DescentBB

It is too bad that he could not have declared his retirementr so a successor could be going through the nominationj process already. My condolences to the family.
Now we have a situation of approving two nominees. And Bush gets to select the chief justice. The Dems. must be going bald from all the hair they are now going to be pulling. Any bets on who the next chief justice will be?

I'd put my $$$ on Thomas

He was both an effective leader on the Court and a great interpreter of constitutional law. He will definitely be missed.

pat robertson's prayers have come true. maybe there is a god?

Well, the cogs are in motion now. Despite Rehnquist being very conservative, there was a certain balance in the supreme Court. Now Bush will have time to disrupt it and make the Court lean towards ultraconservatism. This is very bad because appointing someone in the supreme court is for a lifetime and will outlast Bush' second mandate by a large margin.

Even if you are ultraconservative yourself, you do not want the Supreme Court in unbalance.

My guess is that Bush will appoint someone mildly conservative now to avoid criticism, but he will appoint a true conservative hawk later on when another new judge is needed. The consequences of his descisions will be felt for decades, though.

Tricord wrote:Even if you are ultraconservative yourself, you do not want the Supreme Court in unbalance.

Heaven forbid more then half of them should have a high regard for faith and human life. That would be a terrible imbalance indeed. I, as a proponent of "democracy", I would be horrified.

Tricord wrote:My guess is that Bush will appoint someone mildly conservative now to avoid criticism ...

You folks really don't get it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Heaven forbid more then half of them should have a high regard for faith and human life. That would be a terrible imbalance indeed. I, as a proponent of "democracy", I would be horrified.

I hope the Court does more than just ponder over abortion. Let me be clear: a balance implies different viewpoints, thus discussion, deliberation and the reach of a consensus. What you are thinking of boils down to "everyone agrees on ultra-conservativeness, lets get this over with so that we're back home for tea-time".

That's nothing like what I'm thinking of.

Mainly I just find the idea that a "level-headed" conservative should want there to be an equal number of conservatives and democrats so that things can be balanced to be really, profoundly foolish. I was demonstrating through sarcasm that my thinking is not so utterly clouded with the compromise that is so prevelant in our day that I would willingly sabotage the direction that I believe our government should be moving in. Every person has their own view-points, their own experience. If there is honesty and integrity, none are so much alike as to render democracy useless. I don't expect people to think the same way I do, I only ask that they ground their opinions in honesty and integrity, and not in rebellion, selfishness, or deceit. I know, or rather I believe, that not all democrats are bad, and not all republicans are good. *ran out of time, more later*

Bush is giving us a two for one. He's nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice.

I'll bite; I just don't know.

What's the deal with being 'chief justice' or just one of the other justices. What more does the chief justice have to do that the other justices? bigger office ? better bathroom? What?

so woody, you are are in the strange position of being an ultra conservative who is not a christian. you are exotic, man!

woody, with that in mind...do you find yourself torn over the supreme court appointments?

on the one hand, conservative appointees would be more likely to support conservative policies you approve of.

on the other hand, the court will be more likely to support the establishment of religion, and abolish the right for a woman to choose what will happen in her own body.

when free choice is gone there will be lots and lots of children whose parents don't need em, can't support em, won't raise em, don't even love em. "pro-lifers" should adopt some children who are not loved or wanted. otherwise, lip service to faith and human life is really just hot air.

Palzon wrote:when free choice is gone there will be lots and lots of children whose parents don't need em, can't support em, won't raise em, don't even love em. "pro-lifers" should adopt some children who are not loved or wanted. otherwise, lip service to faith and human life is really just hot air.

That's a bunch of bull****, palzon. Hypothetically, that's like arguing that people who are against excecution to quell overpopulation need to take people into their home/care or shut up because they're hypocrits. That's nothing but emotional propoganda. You don't let things like that effect a moral decision.

Palzon wrote:and abolish the right for a woman to choose what will happen in her own body.

It isn't about personal freedom, it's about the life of an unborn child.

(For the sake of the topic, perhaps anyone who wishes to reply to my post extensively could do so by starting a new topic.)

Sergeant Thorne wrote:That's nothing but emotional propoganda.

and calling a congregation of cells a person is not emotional propaganda?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:It isn't about personal freedom, it's about the life of an unborn child.

I'm not pro-abortion, dude. I'm just against the government telling you AND your doctor that they know better about what should happen in your body. I wish no one would ever have an abortion. But in AMERICA, people should decide what goes on in their own body.

You probably support the death penalty. So when all the unloved, unwanted children run afoul of society you can just kill them later and feel good about it.

Palzon wrote:You probably support the death penalty. So when all the unloved, unwanted children run afoul of society you can just kill them later and feel good about it.

More emotional propoganda, but not without a glint of truth ("feel good about it"? That's totally uncalled for). However, there has to be a line that you can not cross, in society. I do support capital punishment/"the death penalty". I'd take it a little bit futher, even. You know those people that kidnap children and then the children turn up abused and dead? If I had my way they wouldn't get life in prison, they'd get capital punishment. Also, I wouldn't use such "humane" methods for capital punishment. You need something that sticks in someone's mind when they're contemplating crossing that line (hanging?).

Palzon wrote:and calling a congregation of cells a person is not emotional propaganda?

It most certainly is not. Do I need to get WA in here to give you the definition of "emotional propoganda"? Calling a barely developed unborn child a "congregation of cells" is a very convenient, relatively new stance.

Palzon wrote:so woody, you are are in the strange position of being an ultra conservative who is not a christian. you are exotic, man!

woody, with that in mind...do you find yourself torn over the supreme court appointments?

I for one do not believe religion or political favorism should rear it's ugly little head on the high court. Neither do I believe the High Court should be contravening state law with federal law where such state laws are voted on by the states citizens (CA medical marijauna law and OR right to die law).

I hope that as advertised John Roberts will be a true constitutionalist and not one who thinks the constitution is a adaptive document that can be manipulated to fit a new found fad consensus. I also hope that Roberts as Chief Justice will be able to steer what the court hears toward issues that infringe upon our constitutional rights and not toward failed legislative issues in need of "born again" judicial review.
I'll leave it go at that so the thread doesn't devolve into a religious abortion thingy.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Palzon wrote:You probably support the death penalty. So when all the unloved, unwanted children run afoul of society you can just kill them later and feel good about it.

More emotional propoganda, but not without a glint of truth ("feel good about it"? That's totally uncalled for). However, there has to be a line that you can not cross, in society. I do support capital punishment/"the death penalty". I'd take it a little bit futher, even. You know those people that kidnap children and then the children turn up abused and dead? If I had my way they wouldn't get life in prison, they'd get capital punishment. Also, I wouldn't use such "humane" methods for capital punishment. You need something that sticks in someone's mind when they're contemplating crossing that line (hanging?).

First you quote me and imply i'm sensationalizing your position - then you talk about making the execution more cruel. frankly, you have no clue what you're talking about.

Killing is either wrong or it isn't. and you who are supposedly christian don't know the first thing about christianity if you could not have compassion for a fellow sinner. ANY christian who supports the death penalty is by definition a hypocrite. And I agree with Dostoevsky that if Christ appeared on this world, the churh itself would crucify him all over again rather than allow his real message to get out.

did you know that victims of abuse are far more likely to become abusers? did you know that unloved, unwanted children are far more likely to be abused? I see it personally, every day. And when they are 18 they go to prison not to juvi. life in and of itself is not valuable without any qualification whatsoever. there is such a thing as dignity to life.

The person you want to hang 18 years from now could VERY likely be the teeny-weeny precious little blastocist you think you're saving by condemning it to a life of poverty and abuse (when it wasn't even a person in the first place). a pro-life/pro death penalty christian cannot reconcile this picture.

edit: issues are the reason there is a story here. so unless this thread is solely for us to pay respects to Rehnquist (R.I.P.) then I would hope its ok to discuss what this is all about anyway. Woody brings up a good points in right to die and use of medical marijuana; other areas where the government interferes with you and your doctor where they have NO business doing so.

Wow, the stars must be aligned this summer for Bush. One vacancy, now a death, all at the time that his numbers for this debacle in the Gulf and everything else are falling. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Cheney pulled the plug on old Rehnquist, get America thinking about something else.

But his death doesnt really mean that much, he was a conservative on the bench, and Bush will undoubtedly put another on, so it's not like the balance will be shifted that much. What's his rating now...35%? Heh, only podunk white trash america are with him now, oh and pat robertson of course.

Zuruck wrote:I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Cheney pulled the plug on old Rehnquist, get America thinking about something else.

You're a worthless troll. Take your incindiary flamebait somewhere that wants it. Let the big boys talk here.

Well I really wouldn't consider you to be a big boy DCrazy. You don't think that Bush isn't the least bit elated that he died? Now he gets two for the price of one. And besides, other than a link, what did you add to this discussion?

Palzon, you work to keep people from damaging the life of their children because children are not inferior to us--they're under-developed, they're not property. Why does it seem so incredible and unjust to you, then, that the government should legislate to keep parents from denying their children even a chance at life? And all they have to say that it's not yet a real life that is being snuffing out are their new "studies". It really isn't about personal freedom at all. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness"

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where he have to worry about whether abortion should or should not be legal. what i mean by that is, i wish we lived in a world where every pregnancy was desired, every child wanted, every caregiver loving, knowledgeable, and appropriate.

But the question is not about life as you say - its about human life. a blade of grass is alive. so is a lizard. they don't have the same rights as people. some determination must be made of when a living thing is a person.

in philosophy it's called personhood or full ontological status. there are no easy answers to this problem. clearly a line must be drawn somewhere. some people draw the line at birth, others conception. some draw the line at quickening, others at the development of the brain. believe it or not some people have argued that it doesn't occur until well after birth due to issues of consciousness/freewill, etc. Any way you look at it, a line has to be drawn.

I draw the line at viability. Prior to that a person has to be free to do with their body what they decide is best because this is America. I do not expect and would never advocate that abortion be legal in Vatican City. It is a necessary evil of our preserving democracy that we not fix one problem by creating a bigger one.

The real way to fix this problem is to educate people, empower people with knowledge, training, family support, community support. you can't fix it by criminalizing it. you can't fix it by trying to keep people ignorant (as in taking away sex education).

Zuruck wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Cheney pulled the plug on old Rehnquist, get America thinking about something else.

I suspect we'll hear Haliburton made the plug...

I think the defining difference between the democratic/liberal stand-point and my own (probably close to "conservative"), is that they believe in the engineering/guiding of society according to their collective wisdom, and I believe it's far too complex to even attempt that kind of control, but that the only way for things to be right is to stand, uncompromising, for what I know is right, in everything.

compromise is the key to democracy in a pluralistic society.

Palzon wrote:compromise is the key to democracy in a pluralistic society.

Ricky Nelson sums it up in his song :Garden Party":

But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself

Palzon wrote:

on the other hand, the court will be more likely to support the establishment of religion, and abolish the right for a woman to choose what will happen in her own body.

when free choice is gone there will be lots and lots of children whose parents don't need em, can't support em, won't raise em, don't even love em. "pro-lifers" should adopt some children who are not loved or wanted. otherwise, lip service to faith and human life is really just hot air.

dont even go there, pandoras box