9 Responses to “Some of Dubya’s potential Supreme Court replacements”

1. UnapologeticAtheist Writes:
   July 1st, 2005 at 12:56 pm

   Oh come now, PA, next you’ll be trying to convince us that women are people, too.

   This comment was written by UnapologeticAtheist.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
2. Robert Writes:
   July 1st, 2005 at 1:10 pm

   Don’t forget Bork!

   This comment was written by Robert.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
3. piny Writes:
   July 1st, 2005 at 1:11 pm

   Can you post about puppies now, please?

   Not ones that got run over by a truck or anything.

   Is (shudder) Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown really that much of a possibility? She was just appointed to the California Supreme Court position a few months ago, after a pitched battle over her nomination.

   Then again, we have no power and the president has no shame.

   This comment was written by piny.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
4. Jayanne Writes:
   July 1st, 2005 at 3:11 pm

   I bet he nominates a woman (Brown, Jones?) then tries to guilt-trip or even threaten opponents (remember the Clarence Thomas nomination?)

   This comment was written by Jayanne.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
5. Kyra Writes:
   July 1st, 2005 at 6:52 pm

   Didn’t we just leave this party?

   Now we have two questions: a) What is Dubya going to do? and b) What are the Senate Democrats going to do?

   Some glass-is-brim-full optimist elsewhere online suggested that Bush might pacify the moderates by nominating a moderate judge to replace the moderate Sandra Day O’Conner. That would ensure a nice smooth passage through the Senate and calm the country’s progressives somewhat. It would be a smart and considerate thing to do. There are just two problema. Bush is an idiot. And Bush is selfish.

   More likely, he will nominate one of the above crowd, and the Democrats will hold up the vote, or filibuster, or retaliate by slowing Senate business to the type of crawl most often seen when there’s a seven-car pile-up on a busy, under-construction freeway at rush hour.

   I’ve just found out that the quorum for the Senate is 51; therefore the Democrats cannot shut down the Senate by absenting themselves in order to create a lack of quorum. Last I checked, they could still filibuster, and of course they can delay things, and draw out discussions, and either the general Senators or the committee members (I’m not sure which–maybe both) could keep calling for changes to be made to various pieces of legislation—if they fail, it takes time; if they succeed, the legislation’s sponsers might withdraw it.

   I’m picturing a Republican sponsering some sort of firearms legislation and the Democrats moving to change “firearm” to “water pistol.” Or an anti-abortion bill in which all instances of the word “woman” were replaced with “blow-up doll.”

   I don’t know if it will work, or whether the Democrats are interested in being that juvenile. But it’s a funny thought.

   This comment was written by Kyra.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
6. NYMOM Writes:
   July 1st, 2005 at 6:59 pm

   Hey Pseudo-Adrienne…

   How’s it going????

   It should be an interesting couple of weeks to see where this next supreme court fight ends up…

   This comment was written by NYMOM.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
7. alsis39 Writes:
   July 1st, 2005 at 7:06 pm

   “…the Democrats will hold up the vote, or filibuster, or retaliate by slowing Senate business to the type of crawl most often seen when there’s a seven-car pile-up on a busy, under-construction freeway at rush hour…”

   You should only be so lucky. :/

   This comment was written by alsis39.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
8. roberta robinson Writes:
   July 2nd, 2005 at 8:01 am

   why would anyone in government being against antidiscrimminationor try to reverse antidiscrimination laws?. how will that benefit anyone? surly not the government or business, unless everyone in government hates woman, or blacks or hispanics or whatever?

   I understand tho their desire to erode personal rights so they can have more control and get more money from us and to be able basically do what they want without fear of protests or counterarguments, which all sounds like a dictatorship, which is something people have fought against in this country.

   that way they can say if you voice a disagreement they can use the patriot act or some other law to shut you up.

   RR

   This comment was written by roberta robinson.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   
9. Fun sites « Ten Thousand Monkeys Writes:
   July 5th, 2007 at 6:07 pm

   [...] the general fun and games surrounding the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor and the nomination circus. And the news that Time Magazine will reveal the source of the Plame leak. But those [...]

   This comment was written by Fun sites « Ten Thousand Monkeys.
   Report this comment to the moderators
   

Leave a Reply

If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.

If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.