Would Rove/Bush* kill a USSC Justice to force a turnover?

[Patriot_Spear]

This is just something that I've been kicking around in the back of my head. The current Heroic efforts by Senate Democrats to deny Bush's* neo-con attempt to pack the courts is also clearly a message to the USSC wingers not to even think about retiring anytime soon.

Since we know how 'accident prone' Democratic leaders have become under Bush*- would Karl and the boys cook up a little 'accident' to solidify their hold on the judiciary?

Tinfoil? Yes.
Beyond the pale? No.

[bif]

1. I wouldn't put anything past this evil cabal

n/t

[liberalhistorian]

2. I wouldn't, either.

I wonder how they'll do it this time, since Wellstone was a plane crash.

[ewagner]

3. Right out of

The Pelican Brief by John Grisham.

I didn't vote because I don't believe the Administrations would do it but I wouldn't put it past their supporters.

Remember King Henry VIII re:Thomas a'Beckett? "Will no one rid me of this man?"

[Patriot_Spear]

4. Henry II...

"Who will rid me of this troublesome monk?"

[ewagner]

6. "blush"

stand corrected....thank you!

[Patriot_Spear]

8. Don't sweat it... you get a B+

I wouldn't be much of a Historian if I didn't bore people with my esoteric knowledge.

10 out of 10 for knowing who Beckette was; good analogy.

[xxqqqzme]

5. They would do it,

then call 4 a national day of mourning & sit in the front pew @ the service. All w/o the slightest twinge of guilt or remorse.

[wuushew]

7. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED, RECENTLY!

PHILADELPHIA — What was to have been a spectacular opening of the National Constitution Center (search) was marred Friday when a huge wood and steel frame collapsed on the stage, injuring several people and narrowly missing Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search).

The frame, which was at least 15 feet high, slowly toppled as the guests of honor at the ceremony pulled on red, white and blue streamers that were supposed to trigger the drop of a screen at the museum's front entrance.

Instead, the streamers pulled down the frame, which came crashing down on officials including Philadelphia Mayor John F. Street (search) and U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter.

[Prodemsouth]

9. O'Connor is on their side, They may not love Specter, but why give

the Democrats a better chance at a Senate seat. If your a conspiracy theorist look at Ruth Ginsburg, heart problem recently- good opportunity, plus unlike O'Connor seldom to never on their side.

[wuushew]

10. she agreed with Kennedy in the Lawrence case thus angering the fundies

Justice O’Connor, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today overrules Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). I joined Bowers, and do not join the Court in overruling it. Nevertheless, I agree with the Court that Texas’ statute banning same-sex sodomy is unconstitutional. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §21.06 (2003). Rather than relying on the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, as the Court does, I base my conclusion on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

[Prodemsouth]

14. Please, what nonsense. One more time, she is on their side when it counts

already has proved it. (Sodomy Laws seldom enforced that issue didn't matter that much.) The shit the media started about "Is Gay marriage next"- was what got so many people bent out of shape. Most people vast majority, believed the police should not go in to gay peoples bed rooms and arrest them. May have changed because people are getting the sense that gay stuff is being forced on them. When the sodomy laws were overturned in my state, Georgia, for christ sakes, it was not that big of a deal, only a handful of wingnut Repugs made noise for a day, then everyone forgot about it, because the thought of Gay Marriage was impossible.. sorry, out of topic, but this subject pisses me off for a number of reasons.. As to O"Connor.. Righties are smarter than many leftist when it comes to this line of reason, which makes sense to me. Knock off your enemies, worry about the "not always, or sometimes" friends later or never, if they are there when it counts don't fuck with them. Lefties want to rip any one who they have a beef with about any little thing with apart, ESP. if they are on our side most of the time. All you got to do is come here and see for yourself.

[wuushew]

17. Did not O'connor deliver the opinion in GRUTTER V. BOLLINGER?

which was another defeat for shrub's anti-affirmative action crusade?

I am just calling things as I see them.

[Prodemsouth]

20. Your calling things wrong your under the impression they think about this

stuff like we do, again you site social issues, but the same time you can drag up other votes that show how Conservative this Court has become, don't we complian about that a lot here. maybe these votes you site, which occured in a close period of time between each other, where made to deflect attention from the Supreme Court for next years election..ever think about it that way huh.. She was there for them in Bush VS Gore enough said.

[Patriot_Spear]

11. knocking over O'Conner makes the most sense...

She's the most wishy-washy of the bunch; she wants to retire; and what they want to do is MAINTAIN their majority, even if it means replacing one of their own.

O'Conner would be a likely target because she's the least likely to the average observer- a Democrats death would be too obvious.

[Prodemsouth]

16. Not if that Democrat had health problems.

Why kill O'Connor, dosen't make any fucking sense. Righties are more reasonable about sometimes straying than we are, if you are there when it really counts they don't care about samll shit. I am talking about the upper righties the ones that are really in charge, not Christian Right yahoos. Ashcroft may be one and some others, but this idea is absurd to the thinking ones who would be behind any such effort this covert.

[wuushew]

12. Killing Specter and O'connor would have been a two for one sale

April 10, 2002
Press Conference with Senator Arlen Specter on Therapeutic Cloning

It is with respect and regret that I disagree with President Bush's statement opposing research or so-called therapeutic cloning. The president made a powerful statement in opposition to reproductive cloning, and I believe that there is general agreement that reproductive cloning is unwise.

But I believe it would be a grave mistake to enact the Brownback bill, which would criminalize therapeutic cloning and, in effect, tie the hands of scientists on the potential for great advances in medical science, which pose the realistic possibility of curing Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's, and cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, prostate cancer, heart ailments and a wide variety of other ailments.

[Prodemsouth]

19. Again why help your always enemy against a sometimes friend. They

don't think like we do about this stuff. They don't react to Specter the way we react to Lieberman, does the base not like him and damns him, yeah, but the leaders come back and say he will vote for Bill Frist as majority leader you twits get a hold of yourself. And in their case this works.

[tom_paine]

13. O'Connor is NOT nearly as on their side as an Olsen, an Estrada

In other words, whatever her loyalties are, Sandra O'Connor is more of a person of the Old Republic with it's old ways than a Monstrous Bushevik Loyalist like Fat Tony Scalia, who would do anything to anyone if his Bushevik Masters asked him to.

So, exit O'Connor, enter Olsen or some other Bushevik Scum.

You don't think that's an improvement for them?

[Prodemsouth]

21. No, then the Supreme Court becomes an issue in 04. Why ???O'connor is

there when it Counts: BUSH VS GORE....

[Karenina]

15. In a nanosecond.

This my very first click on a poll, if memory serves me well. No I have not already voted, but do believe one would be foolish to put ANYTHING past the *cabal that has seized the American gub'mint.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

18. "Pelican Brief" a la Bush PNAC cabal

possible ?

hell yes.

BushSR = OCTOPUS + BCCI + Iran-Contra + .......

[Donna Zen]

22. Today's Rolling Stone

Deconstructing Bush by Paul Krugman:

It's not hard to understand White House policy: Just assume the worst.

The Rules:

1) Don't assume that policy proposals make sense in terms of their stated goals.

2) Do some homework to discover the real goals.

3) Don't assume that the usual rules of politics apply.

4) Expect a revolutionary power to respond to criticism by attacking.

5) Don't think that there's a limit to a revolutionary power's objectives.

Applying rules 3, 4, and 5, I voted yes.

[janekat]

23. Perhaps another Motive for Murder...

Ordinarily, I would say that they wouldn't waste their effort on O'Connor. It's a known fact that she waited for the Clinton Presidency to end and for a Republican (Bush) to take over to retire so she could be replaced by a Repub.

However, she has NOT retired. Has she had a change of heart? Is Bush so nutso that she's even thinking twice about stepping down? Are they pissed off at her change of heart?

In addition, she would have had an important role: She has the power to stop the California recall (Now it will be Scalia because she is conveniently "away") :

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/15/national/15CND-CALI.html?ex=1064289600&en=87b226f6f23b12bd&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

The other side (California's attorney general) argues that the postponement of the recall election will be a great hardship for California. Today's decision argues that California should defer to the feds, based on equal protection.

But this three-judge panel decision has a good chance of being overruled by the full Ninth Circuit by as early as Tuesday or Wednesday. Remember, a panel from this court threw out the infamous flag opinion, and that embarrassing decision was quickly overruled by the full Ninth Circuit.

Even if the Ninth Circuit does not act, this will go to the circuit Supreme Court justice. That's Sandra Day O'Connor, and she's not around. Word is that Antonin Scalia could take her place.