Karmadillo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 04:26 PM
Original message |
Should Bush be allowed to put mark on Supreme Court for decades to come? |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-04-05 04:30 PM by Karmadillo
Let's see:
1. Bush wasn't really elected to the office in 2000;
2. He lied America into a criminal, disastrous war at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars; and
3. He has just committed a crime of, at minimum, horrible negligence against hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans.
Should he be allowed to influence the course of government for decades to come by appointing two, and maybe three, justices to the Supreme Court?
|
Jawja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 04:28 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The Democrats in Congress should insure that we operate with a 7 Judge court until this bastard is out of office.
And they should NOT confirm Scalia for Chief Justice because of his unconstitutional interference in the Florida election theft of 2000.
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
12. And how would they do that? |
|
How could the Democratic senators stop anything if they don't have the votes to?
|
Karmadillo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-05-05 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
14. If the Democrats were to go to the American people with the case for |
|
impeachment, it's possible they would be able to develop the support to stop additional appointments to the Supreme Court. Even without the pursuit of impeachment, they could make a case Bush's massive incompetence is sufficient to deny him the right to make appointments that will harm the Democrats' core constituents (remember them? the Democrats sure don't) for decades to come. What do they have to lose? Why not go with the obvious truth for a change and see what happens?
|
MadeinOhio
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-05-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
18. That's exactly what I'm saying!! |
|
And all the non-complicit republicans would back it. Impeachment articles being draw up everywhere would scare the Bush admin backwards, then we really WOULD remove them and throw away the key.
|
MisterP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-05-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
21. what makes you say that they don't have the votes? |
|
we're the House minority and CAFTA only passed thanks to a few Dems--even some Rs were voting against it
|
skylarmae
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 04:29 PM
Response to Original message |
2. just try stopping him....wondering what kind of kool-ade |
|
you must be drinking to think we have any influence in what he does???
|
Triana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 04:30 PM
Response to Original message |
3. He shouldn't be allowed to DO anything... |
|
...he needs to be impeached and sent to prison to rot.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Should he, NO! But as long as he is in office, he can and will. |
|
At this point, it doesn't matter if you believe he's in office due to vote fraud, or any other reason. He's there! Realistically, I don't see impeachment looming on the near horizon either! I'm not being a defeatist, but the folks who say elections have consequences are right, and I've read that here on DU as well!
He is legaly the POTUS, and hass the authority to nominate people to the Supreme Court, and all the other shit he's been doing, like recess appointments and executive orders that we all hate!
|
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
mcscajun
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 04:40 PM
Response to Original message |
6. No, but who can stop him? |
|
I'm afraid the answer is: No One.
:scared:
|
Karmadillo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
11. Who can stop him? The Democratic Party. Who will stop him? |
|
I think your answer is most likely the correct one.
|
fujiyama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 05:43 PM
Response to Original message |
7. He'll do whatever he damn well pleases |
|
Edited on Sun Sep-04-05 05:43 PM by fujiyama
I'm worried that in 3 years time he'll have a third appointment, which would give them a lopsided majority, enabling to enact whatever they wish.
|
Tyranny_R_US
(988 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 05:44 PM
Response to Original message |
8. NO! He should be handcuffed and thrown to the international courts |
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
deadparrot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 06:12 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Should he? Hell no. Will he? Hell yes. nt |
fooj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Sep-04-05 11:41 PM
Response to Original message |
13. He is a mass murderer. |
|
Totally qualified to shape the Supreme Court. I think I'm gonna be sick.
Peace
|
Karmadillo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-05-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
15. Quite a country when a psychopath gets to determine the path of |
|
the Supreme Court for decades. Lying us into a war? Leaving citizens to drown in their homes? Not a problem. Appoint way.
|
Algorem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-05-05 01:46 PM
Response to Original message |
Fescue4u
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-05-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message |
|
whether he should be allowed to.
The reality that we are faced with, is that he will.
|
Mairead
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-05-05 02:00 PM
Response to Original message |
19. I damned well don't think so. I don't think he should have got even one |
|
permanent appointment through.
|
FloridaPat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-05-05 02:23 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Starting impeachment proceedings should slow him down a little. |
|
Get some backbones to the Democrats to allow real judges on the court, not right-wing nut cases. This jerk should not be allow to pick the colors of the White House table clothes.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 06th 2024, 09:42 PM
Response to Original message |