THE US Judicial System Thread (merged)

by **Leanan** » Fri 01 Jul 2005, 11:05:40

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement. She was a moderate swing voter on the court, so expect a political ruckus over her replacement.

While the religious right has gotten most of the attention, over social issues like abortion and homosexuality, the other block in the GOP - Big Business - is rumored to be gearing up for a fight this time. Traditionally, they have stayed out of Supreme Court nominations, but rumor has it that this time, they want to make sure that a pro-Big Business judge is chosen. Someone who will protect them from lawsuits, remove government regulations, etc.

And of course, while the feathers fly over this, no one will be paying attention to Iraq or the price of oil...

by **big_rc** » Sat 02 Jul 2005, 17:29:53

All hell is about to break loose boys and girls if Bush nominates anybody to the right of O'Connor (who is pretty moderate, IMO). Of course, he has already said that he wants to nominate a "strict constructionist" (e.g., Scalia Jr.) so if that happens, we are about to see a genuine knock-down drag out, bare knuckles brawl.

by **Tyler_JC** » Sat 02 Jul 2005, 18:27:37

I hope they pick a nice Libertarian swing voter...but it's not going to happen.

Bush isn't stupid enough to pick anyone who would overturn Roe v. Wade, but he is certainly going to pick a rigthwinger. My guess is someone who won't question Gitmo and the Patriot Act.

Or maybe he could exchange a liberal judge for SS reform, I dunno. It's up for grabs here.

by **savethehumans** » Sun 03 Jul 2005, 00:18:40

I'd hoped that Rehnquist would've left first, but in the end, what does it matter?

Looks like the final act of the American REPUBLIC has reached its penultimate scene. You know, the one where all the tragedies climax. Then you get the final scene, where everyone mourns the tragedies, then exits, stage right.

Let's see now: Patriot Act; Resource Wars; Homes Taken so Resorts and WalMarts can be built; Raiding agents snatch the pot you were smoking to ease your cancer--and take you to jail; Currency manipulation; National ID cards; a Neoconservative Supreme Court; and (soon) Presidents can run for as many terms as they want.

And the sheeple rise and--go see "War of the Worlds" at the cineplex.

And the profiteers DON'T start selling tickets to watch this house of cards come tumbling down--even though it'd make 'em a fortune!

It gets harder every day to not think that all this calamity isn't for the best--in the long term--for the PLANET, anyway. . . .

by **erl** » Sun 03 Jul 2005, 02:38:25

I think Bush has to nominate a conservative and he has to nominate someone who is opposed to Roe v. Wade.

The evangelicals were fooled by Carter in '76 and were fooled again by Reagan in '80. Both times they thought they were electing a like-minded President and got burned. They then stayed largely out of politics in '88,
'92, and '96. They began to trickle back in 2000 and surged to the polls in force in 2004.

If the GOP now backtracks on its promises, the GOP won't be able to count on the religious support in 2008.

I think Bush has to shore up his support now. The right will be calling in their chips. Whatever the eventual outcome in the Senate, Bush must deliver.

The real question is whether John McCain and the other Republican fence-sitters will cooperate with Bush.

by **Leanan** » Sun 03 Jul 2005, 07:25:26

I kind of agree with SavetheHumans. One way or the other, we are likely to be losing a lot of our rights. The only question is whether it will be to leftwing Big Brother, "Libertarian" corporate dominance, or the rightwing American Taliban.

(I put "Libertarian" in quotes, because Big Business actually depends on a strong central government. When they say "Libertarian," they mean they don't want to be taxed or subject to regulations themselves. They do want the rest of us to be taxed and regulated, because they need a lot of government support: highways to move their goods, electricity to power their offices, the military to protect their overseas factories and access to cheap oil, the banking system, the police, etc., all of which they are dependent on.)

One possibility: Alberto Gonzalez. He's a dark horse, but he's a good pal of Dubya's, and might be one of the more confirmable choices. He's a corporate type. The right hate him because he's "soft on abortion." The left hate him because he approved the torture at Abu Ghraib. The Big Business types love him, though.

In the end, I think it's Big Business where Dubya's true interests lie. The religious right are just being used by Dubya and the GOP. Bush doesn't really give a rat's rear about abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, and all the other social issues that the right holds so dear. In the end, I think he'd rather have a justice who will get rid of the EPA and the minimum wage, not one who will get rid of Roe v. Wade.

But whether that's politically possible is another question. The religious right are starting to realize they're being used. This is what they've been waiting for: the chance to stack the Supreme Court with "Christian" justices. If Bush doesn't come through for them, there could be hell to pay.

by **big_rc** » Sun 03 Jul 2005, 09:14:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')
In the end, I think it's Big Business where Dubya's true interests lie. The religious right are just being used by Dubya and the GOP. Bush doesn't really give a rat's rear about abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, and all the other social issues that the right holds so dear. In the end, I think he'd rather have a justice who will get rid of the EPA and the minimum wage, not one who will get rid of Roe v. Wade.

But whether that's politically possible is another question. The religious right are starting to realize they're being used. This is what they've been waiting for: the chance to stack the Supreme Court with "Christian" justices. If Bush doesn't come through for them, there could be hell to pay.

by **Leanan** » Sun 03 Jul 2005, 09:30:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are exactly right Leanan and that is why Bush will probably nominate a "Christian" judge. He has to pander to the base and it is far easier to blame the "liberals" for having your nomination bounced than actually make a compromise choice. I truly geniunely hope he won't go the divisive route but then again Bush doesn't do compromise.

by **elizabethlea** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 00:32:10

Supreme court judge Rehnquist has died - that's another appointment Bush can now make.
What a very interesting development, with all the upheaval that is happening now. I wonder what will happen......

by **some_guy282** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 00:36:33

You beat me to it. I was just about to post this myself.
It will be very interesting to see who he appoints... I remember reading a rumor when the last justice resigned earlier this year. The rumor stated that another justice (Kennedy? I don't quite remember) was considering resigning at the same time, but if and only if Rehnquest also resigned. The reasoning was that with 3 nominations, there was an increased liklihood Bush would nominate at least one moderate or even a liberal to balance things out.

by **Macsporan** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 00:38:54

I'd nominate Specop, but I fear he may be considered too moderate for the Bushistas. :razz:

No doubt they'll dredge up some vile Right-Wing hack from the bottom of a swamp somewhere.
If only the US was a parliamentary democracy instead of a mind-bogglingly corrupt, fossilised 18th Century Property-Holders Republic with an elected king...

by **backstop** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 00:50:48

Macsporan -please, don't be demeaning the ancient tradition of the democratic monarchy -
That bandit is no elected king - he's just the ne'er-do-well son of a merchant-barony, who siezed power by force of arm-fuls of dollars . . .

by **Tyler_JC** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 00:51:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Macsporan', 'I')'d nominate Specop, but I fear he may be considered too moderate for the Bushistas. :razz:

No doubt they'll dredge up some vile Right-Wing hack from the bottom of a swamp somewhere.
If only the US was a parliamentary democracy instead of a mind-bogglingly corrupt, fossilised 18th Century Property-Holders Republic with an elected king...

by **MicroHydro** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 00:57:25

They want someone young who can serve a long time. They have also taken flak for nominating another white man last time, so look for a woman or non-white person or both. Leading candidates are Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin.

by **Macsporan** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 01:12:03

Tyler, My understanding is that the Supreme Court has such importance because of the dyfunctional nature of Federal Government which separates the Legislature from the Executive.
Hence my remarks about parliamentary democracy.
And no, I don't really give a rat's which hack the Crawford Chickenhawk puts up for the job.
Hey, you voted for the guy, welcome to him.
My concern is obviously based on fear of the crazy Imperialist whackjobs who are running the place at the moment.
If the US was a parliamentary democracy Bush could lose a no-confidence motion in the Congress and his government would be brought down.
As it is he is practically irremovable.
Perhaps though the criminal corruption and incompetence of his regime, as displayed unmistakably in the New Orleans fiasco, might be the beginning of the end.
Congressional elections in 2006 might see the Dems take over something somewhere.
Then the fur could start to fly.
If Clinton could be pushed to the brink for getting dirty with an intern, what does this malicious blockhead deserve?
As for the broader isssue, if you Yanks would pack-up, go home, be nice to each other and everyone else, I would be happy to do the same.
As it is we all live under the shadow of American Power and baby, its cold outside.

by **evilmonkeyspanker** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 01:22:27

Yea, I just got posting about in my blog, take a look and tell me what you think of my title for it.

My Blog

by **jaws** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 01:49:46

Why is it that the ultimate last resort argument for America always involves WWII? Here's some news for you, things have changed in the past 60 years. America isn't an almighty behemoth anymore, its share of the world has shrunk a lot. The people who ran the American Empire in its golden age are all dead. Those who run it today are fools and the world is wary of them for a good reason.

by **evilmonkeyspanker** » Sun 04 Sep 2005, 01:56:23

Does any of this really freaking matter, once peak oil takes hold.
Stop arguing like a bunch of old women