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 7:38:03 PM EDT by mayday]
Bush should nominate someone that the left hates with a passion. Because you know if the tables were reversed, the left would be rubbing our faces in it and nominating far, far left judges. I frankly dont know why we have to cower to the lefties. WE won the elections not them.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:38:16 PM EDT

I hope it's me.

Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:41:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SciFiNut:
I can describe the nominee in 4 words.....


Middle Aged with Breasts

I've been losing faith in W's ability to make the right decision without caving in a little....



Yup.

He's going to choose a "minority".

The second qualfication will be that she/he has a "centrist" political view.

Narrow construction of the constitution according to the intent of its writers will be an immediate disqualification.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:41:41 PM EDT
I hope it's Gumby. He's first class Supreme Court material!

Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:43:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mayday:
Bush should nominate someone that the left hates with a passion. Because you know if the tables were reversed, the left would be rubbing our faces in it and nominating far, far left judges. I frankly dont know why we have to cower to the lefties. WE won the elections not them.



I am hoping it will be someone the libs find outrageous just so I can see them cry all over the tube. They got that freak Ginsburg so we deserve a good one. (always hoping Ginsburgs slot will open in the next three years).
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:44:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlammO:
I hope it's Gumby. He's first class Supreme Court material!

www.iit.edu/~chilnic/Gumby%20hat.jpg



Green is a minority right?

gumby is perfect!
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:44:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 7:51:35 PM EDT by Merrell]

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I hope it's me.




What we DON'T need is endless intellectual reasoning, no matter how lucid it might be.

We need a SC Judge of ACTION. Someone who will declare Quebec unConstitutional, then when Canada bitches, launch an air strike.

We need a SC Judge who will put a reloading press next to their gavel, and hurl Chinese throwing stars at ambulance chasers who bring up cases like "I am ENTITLED to $800 worth of cellphone service a month" or "Cheez Whiz made me fat"

We need an SC Judge who will throw the whole damn Dept of Transportation out the window and declare 55MPH to be the MINIMUM speed. In school zones.

We need a SC Judge who will uphold "Merrell vs. the grocery stores" and order a "Guys only/cash only/people who can count only" checkout lane at the Piggly Wiggly.

Lastly, we need a Judge who cares.

I think the choice is clear... Justice Jennifer, may I serve under you?
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:51:37 PM EDT
If he's half-way smart, he'll nominate somebody whom the Dems will look like fools if they oppose-I'll go with Black or Hispanic female for sure.

We all know the Dems care about Blacks and Latinos
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:51:45 PM EDT
Koolaide man would be better.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:54:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
If he's half-way smart, he'll nominate somebody whom the Dems will look like fools if they oppose-I'll go with Black or Hispanic female for sure.

We all know the Dems care about Blacks and Latinos



I'd rather his choice be based on the person's interpretation of the constitution.

I can't beleive people on our side are hoping he nominates someone based on their gender or skin color simply for political advantage. What the heck is wrong with the Republican Party????
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:56:17 PM EDT
i hope its Janice Rogers Brown. shes freakin brilliant. she VERY pro liberty, pro states-rights, pro gun PLUS shes a black woman. any lib who opposes a self made black woman is taking a very risky political gamble.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:56:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:58:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
i hope its Janice Rogers Brown. shes freakin brilliant. she VERY pro liberty, pro states-rights, pro gun PLUS shes a black woman. any lib who opposes a self made black woman is taking a very risky political gamble.



The woman said that the New Deal was a socialist plot. She's OK in my book.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 7:59:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
i hope its Janice Rogers Brown. shes freakin brilliant. she VERY pro liberty, pro states-rights, pro gun PLUS shes a black woman. any lib who opposes a self made black woman is taking a very risky political gamble.



That would be my pick, not because she is woman or a minority. That woman has balls bigger than any male in Washington right now and I mean that as a compliment
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:01:01 PM EDT
If W was the man I thought I voted for, nominee will be
Alan Keyes or Ron Paul.
But...
My hopes have been lowered lately.

DanM
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:01:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:04:02 PM EDT
I'll crap in my own thread for a change

Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:04:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By pieceofstink:
If he's half-way smart, he'll nominate somebody whom the Dems will look like fools if they oppose-I'll go with Black or Hispanic female for sure.

We all know the Dems care about Blacks and Latinos



I'd rather his choice be based on the person's interpretation of the constitution.

I can't beleive people on our side are hoping he nominates someone based on their gender or skin color simply for political advantage. What the heck is wrong with the Republican Party????

A white male who is known for strict interpretation of the Constitution would NEVER pass the current US Senate.

A black female who is known for strict interpretation of the Constitution MAY pass the current US Senate.


It's reality.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:16:12 PM EDT
Judge Brown would work for me, she makes Scalia look liberal and I LOVE that and I agree I think someone replace W's spine with linguini here lately i.e. I'll sign the AWB, CFR, borders etc
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:22:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
I hope it's me.




What we DON'T need is endless intellectual reasoning, no matter how lucid it might be.

We need a SC Judge of ACTION. Someone who will declare Quebec unConstitutional, then when Canada bitches, launch an air strike.

We need a SC Judge who will put a reloading press next to their gavel, and hurl Chinese throwing stars at ambulance chasers who bring up cases like "I am ENTITLED to $800 worth of cellphone service a month" or "Cheez Whiz made me fat"

We need an SC Judge who will throw the whole damn Dept of Transportation out the window and declare 55MPH to be the MINIMUM speed. In school zones.

We need a SC Judge who will uphold "Merrell vs. the grocery stores" and order a "Guys only/cash only/people who can count only" checkout lane at the Piggly Wiggly.

Lastly, we need a Judge who cares.

I think the choice is clear... www.techcentralstation.com/images/runawaybride.jpg Justice Jennifer, may I serve under you?





Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:22:33 PM EDT
First off, it won't actually be President Bush who makes the nomination. It will be all of his advisors.

Pres. Bush does not know himself enough to make the proper determination on who "his" nomination will be.

It will be the "product" of his administration.

I think John Roberts was a good choice. IIII would like to see another John Roberts.***

Whether Pres. Bush's advisors will give us another John Roberts remains to be seen.

I guarantee you, he/she will not be who President Bush might "nominate" himself.



More than anything else, I would like someone who is pro-2nd Amendment.

(Do we even know if John Roberts is Pro2?***)

You take the "bite" out of the Constitution...and the rest is history....
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:27:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LANCEMAN:

Originally Posted By mayday:
Bush should nominate someone that the left hates with a passion. Because you know if the tables were reversed, the left would be rubbing our faces in it and nominating far, far left judges. I frankly dont know why we have to cower to the lefties. WE won the elections not them.



I am hoping it will be someone the libs find outrageous just so I can see them cry all over the tube. They got that freak Ginsburg so we deserve a good one. (always hoping Ginsburgs slot will open in the next three years).


The libs will find any nominee outrageous, so nominate a judge worth the rage.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 8:33:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
i hope its Janice Rogers Brown. shes freakin brilliant. she VERY pro liberty, pro states-rights, pro gun PLUS shes a black woman. any lib who opposes a self made black woman is taking a very risky political gamble.



+1,000,000 Judge Brown is my pick! She's the perfect canidate. The Dems have already said "Yes" to her once, so they'll have a hard time explaining why she shouldn't be on the SCOTUS. Mr. Bush can't go wrong with her. [crosses fingers, toes and eyes in hopes of Janice Rogers Brown being the next nomine for SCJ.]

-yj
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:07:07 PM EDT
But will she get the nomination? I don't think so. Look at the fight she had already.

The Dumbocrats still have the power (TG*) to throw a monkey wrench into the works.



*Thank Goodness- that would be the checks and balances built into our wacky form of Government.

I don't care about your gender or ethnicity, just are you going to uphold the Constitution and the "Law of the Land" based upon the words of the Founders AND are you an American?

And believe me, I don't like FeinSchumKenn, but, I will grant them their "say".... and they represent 49.9% of this country's voice.

I suspect that the views here are not (percentagewise) reflective of the country as a whole. Sorry.

I would like another "John Roberts" as long as he/she is PRO-2!!!!!

(The other "rights" I will fight for as necessary) because....

WHAT IS RIGHT IS NOT ALWAYS LEGAL AND WHAT IS LEGAL IS NOT ALWAYS RIGHT.

Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:12:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TR:

And believe me, I don't like FeinSchumKenn, but, I will grant them their "say".... and they represent 49.9% of this country's voice.




There's an invalid assumption there. They represent the 49.9% who hold that no man has any rights the government or political majority declines to recognize, not in his property, his religion, his mode of dress, or his life. They are not entitled to be heard or respected.

People who reject the fundamental notion that humans have rights beyond the reach of the majority are not entitled to pimp their ideology.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:17:54 PM EDT
me





jk.. I hope its Janice Rodgers Brown
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:29:12 PM EDT
I hope it's ashcroft so we can watch kennedy and biden explode from the shock.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:32:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 9:33:15 PM EDT by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By kman84:
I hope it's ashcroft so we can watch kennedy and biden explode from the shock.



Ashcroft would be a very bad choice. He is a social conservative, but no constitutionalist - let alone a strict constructionist. Does the Orgegon Assisted Suicide law ring a bell? Ashcroft will happily piss on the Constitution if that will promote his agenda.
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 9:46:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 10:02:01 PM EDT by LotBoy]

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
Originally Posted By BlammO:
I hope it's Gumby. He's first class Supreme Court material!

Green is a minority right?

www.iit.edu/~chilnic/Gumby%20hat.jpg





But Gumby is a dude!
Link Posted: 9/29/2005 11:40:51 PM EDT
Yes, but Gumby can have bewbies whenever it serves his purpose!
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 12:04:59 AM EDT
I'll go with Brown also. The only Libs who will be able to oppose her and get away with it are the usual suspects-Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein, Clinton, et. al. the rest of the Dems will be to scared to vote nay. Brown it is.

Remember-the Dems are the party who cares about Blacks.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:10:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2005 3:13:21 AM EDT by LANCEMAN]
Taken from here saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=31934

It is a Libetard website but it is still informative because everything they think is negative is actually whay makes her great. Here is a sample:

"Justice Brown's record of injecting her virulently antigovernment views into her opinions is particularly troublesome"

"Brown has often been the lone justice to dissent on the California Supreme Court, illustrating that her judicial philosophy is outside the mainstream" If she was against the Kalifornia mainstream then she must be right person for the job.

DISDAINS GOVERNMENT AND ADVOCATES THE DEMISE OF THE NEW DEAL
Justice Brown equates democratic government with "slavery," claims that the New Deal "inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of collectivist mentality," calls Supreme Court decisions upholding the New Deal "the triumph of our own socialist revolution," accuses social security recipients of "blithely cannibaliz[ing] their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much 'free' stuff as the political system permits them to extract," and advocates returning to the widely discredited, early 20th century Lochner era, where the Supreme Court regularly invalidated economic regulations, like workplace protections. "Where government moves in," Justice Brown declares, "community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."

ETA: The end of the above paragraph sounds like an accurate description of New Orleans to me.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:16:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mayday:
Bush should nominate someone that the left hates with a passion. Because you know if the tables were reversed, the left would be rubbing our faces in it and nominating far, far left judges. I frankly dont know why we have to cower to the lefties. WE won the elections not them.


i think bush has pretty much shown he doesn't give a rat's ass about the people who elected him. he's done after this so he's looking at his place in history and wants to be the "great appeaser", an extremely common medical condition in the dickless republican party.

having said that, i hope he picks ashcroft but there ain't a snowball's chance in hell of that happening...
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:18:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By kman84:
I hope it's ashcroft so we can watch kennedy and biden explode from the shock.



Ashcroft would be a very bad choice. He is a social conservative, but no constitutionalist - let alone a strict constructionist. Does the Orgegon Assisted Suicide law ring a bell? Ashcroft will happily piss on the Constitution if that will promote his agenda.


ummm does his stance on the second amendment as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT ring a bell??? he can piss on social dilettantism all he wants as long as he adheres to the true meaning of the rkba.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 3:54:50 AM EDT
Dear Lord, PLEASE let it be Janice Rogers Brown!

Oh, man! The left would FREAK!

Then, we could just flip it right back at them: "Oh! So you're saying you don't want a black female on the Court unless YOU can control her, eh? "....



Yeah, I know. I won't hold my breath...
Top Top