Rehnquist was to the right of center but managed the Supreme Court with balance and fairness. Justices Souter and Kennedy were also right of center but ultimately rendered very left of center opinions. Cries of "we're screwed" and "here come the right wing radicals" are superficial at best.
Send me that</i< petition; I'm all over it.
I'm more upset about her and her swing vote than Renquist. I just shudder to think how Bush (cronies) is going to figure out a way to make more trouble out of this that we can currently imagine.
Ah. No, I think it was mostly me. A conversation that would have worked perfectly in a room, but lost coherency from a step of distance and a little too much wine.
Rehnquist wasn't my favorite justice, but he did take a stand for the rights of individuals to hold property in his dissent in Kelo v. New London. Also, Rehnquist took up a dissenting position in the case on medical marijuana. I think we may find other opinions by him that may recast him as less Neanderthal in some ways. See this restrospective of his decisions.
Time to help the confused foreigner: When O'Connor announced retirement, I remember reading analysis to the point that "Bush will get the chance to appoint two Supreme Court Justices," and I seem to recall that it was expected Rehnquist would also retire. Do I remember wrong? Does this mean that Bush will get a shoot at _three_ justices?
His daddy set up the court/system that got himappointed president. I don't know who else wants or needs to retire. I want Day O'Connor back, and didn't always love Rehnquist's ideas of justice. But I also viewed them as basically honourable. Mostly not in anyone's pocket idealogical or otherwise. Mostly.
So Shrub gets to really stack the court. Is this whom we want appointing the theoretical epitome of the fairest justice in the land? We supposedly voted him into office. His handlers keep the people fooled or lied to. Or maybe steal votes. Who's to be able to prove it? Why shouldn't he perpetuate his dynasty's nastiness and stupidity as long as he can? Make a lot more dough for his buddies, and make sure his daughters get something out of it. And, whee, he gets to have been president. So glad I'm not leaving any offspring around to inherit this steaming pile. I'm calling it like I see it and smell it, and I'm sorry for many. Someone please try to disillusion me. I could use some amusement.
Oh, I know all those. I'm just confused about the numbers here---I seem to recall the scare already starting about the second judge appointment when O'Connor retired, and that the second judge was going to replace Rehnquist anyway. Am I wrong about that? Is this going to let Bush appoint a third new judge?
And no, so far only two. More than enough. Rehnquist held out as long as he could. Far as I know no one else is ailing or going. Is anyone is dabbling with SC Justice necromancy? Could we get Thurgood Marshall back? Maybe fiddle around to reanimate George Washington? Just a thought. I'm not doing that I'd just vote for either And Jimmy Carter is extant. We could just re-enlist him, maybe. Nah he's too smart for that. So is Washington, by now. Marshall was cut of better leather. Lincoln, maybe...
So do we have any potential real Justices out there? *grumble* Not that I'm proud to be a loyal U.S. citizen.
Well, Supreme Court justice *is* a lifetime appointment so if we can re-animate ANY prior justice he might have a shot at the post. Nominate "Lincoln's Head", Futurama style?
So... President Bush's father anticipated that his son would need to be appointed President EIGHT YEARS before he defeated Al Gore in 2000 and before Bill Clinton had even been elected? Like the emperor from Star Wars, I guess Bush Senior had "forseen it." And why is it that you have been ok with activist judges legislating from the bench for the past 13 years .... except when the Supreme Court stopped Al Gore's endless ballot recounts? I think I smell a double-standard here.
Similarly, how is President Bush's "stacking the court" any different from Democratic Presidents "stacking the court" with liberal judges? It's the sitting President's JOB to nominate Supreme Court justices, an indirect result of the will of the people. You know, the people that elected Bush into office.
Cries of "perpetuating dynasties", "fooling or lying to the people", "illegitimate elections" and "stuffing dough into the pockets of his buddies" are just so many slurs and do not support your position. If you don't think your voice is being heard then let me suggest that you make sure your representatives really are representing your interests.
I do not believe that the will of the people is being represented. Or if it is, then their interests in terms of their well-being sure aren't. Guess that's democracy. (la la la.) I'm a minority. I'm fucked.
I just seem to remember that in the not too distant past there have been episodes of compassion on the government's part that went beyond the minimum they had to display in order not to have a rebellion on their hands, or to not completely lose all geopolitical face. Efficiency on any administration's part would probably cause me to faint.
So no, my interests aren't being represented. I go to my polling place and vote, but I don't see much good coming of it. I write and call the representatives I didn't vote for to tell them what I think they should be doing, but don't see them doing any of the things that I think matter.
And no, I haven't "been okay with activist judges legislating from the bench for the past 13 years". Those are your words. Or the republican party's. Or maybe just the right wing's. NOT MINE.
I don't think Bush Sr. had the brains to set anything specific up. He watched how things were happening, picked useful cronies, threw his money around where it counted, and got lucky.
And if those accusations I make are baseless, I'd like to be proven wrong by seeing a bunch of different things happening than I'm seeing . Oh, gee, and Halliburton is raking it in on cleaning up after this disaster. Wonder who hired them? Was it constitutionally okay? Any way I could find out how that happened there?
I encountered the same response to my letters warning of the consequences should Bill Clinton lay seige to the Branch Davidians in Waco. Got some nice form letters thanking me for my concern and assuring me that law and order would be restored. Gee, I also received a very impressive and professional looking....
post card.
And if those accusations I make are baseless, I'd like to be proven wrong by seeing a bunch of different things happening than I'm seeing . Oh, gee, and Halliburton is raking it in on cleaning up after this disaster. Wonder who hired them? Was it constitutionally okay? Any way I could find out how that happened there?
"There are none so blind as those who will not see".
If you insist on seeing villians lurking behind every government contract let by a Republican administration then of course you will see nothing but cronyism, corruption, greed and culpability. Halliburton is simply doing their job, oh and guess what... they get PAID for it too. Do you know of anyone who is more qualified to do the work than Halliburton? Do you have numbers to support your charge that Halliburton is "raking it in?"
(hint - government contracts are a very low margin business and becoming less and less lucrative by the month)
Maybe Halliburton is a known quantity, has existing broad aggreements with the US government and is qualified to do the work. What would be Constitutionally improper in hiring Halliburton?
Or did VP Dick Cheney use his MMIIINNNDDDD CONNNTTRRRROLLLL to reduce the Corp Of Engineer's budget, weakening the levees, create the vast flooding and destruction and thus requiring the services of Halliburton whose stock he happens to own in his retirement account????
OH MY GOD I SEE IT ALL NOW... It's just a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
More the timing than anything else, along with a dose of "we knew it was coming but still hadn't completely braced ourselves".
R.I.P. Justice Rehnquist
(no subject)
(no subject)
Can we talk Sandra Day into reconsidering her retirement? Please?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
I was referring to a (as yet mythical) petition to get Sandra Day yo reconsider retiring, as you suggested.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
So Shrub gets to really stack the court. Is this whom we want appointing the theoretical epitome of the fairest justice in the land? We supposedly voted him into office. His handlers keep the people fooled or lied to. Or maybe steal votes. Who's to be able to prove it? Why shouldn't he perpetuate his dynasty's nastiness and stupidity as long as he can? Make a lot more dough for his buddies, and make sure his daughters get something out of it. And, whee, he gets to have been president. So glad I'm not leaving any offspring around to inherit this steaming pile. I'm calling it like I see it and smell it, and I'm sorry for many. Someone please try to disillusion me. I could use some amusement.
And yes, I'm a loyal U.S. citizen.
(no subject)
(no subject)
So do we have any potential real Justices out there? *grumble* Not that I'm proud to be a loyal U.S. citizen.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Similarly, how is President Bush's "stacking the court" any different from Democratic Presidents "stacking the court" with liberal judges? It's the sitting President's JOB to nominate Supreme Court justices, an indirect result of the will of the people. You know, the people that elected Bush into office.
Cries of "perpetuating dynasties", "fooling or lying to the people", "illegitimate elections" and "stuffing dough into the pockets of his buddies" are just so many slurs and do not support your position. If you don't think your voice is being heard then let me suggest that you make sure your representatives really are representing your interests.
But That's What I was Saying.
I just seem to remember that in the not too distant past there have been episodes of compassion on the government's part that went beyond the minimum they had to display in order not to have a rebellion on their hands, or to not completely lose all geopolitical face. Efficiency on any administration's part would probably cause me to faint.
So no, my interests aren't being represented. I go to my polling place and vote, but I don't see much good coming of it. I write and call the representatives I didn't vote for to tell them what I think they should be doing, but don't see them doing any of the things that I think matter.
And no, I haven't "been okay with activist judges legislating from the bench for the past 13 years". Those are your words. Or the republican party's. Or maybe just the right wing's. NOT MINE.
I don't think Bush Sr. had the brains to set anything specific up. He watched how things were happening, picked useful cronies, threw his money around where it counted, and got lucky.
And if those accusations I make are baseless, I'd like to be proven wrong by seeing a bunch of different things happening than I'm seeing . Oh, gee, and Halliburton is raking it in on cleaning up after this disaster. Wonder who hired them? Was it constitutionally okay? Any way I could find out how that happened there?
Re: But That's What I was Saying.
post card.
And if those accusations I make are baseless, I'd like to be proven wrong by seeing a bunch of different things happening than I'm seeing . Oh, gee, and Halliburton is raking it in on cleaning up after this disaster. Wonder who hired them? Was it constitutionally okay? Any way I could find out how that happened there?
"There are none so blind as those who will not see".
If you insist on seeing villians lurking behind every government contract let by a Republican administration then of course you will see nothing but cronyism, corruption, greed and culpability. Halliburton is simply doing their job, oh and guess what... they get PAID for it too. Do you know of anyone who is more qualified to do the work than Halliburton? Do you have numbers to support your charge that Halliburton is "raking it in?"
(hint - government contracts are a very low margin business and becoming less and less lucrative by the month)
Maybe Halliburton is a known quantity, has existing broad aggreements with the US government and is qualified to do the work. What would be Constitutionally improper in hiring Halliburton?
Or did VP Dick Cheney use his MMIIINNNDDDD CONNNTTRRRROLLLL to reduce the Corp Of Engineer's budget, weakening the levees, create the vast flooding and destruction and thus requiring the services of Halliburton whose stock he happens to own in his retirement account????
OH MY GOD I SEE IT ALL NOW... It's just a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!
(^.^)