kentuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 02:37 PM
Original message |
If you assume Roberts is replacement for Rehnquist....? |
|
Would that be a fair trade? Or will Roberts be worse than Rehnquist? Of course, we know that Rehnquist didn't resign but O'Connor did...Does that mean the next nominee will have to be a replacement for O'Connor? Also, a woman? And if we can get a moderate woman in that next nomination, where would you see the court? More or less conservative than at present? Of course, that would mean the next nominee would be a fight to the death if Roberts is confirmed this time. Just a little look down the road....
|
Skidmore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 02:42 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Roberts is a replacement for |
|
O'Connor though...which leads to some major concerns as to who would be replacing Rehnquist when he goes.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 02:45 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I don't see where you're coming from at all... |
|
Why would Bush replace a conservative with a moderate when he has just replaced a moderate with a conservative?
|
LittleClarkie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. AND he's not going to make someone with little experience |
|
on the bench a Chief Justice. Just not gonna happen. Scalia, I would imagine, might get CJ, and we'll just be dealing with Scalia's replacement as another SC judge.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. I would bet Thomas gets elevated to CJ |
|
For one, to stick it to the Democrats for his 1991 confirmation hearing fiasco, and two, he is much younger than Scalia and Bush is looking for a legacy.
I would place my bet on either Luttig, Edith Jones, or Janice Rogers Brown replacing Rehquist.
|
HockeyMom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 02:48 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Done a lot of searching |
|
Even though it seems Roberts is to the right of O'Connor, he isn't up to the standard of a Scalia. I think Bush is saving the Scalia type judge for Rhenquist's death/retirement. Somebody even to the right of Rhenquist. He may be waiting to appoint a FEMALE Scalia (Jones/Brown/Owens?) type for when Rhenquist dies/retires.
|
realFedUp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 02:56 PM
Response to Original message |
5. The one that will replace Rehnquist will froth at the mouth... |
|
this one is supposed to look clean and harmless... the next one can froth at the mouth.
Filibusters are in the Constitution for a reason. In treasonous times, everything in the toolbox should be used. Come on Mr. Byrd. Take out your little black book.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. Filibusters aren't in the Constitution |
|
but they are in the Senate rules for a reason.
|
realFedUp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:55 PM
Response to Original message |