Looks like a conservative court, for the first time in fifty years.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ishmael
    Banned
    • Jun 2000
    • 23518

    Looks like a conservative court, for the first time in fifty years.

    Just in time, before the midterm elections.

    All the nailbiting aside, I think both Alito and Roberts are smart, measured men. They'll suprise, I think, with some of their votes. But the court is about to become more conservative.

    When was the last time a Republican minority subjected an appointee of a Democrat president to this sort of scrutiny? I don't recall it ever happening.

    [ 01-11-2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: ishmael ]
  • Memphis Mike
    Banned
    • Jun 2001
    • 12533

    #2
    There's a lot at stake here. Do you really want to be ruled by evangelical fundamentalists?

    Comment

    • LeeG
      Senior Member
      • May 2002
      • 72804

      #3
      a lifetime appointment by a president who represents an alliance of evangelical faithbasters working to overturn issues concerning womens health issues and a powerful group of neo-conservatives advocating the liberal application of military power. That president has taken us into a war on misinformation "for our own good" overturning the lessons learned in Vietnam and alliances that developed out of WWII.

      Sorry Jack,,it's not just meany democrats picking on poor little Alito.

      ****e happens,,but maybe not where you live.

      Comment

      • George.
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2004
        • 17963

        #4
        "Looks like a conservative court, for the first time in fifty years"

        You mean the 5-4 majority that handed your right-wing Leader the stolen election were... liberals?

        Comment

        • uncas
          Ancient Mariner
          • Sep 2004
          • 11649

          #5
          I keep on thinking of Jackson's presidency....The court ruled against his actions against the Cherokees and he turned around and said...something like...fine...they create the laws...I uphold them and too bad....
          It was a nice trail of tears.....

          psss. and he is now on a 20 dollar bill.....

          [ 01-11-2006, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

          Comment

          • ishmael
            Banned
            • Jun 2000
            • 23518

            #6
            You mean the 5-4 majority that handed your right-wing Leader the stolen election were... liberals?
            Believe it or not, George, a left leaning court can decide to uphold the constitution as well as a right leaning one. That decision was pretty clear. It's the dicey ones...the ones that hang by the minds on the court, that will be interesting.

            Comment

            • uncas
              Ancient Mariner
              • Sep 2004
              • 11649

              #7
              Now when FDR was president...it was called..."packing the courts"
              He seemed to have gotten away with it....

              Comment

              • Tom Fetter
                Recalcitrant Heretic
                • Jun 2003
                • 50979

                #8
                Dunno Ish. A 50% plus 1 decision doesn't strike me as a case where the decision is "pretty clear." The outcome is obviously what it is, but just under half of the justices saw the law differently.
                If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

                Comment

                • ishmael
                  Banned
                  • Jun 2000
                  • 23518

                  #9
                  Who wrote the dissenting opinion? I'll bet it was mild.

                  It wasn't the best time for a test of the court's mettle. Too much pressure. But, in anycase, the majority rules on the court, and the court ruled rightly, I think.

                  And it didn't hand the election to GW. It did point out an insoluble dilemma in the state court's previous decision to allow the a recount to continue. One which the state court had to acquiese to, or face being overruled out of hand.

                  I can't see it as a case of bias on a court that had ruled quite liberally in most past decisions.

                  Comment

                  • High C
                    Senior Member
                    • Mar 2003
                    • 8984

                    #10
                    Originally posted by George.:
                    ...You mean the 5-4 majority that handed your right-wing Leader the stolen election were... liberals?
                    Remember, George, that the US Supreme Court made three rulings regarding that election. You've cited the narrow result of only one of them.

                    The other two were 7-2, and 9-0.

                    [ 01-11-2006, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

                    Comment

                    • Tom Fetter
                      Recalcitrant Heretic
                      • Jun 2003
                      • 50979

                      #11
                      Those count as "pretty clear."
                      If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

                      Comment

                      • uncas
                        Ancient Mariner
                        • Sep 2004
                        • 11649

                        #12
                        Old news...2000 from the perspective of elections was too far in the past to make a difference....I realize this is a bummer for a lot of us...but regardless of the election in 2000...GWB won in 2004...Let's move ahead...
                        Also...like my rant regarding being at war with Iraq...with no declaration of war...I hate the word disenfranchized....This suggests that people were not allowed to vote...not that they did not know how to vote....as there is a difference...
                        okay...second rant for the day over....

                        Comment

                        • George.
                          Senior Member
                          • Aug 2004
                          • 17963

                          #13
                          Originally posted by ishmael:
                          Believe it or not, George, a left leaning court can decide to uphold the constitution as well as a right leaning one. That decision was pretty clear.
                          Sure, Jack. The fact that ALL the justices nominated by Republican presidents voted for giving the presidency to the Leader, and ALL the justices nominated by Democrats voted against it, is mere coincidence.

                          Have some more soma... it'll make you feel better. Big Brother is always right.

                          Comment

                          • uncas
                            Ancient Mariner
                            • Sep 2004
                            • 11649

                            #14
                            Sounds like an unbiased group afterall...and being chosen for life should eliminate that....
                            So...it comes down to party affiliation and not the law...I guess both fall into that trap.

                            Comment

                            • George.
                              Senior Member
                              • Aug 2004
                              • 17963

                              #15
                              Got my Orwell mixed up - Napoleon is always right.

                              And Big Brother loves you. Do you love Big Brother? If not, the Minilove can fix that. An extraordinary rendition should do the trick.

                              Comment

                              Working...