WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Appointing New Supreme Court Justice

For the next Supreme Court Justice:


  • Total voters
    11

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
#1
i was reading the paper today, it seems the nation will find out by the end of this month who will replace O'Connor as Supreme Court Justice. given wtf.com has a young audience in general, most of whom are not of voting age even, i wondered whether it was important to you (not your parents) who is chosen. i've added a poll for quick and easy responses but add to the topic if you will.

if you're not familiar i've included a link for you :
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/politicsspecial1/18letter.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print

is it important a woman remains in the seat? do you want a conservative supreme court? what is the motivation of GWB in chosing his appointments? any predictions?

i'd like to see a moderate woman, one that will not set back anyone's rights or civil liberties, especially not that of women. but a moderate man would do as well i suppose.
 
2,489
332
327
#2
i don't see a difference, as long as they can make good desicions.....
 
3,559
2
0
#3
I don't care if it's a man or a woman; I just want it to be something besides a neo-con. :happysad:
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#4
Man or woman, who knows what it's gonna be, but one thing is for sure, it WILL be a conservative.

Now the answer to the question "why would Bush would prefer a "radical" conservative" is quite obvious, ain't it?
 

DanGeo23

Resident Conservative
1,218
0
0
#5
going by past appointments by Republicans.. not all turn out to be on the "conservative" side of decisions once confirmed... example: Souter...
I would like to see a well qualified person (man or woman) that will interpret the Constitution... someone that won't try to legislate from the bench...
there will be an uproar... even if GWB were to nominate Bill Clinton... all the Dems would bitch, moan and say he was a right wing extremist... they always do... while the Democratic canidates seem to pass through with out much resistance... like the ultra-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg.. former lead atty for the ACLU...
 
1,723
90
112
#6
I think Bush should nominate not a conservative or liberal, but a judge who will make impartial decisions.
He won't, but it sounds good doesn't it?
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#7
RageAgainst said:
Man or woman, who knows what it's gonna be, but one thing is for sure, it WILL be a conservative.

Now the answer to the question "why would Bush would prefer a "radical" conservative" is quite obvious, ain't it?
I wouldn't care if he nominated a monkey provided said monkey would do a good job and not be swayed by silly things like "The Bible".

Granted if his past appointments to positions of power are any good we can't even expect someone who will do a good job.
 

JLXC

WTF's Official Conspiracy Fanatic
Premium
7,550
262
302
#8
Hey maybe Bush will nominate himself, because then he has a good govt job for life, not like he needs the money, but the power baby, the power!
 
137
0
76
#9
I don't care whether it is a male or female, both genders have certain biases towards each other.

The kind of person I would like to see is a centrist, who isn't swayed by corporate money or political threats. But perhaps given the political atmosphere at the moment, this is too much to ask. :(
 

UberSkippy

a.k.a. FuckTheBullShit
7,529
28
142
#10
JLXC said:
Hey maybe Bush will nominate himself, because then he has a good govt job for life, not like he needs the money, but the power baby, the power!
I wonder... could he do that?

Runningflame570 said:
The kind of person I would like to see is a centrist, who isn't swayed by corporate money or political threats. But perhaps given the political atmosphere at the moment, this is too much to ask.
Such a person does not exist in this level of government. They'd never get noticed.
 

Brain Spout

Wizard No More
4,503
102
177
#12
i don't care if the person is conservative or not, i want someone who is there to interpret the law, not someone who has an agenda. if they are liberal and there agenda is in relation to their political view then i would just as soon want a conservative with an agenda

legislative branch makes the laws,
executive branch enforces the laws,
judicial branch interprets the laws

whether they are conservative doesn't mean anything ot me, i want someone who will "interpret" the law.

dangeo said:
I would like to see a well qualified person (man or woman) that will interpret the Constitution... someone that won't try to legislate from the bench...
well said however, i think it should be said that the supreme court has been legislating for quite some time...

constitution(Article 4 said:
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
also note that there are no amendments to the constition granting additional powers to the court.

however, in 1803 the Marbury v. Madison case gave new powers to the supreme court. the power of judicial review. in this case Marshall, a federalist, said that an act was unconstitutional and as such is invalid. this is clearly outside the borders of interpreting the law.

my point is that the court is always affected by politicians. with marshall, he gained more power for the federal government, but i think that there are exception and that justices can make rulings within taking their views into account.

etc. etc.
 

Woodreaux

Original Dicksman
2,429
0
0
#13
I'd like to see a another woman back on the bench. Women do make up about half of the country, and I value their opinions. In the interest of our representative democracy being more representative of our population, I don't think 2 out of 9 is too much to ask. But, my primary concern is the new justice interpret The Constitution in the best interests of the people of America.
 

Sektor

Particinator
662
0
0
#14
Gender doesn't matter, I just want someone who can interpret the law according to what it says, and not according to what they WANT it to say.

I hate political parties.
 

gurlgonewild

Was machen Sie?
1,086
0
0
#15
there it is. nine, well 8 b/c one voted in all three categories, who voted it didn't matter to them whether the supreme court included a woman or not. that is so PC it's uncanny. woman bring an entirely different POV mostly characterized by their life experiences-which are vastly different than that of men.

my op has nothing to do with the womans movement, but i'd like to see more of a balanced representation of gov't. we have never had a woman president nor vice. we have less than 1/3 of the power in the supreme court; yet we make up more than half of the country. sadly the numbers remain just as stalled the whole way down the gov't ladder.

after 200 years of governance there is something wrong in keeping with the same mentality.