Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: Who will be Bush's Supreme Court Nominee?

Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Supreme Court Nominee

    Who will be Bush's Supreme Court nominee? Why? Regardless of who you think it might be, who do you want it to be?

  2. #2
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    I actually wouldn't mind seeing Gonzales as he's at least pro-choice... and if Bolton is any indication of the sort of person Bush would put into a position of authority, we can only hope it's Gonzalez.

    My guess is that it will be former Los Angeles Police chief Daryl Gates or someone with a similar track record on human rights.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    I actually wouldn't mind seeing Gonzales as he's at least pro-choice
    What utter bulls**t. Now judicial nominees have to follow Leftist policies? "It doesn't matter if Roe was a badly reasoned decision, because it came out to the substantive conclusion that I agreed with! And any judicial nominee who thinks otherwise isn't fit to sit on the bench!"
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    I'm not from here, NV
    Posts
    2,267
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    I am not sure who, but probably a moderate who leans right.
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." ~Bertrand Russell

  5. #5
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    What utter bulls**t. Now judicial nominees have to follow Leftist policies? "It doesn't matter if Roe was a badly reasoned decision, because it came out to the substantive conclusion that I agreed with! And any judicial nominee who thinks otherwise isn't fit to sit on the bench!"
    Yup. Decisions that give rights to individuals are clearly the work of "judicial activists". Let's reverse Loving vs. Virginia and anul all inter-racial marriages. That'll show all those "activist judges"!

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    You know, even if the candidate was a "right-leaning anti-abortion idealogue", it wouldn't make him/her a bad judge. Judges are supposed to render an impartial verdict, not lack any political beliefs (although it seems that people like Zhavric only mind political beliefs when they're Conservative).
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    Yup. Decisions that give rights to individuals are clearly the work of "judicial activists". Let's reverse Loving vs. Virginia and anul all inter-racial marriages. That'll show all those "activist judges"!
    F**king right. Judicial decisions do not MAKE NEW LAW. They do not determine what the law SHOULD BE, but what the law IS. LEGISLATURES give people rights and pass laws. The Supreme Court decides which laws violate the Constitution and which do not. They do not get to make new rights. What utter absurdity.

    The 14th Amendment made anti-miscegenation laws illegal, not the Supreme Court.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  8. #8
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    The 14th Amendment made anti-miscegenation laws illegal, not the Supreme Court.
    And it was doing a bang-up job, let me tell ya...

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    And it was doing a bang-up job, let me tell ya...
    Is that all?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    I'm hoping a strict constructionist/originalist like Clive's boy Scalia.

  11. #11
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples
    Judicial decisions do not MAKE NEW LAW. The 14th Amendment made anti-miscegenation laws illegal, not the Supreme Court.
    14th Amendment was passed in 1868. It wasn't until 1967, almost 100 years later, that the Warren Court ruled that the 14th Amendment rendered anti-miscegenation laws illegal. Was the Warren Court an activist court? Or just not on that issue? What makes a Court activist? Was Bush v. Gore activist? Or is just "liberal" activism (abortion, school prayer, criminal procedure) a concern, but not "conservative" activism (protecting property rights, states rights, limiting government efforts to regulate business)? Striking down congressional laws passed by the people?:

    "We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

    Thomas 65.63 %
    Kennedy 64.06 %
    Scalia 56.25 %
    Rehnquist 46.88 %
    O'Connor 46.77 %
    Souter 42.19 %
    Stevens 39.34 %
    Ginsburg 39.06 %
    Breyer 28.13 %

    One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure, the latter group is the most activist." www.nytimes.com

    What did Rehnquist mean in Alabama Board of Trustees v. Garrett when in construing the 11th Amendment to bar state employees from suing their employers for money damages under the ADA he stated, "Although by its terms the amendment applies only to suits against a state by citizens of another state, our cases have extended the amendment's applicability to suits by citizens against their own states." Activism? Or "Strict Constructionism"?

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Nominee

    Quote Originally Posted by NYTIMES
    At least by this measure, the latter group is the most activist.
    That's a b.s. standard. A judge isn't activist because s/he strikes down laws, but because of WHY s/he strikes down the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger
    14th Amendment was passed in 1868. It wasn't until 1967, almost 100 years later, that the Warren Court ruled that the 14th Amendment rendered anti-miscegenation laws illegal. Was the Warren Court an activist court?
    Your question is improper. Whether or not Loving was an activist decision bears little on the overall activism or non-activism of the Warren Court.

    I believe Loving was correctly decided. The 14th Amendment was clearly designed to stop racially discriminatory laws and practices.

    Re: Rehnquist, he apparently felt stare decisis was important. But I'm entirely unfamiliar with the case. If you'd provide a link to his opinion, I'd be grateful.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Flag burning - what's wrong?
    By Trendem in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: July 6th, 2005, 06:36 PM
  2. Schiavo: Life or Death?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: April 13th, 2005, 10:04 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 29th, 2005, 10:41 PM
  4. Supreme Court bans execution of minors.
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 1st, 2005, 11:41 PM
  5. CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: August 18th, 2004, 10:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •