DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Sept 5, 2005 8:16:43 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 5, 2005 13:29:28 GMT -5
So much for my prediction Bush would nominate a woman as Chief Justice.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 5, 2005 15:57:10 GMT -5
Or an African-American or a Latin-American - but whatever it was probably a calculation of what was more politically expedient with the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the massive disaster on the Gulf Coast, and the price of gas spiking.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 5, 2005 18:56:24 GMT -5
By all means St. Pete, let's blame Bush for anything and everything. Is that all you can do? Just the weather and the energy markets? There just has to be more we can pile on....
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 5, 2005 19:11:52 GMT -5
When we mention the disaster in NOLA, there are probably two disasters worth mentioning. First, the hurricane and, second, the bungled recovery, for which there is plenty of blame to be circulated. Nobody faults anyone for the latter, but the former is just unbelievably tragic. At this point in time, it is probably premature to assign the bulk of the blame to any one actor, but a few names stick out for particular incompetence. "Brownie" would be one of them.
I think there is profound frustration with how the recovery has gone, particularly when "homeland security" and disaster response are where a certain individual claims to be his strongest.
In terms of the energy markets, we can get into an academic debate on that and probably come to agree with your viewpoint, but... President Bush campaigned on the idea that he'd keep gas prices low, and they'd go through the roof in a Kerry Administration. IMO, they were too high even before Katrina.
Incidentally, care to backtrack on your prediction that the Roberts nomination process would be uninteresting? Oops...
The time for deference has ended with this Administration. I have been willing to give them more leeway that I would otherwise because I found their immediate response to 9/11 to be effective, admirable, and praiseworthy. Those were not choices that the President had to make. A war in Afghanistant, for example, was a necessity. Iraq, however, was not, and I think many people rightly opposed it. Unfortunately, I think most things since late 2001 could have been handled differently, for the betterment of the country.
Katrina is the tipping point for many of us in the loyal opposition, and I'd associate myself with many of SirSaxa's comments. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how we "blame America," "hate America," "are killing the troops in Iraq." I don't want to hear how we "wanted therapy" for the terrorists or "did not learn the lessons September the 11th." Methinks that many who make those charges don't know what America is.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Sept 5, 2005 19:11:55 GMT -5
That's not what I am saying - I am saying that there is a lot of bad stuff going on right now that the administration has to deal with - and that burdening itself with up to 3 SC nomination processes running parallel to each other doesn't make sense in the current political climate.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 5, 2005 19:15:05 GMT -5
So much for my prediction Bush would nominate a woman as Chief Justice. I think it is highly possible that we'll see a woman nominated to replace O'Connor, now that Roberts is officially the nominee to replace Rehnquist. Edith Jones and Clement are two examples. They are reasonably conservative and also come from areas most affected by the hurricane. That would make for perhaps a silver lining for that part of the country, while satisfying desires in some circles for another female in the Supreme Court. I just did not see him going in that direction for the CJ nomination. He chose the path of least resistance, with the Scalia option being another, with slightly greater resistance.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 5, 2005 20:58:02 GMT -5
"Incidentally, care to backtrack on your prediction that the Roberts nomination process would be uninteresting? Oops..."
Ummm...no I do not. In fact, I will gladly bet you $100 that Roberts gets a minimum of 85 votes to confirm..... Deal?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 5, 2005 21:02:42 GMT -5
I guess you don't find it interesting that he became the CJ nominee. Oh well... Most recognize the process thus far as being unprecedented, given how he has been elevated to the CJ level.
"I don't think it will be all that that interesting to see what happens to Roberts." -thebin
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 5, 2005 21:10:01 GMT -5
I completely fail to see your point. Are you saying your intention all along was that you thought what would be "interesting" about his confirmation was that Rehnquist would first die and then Roberts would be bumped up to a CJ nominee? Is that what you meant? Wow. That is interesting. I could have sworn what you meant was that Roberts was going to have a tough time being confirmed when you were trying to scare up some whiff of controversy about the spotless nomination. He will not have trouble being confirmed by the way. Care a small wager to the contrary?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Sept 5, 2005 21:17:09 GMT -5
My intention was to say that the process would be interesting, due to how the politics of it evolved and the situation with O'Connor retiring, which I found slightly surprising. As it appears now, Rehnquist wanted to go out with his boots on, which is admirable, although I thought that he would be the first to retire in the "off-season." As it turns out, I was mistaken there, which is cause for some of the intrigue from my end.
I never believed, nor did I say, that there would be trouble with the Roberts nomination. I indicated that there could be trouble due to how hearings have gone at times, and it would be interesting to see what happened there. I don't think anyone can predict whether that kind of thing will happen in Senate hearings.
I remain supportive of the Roberts nomination, although I will be looking for a more moderate pick to replace O'Connor.
|
|
Gold Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,578
|
Post by Gold Hoya on Sept 6, 2005 9:32:22 GMT -5
This was the only realistic choice President Bush could have made. Scalia would never be confirmed. I don't think anyone could muster up support for a justice (Thomas) who regularly falls asleep during arguments, and Bush wouldn't want to elevate any of the other justices.
Given these realities, it had to be Roberts; otherwise, Bush would be contradicting his previous position that Roberts was the most qualified outside nominee to be elevated to the Court.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaDestroya on Sept 6, 2005 11:13:16 GMT -5
i think scalia could be confirmed, but i have to agree with st. pete (as hard as that may be for me) that the political atmosphere is not such that he could be confirmed right now. while a lot of liberal dems disagree with his positions there is still respect on both sides of the aisle and inside the beltway for his intellect - and in the right environment, even with the current makeup of the Senate, he could be confirmed. the president, however, recognizes this is not that time.
another "interesting" question then is what does scalia do? i had heard rumors and there might even be a quote out there somewhere that he had talked about stepping down if he was not elevated to chief... which seems silly b/c it really is more of symbolic position - as the WaPost said today in its editorial" "The difference between the chief justice and the other members of the court, after all, is largely administrative, not substantive; all justices have only one vote."
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Sept 6, 2005 11:35:50 GMT -5
i think scalia could be confirmed, but i have to agree with st. pete (as hard as that may be for me) that the political atmosphere is not such that he could be confirmed right now. while a lot of liberal dems disagree with his positions there is still respect on both sides of the aisle and inside the beltway for his intellect - and in the right environment, even with the current makeup of the Senate, he could be confirmed. the president, however, recognizes this is not that time. another "interesting" question then is what does scalia do? i had heard rumors and there might even be a quote out there somewhere that he had talked about stepping down if he was not elevated to chief... which seems silly b/c it really is more of symbolic position - as the WaPost said today in its editorial" "The difference between the chief justice and the other members of the court, after all, is largely administrative, not substantive; all justices have only one vote." No doubt about Scalia's intellect, but honestly any law students out there want to commisserate on his inability to remain concise. He certainly likes to hear himself talk. He never fails to write 10-20 pages regardless of whether he's in the majority, concurring or dissent.
|
|
|
Post by HoyaDestroya on Sept 6, 2005 13:23:06 GMT -5
I actually enjoyed reading his opinion in the Texas Sodomy case... and then watching Santorum butcher his argument by trying to summarize.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Sept 6, 2005 15:05:49 GMT -5
No doubt about Scalia's intellect, but honestly any law students out there want to commisserate on his inability to remain concise. He certainly likes to hear himself talk. He never fails to write 10-20 pages regardless of whether he's in the majority, concurring or dissent. Agree with HoyaDestroya on this one. Scalia has written some pretty interesting opinions, especially as of late. He does get off track, but usually it's to pontificate on some interesting social/historical issue. IMO, driest opinions on the Rehnquist Court were from the Chief Justice himself. Stevens takes second place -- check out the Lake Tahoe takings case from 2002 if you want to be bored stupid.
|
|
Gold Hoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,578
|
Post by Gold Hoya on Sept 6, 2005 15:28:35 GMT -5
check out the Lake Tahoe takings case from 2002 if you want to be bored stupid. Another reason why I go to business school instead of law school!
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Sept 6, 2005 20:08:49 GMT -5
No doubt about Scalia's intellect, but honestly any law students out there want to commisserate on his inability to remain concise. He certainly likes to hear himself talk. He never fails to write 10-20 pages regardless of whether he's in the majority, concurring or dissent. Agree with HoyaDestroya on this one. Scalia has written some pretty interesting opinions, especially as of late. He does get off track, but usually it's to pontificate on some interesting social/historical issue. IMO, driest opinions on the Rehnquist Court were from the Chief Justice himself. Stevens takes second place -- check out the Lake Tahoe takings case from 2002 if you want to be bored stupid. Oh I didn't mean to say I wasn't amused or interested...I was just pointing out that he never fails to make his mark and in a lengthy manner. Which is not particularly appreciated while I'm trying to get out of the library... PS The Lawrence opinion you refer to is pretty funny, in that he openly castigates the logic of the majority. I respect his intelligence, but he must be a complete ass to work with. Can you imagine that guy in the office?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 6, 2005 20:32:45 GMT -5
IMO, driest opinions on the Rehnquist Court were from the Chief Justice himself. Stevens takes second place -- check out the Lake Tahoe takings case from 2002 if you want to be bored stupid. And the problem with the Lake Tahoe case is that it's kind of an important case on takings. The ironic (?) thing about you mentioning the Lake Tahoe case is that John Roberts argued for the Tahoe RPA in front of the Supreme Court (taking over the case from my Georgetown torts professor - Richard Lazarus).
|
|
|
Post by HoyaDestroya on Sept 14, 2005 14:59:53 GMT -5
Q: What is George W. Bush's position on Roe vs. Wade?
A: He really doesn't care how people got out of New Orleans.
|
|