Worst News: Sandra Day O'Connor Resigns - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

CraigA · 07-01-2005, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

No she wasn't. Actually she was moderate. John Paul Stevens is the most liberal and he's 85 so his time will be up soon. So look for pretty much 6-3 pro-republican verdicts from the SC in the coming years.

That's correct. She was considered moderate-conservative on most issues. However, she was a swing vote on many issues and broke away from her conservative colleagues, especially on abortion. Be prepared for women's groups to get heavily involved in the process to replace her as they rightly should.

mardigras · 07-01-2005, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSaint

Look for WWIII in the senate when bush nominates gonzalez or some similar idiot.

Gonzales probably wouldn't have complete Republican support. He is for a woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion.

scoreman · 07-01-2005, 09:54 AM

Oh shit, this is BAD news.

All you adult guys that voted Bush, well we told you this would happen. Now the Bush administration gets to place at least one and probably two Justices.

We need to pray we don't get another Scalia. That would be a major train wreck for us.

2257-Ben · 07-01-2005, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tango

who the fuck is that - you live in a hole?

supreme court - she was the most liberal on the court - now its going to swing against our ass

I guess that shows how much you really know about the Supreme Court.

1. She was the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Cour.
2. She is typically regarded as a 'moderate', not a liberal. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg holds that distinction.

2257-Ben · 07-01-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoreman

Oh shit, this is BAD news.

All you adult guys that voted Bush, well we told you this would happen. Now the Bush administration gets to place at least one and probably two Justices.

We need to pray we don't get another Scalia. That would be a major train wreck for us.

Yeah, well, it's the Democrats that fucked everyone on this deal... They don't have any choice but to confirm whomever Bush wants... otherwise the 'constitutional option" (commonly referred to as the 'nukular' option by the media) will most likely be envoked and then we're all fucked right up there along with Roe v. Wade.

Morgan · 07-01-2005, 09:59 AM

both have a shot at the filibuster.

lets hope Rehnquist lasts another 3 years.

lets hope we get another swing vote in o'connors seat.

lets just all put our heads between our legs and pray!

Tango · 07-01-2005, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2257-Ben

I guess that shows how much you really know about the Supreme Court.

1. She was the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Cour.
2. She is typically regarded as a 'moderate', not a liberal. Ruth Bader-Ginsberg holds that distinction.

Ben -with due respect - I did correct my self on page 1

KRL · 07-01-2005, 10:01 AM

She was a swing voter on many important cases.

This is going to be a liberal vs. conservative war to replace her.

BRISK · 07-01-2005, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Well considering the she was the FIRST ever woman to be on the US Supreme Court yes you should know that. Kind of a historical event. Secondly she's been on the bench for 24 years.

You think someone from Finland should know who the first woman to be on the US Supreme Court is?

Tat2Jr · 07-01-2005, 10:07 AM

oh FUCK - That was NOT one of the SC judges we wanted Bush to replace. We are headed into a very dark era in this country.

dopeman · 07-01-2005, 10:11 AM

i'm looking at the opinions of the Chief Justices in the last major battle the Free Speech Coalition had in the supreme court. that was over 'virtual CP'. Ashcroft wanted to be able to go after porn that 'appeared to be' cp. Sirkin (same guy who is fighting 2257 for us) argued in the supreme court and won. here are the Justice's opinions

Quote:

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. O'Connor, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., joined as to Part II. Rehnquist, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined except for the paragraph discussing legislative history.

in other words:

Kennedy, J.,
Stevens,
Souter,
Ginsburg,
Breyer, JJ.,
Thomas, J

all agreed it was bullshit.

o'conner agreed in part, but disagreed in other parts
renqhuist and scalia disagreed also

so it's not all cut and dry as to whom will start really making decisions that fuck this industry all up.

although it's not clear how Gonzales actually feels about the 2257 regulations. i know he has a major hardon for obscenity. but 2257 is not about obscenity. he inherited those from ashcroft, and he also inherited the draped statue. he seems a bit more competent which could either be very good or very bad for this industry.

scoreman · 07-01-2005, 10:23 AM

2257-Ben,
We could have voted this clown out of office in November and then the Dems who bent over for the Administration on the Constitutional Option would have been a moot issue.

When this exact issue was discussed on this board prior to the elections last year, Republican adult webmasters pooh poohed the issue and said it didnt matter. I am sure these same webmasters will say the same things right up to when the Court decisions start coming down 6-3 in favor of anti-porn. Then all of sudden they will wonder what happened to their rights.

dopeman · 07-01-2005, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoreman

2257-Ben,
We could have voted this clown out of office in November and then the Dems who bent over for the Administration on the Constitutional Option would have been a moot issue.

When this exact issue was discussed on this board prior to the elections last year, Republican adult webmasters pooh poohed the issue and said it didnt matter. I am sure these same webmasters will say the same things right up to when the Court decisions start coming down 6-3 in favor of anti-porn. Then all of sudden they will wonder what happened to their rights.

well let's hope that america finally wakes up next year when it's time to vote for new senators. at least that could tip the scale in a more rational direction in the legislative branch.

Doctor Dre · 07-01-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

So? I'm an American and in school I took a course on WORLD History. They don't teach about America in Finland?

Also so I guess if I asked him who the first man to walk on the moon was he wouldn't know that because he was an American too?

Like the rest of the world gives a flying fuck about who are the supreme court judges ...

Morgan · 07-01-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

it's not all cut and dry as to whom will start really making decisions that fuck this industry all up.

It's not just this industry that is in trouble. This could open up a whole can of worms: abortion, oregon's assisted suicide, medical marijuana, etc...

broke · 07-01-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

It is in America. Let's see Republicans controlling the Congress, White House and Supreme Court. Sounds a lot like one party rule. Hmmm let's name some famous one party ruled countries; USSR, Nazi Germany, Iraq( under Saddam ), Cuba, N Korea, China. Yep were in good company there.

Does it pain you to be so retarded?

Maybe you should spend some time ACTUALLY reading court's rulings in say the last 20 years....

Tango · 07-01-2005, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scoreman

2257-Ben,
We could have voted this clown out of office in November and then the Dems who bent over for the Administration on the Constitutional Option would have been a moot issue.

When this exact issue was discussed on this board prior to the elections last year, Republican adult webmasters pooh poohed the issue and said it didnt matter. I am sure these same webmasters will say the same things right up to when the Court decisions start coming down 6-3 in favor of anti-porn. Then all of sudden they will wonder what happened to their rights.

agreed - its a super shame that the Dems didn't have a stronger offering, unfortunately I suspect that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better, hopefully the cycle can get broken sooner rather than later

dopeman · 07-01-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganjasaurus

It's not just this industry that is in trouble. This could open up a whole can of worms: abortion, oregon's assisted suicide, medical marijuana, etc...

agreed. although i think we're starting to see both senators and congressmen pulling away from the bush regime, as Joe Walmart is just NOW starting to see how incompetent and corrupt the administration is. they want to be reelected next year.

i think america can be given a pass on the 2000 election. first, because it was decided on such a technicality that it didn't really reflect the opinion of the nation. but there is NO excuse for reelecting these clowns in 2004. when you speak with bush supporters, their reasons for voting are so petty, so superficial and so steeped in hubris, ignorance and jingoism that it actually hurts my brain. america was unattached from reality on such an unprecedented scale, that I think americans have done irreperable harm to the nation, and yes, it could absolutely lead to a decline in american economic, political and military hegemony in the world.

america is getting exactly what it wanted. no more, no less.

broke · 07-01-2005, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigA

That's correct. She was considered moderate-conservative on most issues. However, she was a swing vote on many issues and broke away from her conservative colleagues, especially on abortion.

Oh lord, WTF are you talking about -- all the abortion cases that hit the SC in the 80's, 90's, and 00's?

mockingbich · 07-01-2005, 11:02 AM

HAHAHAHAHa

This is too funny

Gonzalez is not a conservative - but he is Bush's butt buddy from Texas

So he'll probably rule "moderately" like O'connor... but he'll definately give the bush family anything it wants when it comes to Patriot act, police state powers, voter reform, immigration reform, world trade deals, etc

Don't worry about your porn being outlawed - Gonzalez looks like a fucking pedophile

He's got mexican PEDO-FACE

Morgan · 07-01-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dopeman

agreed. although i think we're starting to see both senators and congressmen pulling away from the bush regime, as Joe Walmart is just NOW starting to see how incompetent and corrupt the administration is. they want to be reelected next year.

i think america can be given a pass on the 2000 election. first, because it was decided on such a technicality that it didn't really reflect the opinion of the nation. but there is NO excuse for reelecting these clowns in 2004. when you speak with bush supporters, their reasons for voting are so petty, so superficial and so steeped in hubris, ignorance and jingoism that it actually hurts my brain. america was unattached from reality on such an unprecedented scale, that I think americans have done irreperable harm to the nation, and yes, it could absolutely lead to a decline in american economic, political and military hegemony in the world.

america is getting exactly what it wanted. no more, no less.

yes, bush is losing his approval from all sides, fast. but i am america & i didnt want this

smack · 07-01-2005, 11:05 AM

i just saw this on the news. i am not pleased.

Tango · 07-01-2005, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mockingbich

HAHAHAHAHa

This is too funny

Gonzalez is not a conservative - but he is Bush's butt buddy from Texas

So he'll probably rule "moderately" like O'connor... but he'll definately give the bush family anything it wants when it comes to Patriot act, police state powers, voter reform, immigration reform, world trade deals, etc

Don't worry about your porn being outlawed - Gonzalez looks like a fucking pedophile

He's got mexican PEDO-FACE

I don't think that Gonzalez is as likely because he just got into the AG position - but who knows it could happen

baddog · 07-01-2005, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornstar2pac

who the fuck cares

You should . . . oh, that's right, you are not a webmaster . . . no matter, you should still care if you are an American citizen.

Xenophage · 07-01-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tango

I don't think that Gonzalez is as likely because he just got into the AG position - but who knows it could happen

This is fucking ugly.

I am seriously considering movin to a nice Dutch island!

Tango · 07-01-2005, 11:21 AM

anyone know what type of congress majority is required for the confirmation vote?

mardigras · 07-01-2005, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ganjasaurus

It's not just this industry that is in trouble. This could open up a whole can of worms: abortion, oregon's assisted suicide, medical marijuana, etc...

A report I heard earlier said the Oregon law is the first thing on their next session.

mardigras · 07-01-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tango

anyone know what type of congress majority is required for the confirmation vote?

Simple majority... and the Republicans have it if they all (give or take 3) agree on a nominee.

Tango · 07-01-2005, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

A report I heard earlier said the Oregon law is the first thing on their next session.

how does this process work?

- next session starts in September I believe - they start listening to cases

- if the replacement is confirmed before then - no problem things go forward

- what happens if the replacement battle takes months and isn't confirmed till November for example - then what happens they have to start from scratch and listen to the cases being heard again?

Tango · 07-01-2005, 11:33 AM

The Bush White House has held secret meetings on possible replacements and senior officials have interviewed some candidates.

On Friday, Bush said he is looking for candidates "who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country."

what a crock of shit

mardigras · 07-01-2005, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tango

The Bush White House has held secret meetings on possible replacements and senior officials have interviewed some candidates.

On Friday, Bush said he is looking for candidates "who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country."

what a crock of shit

During the re-election campaign he said he would nominate judges along the lines of Scalia and Thomas.

Sarah_Jayne · 07-01-2005, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornstar2pac

who the fuck cares

those of us that held her as one of our heros as a child...that's who

mardigras · 07-01-2005, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tango

how does this process work?

- next session starts in September I believe - they start listening to cases

- if the replacement is confirmed before then - no problem things go forward

- what happens if the replacement battle takes months and isn't confirmed till November for example - then what happens they have to start from scratch and listen to the cases being heard again?

She will stay on until a replacement is confirmed. I would think they would also let her finish any cases that are past the evidentiary stage and are being deliberated.

Morgan · 07-01-2005, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

those of us that held her as one of our heros as a child...that's who

but during HIS childhood she resigned, so he doesnt give a shit...

Tango · 07-01-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

She will stay on until a replacement is confirmed. I would think they would also let her finish any cases that are past the evidentiary stage and are being deliberated.

thx for the info

pornguy · 07-01-2005, 12:09 PM

It is going to get even more nasty than it was.

kane · 07-01-2005, 12:16 PM

this should turn into a major knock down dragout type of fight. You know GW is going to nominate a reactionary conservative and the dems in the senate are going to have a fit. This may actually help the democrats if they use this fight to show the country what they stand for.

VeriSexy · 07-01-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tango

who the fuck is that - you live in a hole?

supreme court - she was the most liberal on the court - now its going to swing against our ass

One by one they go

Tango · 07-01-2005, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

this should turn into a major knock down dragout type of fight. You know GW is going to nominate a reactionary conservative and the dems in the senate are going to have a fit. This may actually help the democrats if they use this fight to show the country what they stand for.

thats my hope as well - if the Dems are cool about it and don't act like idiots - in the end it could really backfire on the Republicans and turn into a massive shift back to the Dems

baddog · 07-01-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tango

- now its going to swing against our ass

Trust me, you do not want a liberal Supreme Court. Liberal judges are the ones that do not follow the letter of the law. They want to make names for themselves. They like to interpret laws differently than they were intended.

Liberal judges are not a good thing, make no mistake about it.

CraigA · 07-01-2005, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

Oh lord, WTF are you talking about -- all the abortion cases that hit the SC in the 80's, 90's, and 00's?

This is what I'm talking about. From the Associated Press.
Reading is the pathway to knowledge. You might want to catch up.

Nowhere was O'Connor's judicial reasoning more widely studied than when it related to abortion _ an issue that divides the court as it does the country.

She distanced herself both from her three colleagues who say there is no constitutional underpinning for a right to abortion _ and also from others who argue the right is a given.

O'Connor initially balked at letting states outlaw most abortions, refusing in 1989 to join four other justices who were ready to reverse the landmark 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Then in 1992, she helped forge and lead a five-justice majority that reaffirmed the core holding of the 1973 ruling. Subsequent appointments secured the abortion right.

mardigras · 07-01-2005, 01:10 PM

I think GW may hedge his bets and save the extreme right-wing judge for the next nomination he is almost certain to get to make. Gonzales would actually be a smart nomination politically since he leans enough to the right on most issues but they can call the abortion issue "compromise". This will be backed up by right-wing right-to-life groups bitching about the nominee. Then again once on the bench Gonzales could go to the other side on the abortion issue and with other Bush nominees be a 100% knockout for the Bush administration.

Tom_PM · 07-01-2005, 01:11 PM

One thing I've already seen some talking heads talk about on tv is that voters knew when they cast their ballots last November that whoever they elected would likely get to nominate for the supreme court. (lol, okay sure)

In other words, whoever Bush nominates, the majority of Americans already approve of, lmao. It's brilliant really. If only they would use their powers for good ;)

I dont think we want a "liberal" or "conservative" court system. It's a seperate branch and party politics *shouldnt* play into it..
We want a court that will deliberate fairly on disputed issues. Pretty simple. Best way to do that is nominate someone down the middle.

selena · 07-01-2005, 01:12 PM

Here is an interesting read on most likely candiates:

http://slate.com/id/2121270/?GT1=6666

baddog · 07-01-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

One thing I've already seen some talking heads talk about on tv is that voters knew when they cast their ballots last November that whoever they elected would likely get to nominate for the supreme court. (lol, okay sure)

In other words, whoever Bush nominates, the majority of Americans already approve of, lmao. It's brilliant really. If only they would use their powers for good ;)

Obviously you have never held an elected position. Of course any elected official is going to presume that the masses are behind them, otherwise they would not have been elected.

And yeah, anyone that did not know that someone from the SC would die or retire in this term was uninformed.

Quote:

I dont think we want a "liberal" or "conservative" court system. It's a seperate branch and party politics *shouldnt* play into it..
We want a court that will deliberate fairly on disputed issues. Pretty simple. Best way to do that is nominate someone down the middle.

This is precisely why conservative is better than liberal.

baddog · 07-01-2005, 01:36 PM

The thing that scares me the most is during Bush's speech he says he will be "deliberate and thorough" in his choice, and he can not keep from smiling when he says those words.

I have noticed a pattern that whenever he uses the phrase "deliberate and thorough" he smiles. I don't know if it is because of some agenda or just that he was able to pronounce the words without fucking it up.

dopeman · 07-01-2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I have noticed a pattern that whenever he uses the phrase "deliberate and thorough" he smiles. I don't know if it is because of some agenda or just that he was able to pronounce the words without fucking it up.

lol.

he does have that 'look what I can do!' attitude at times. like a little kid showing off.

Elli · 07-01-2005, 01:39 PM

Now all he has to do is declare a state of emergency and he could be in power indefinitely, non?

Tango · 07-01-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I have noticed a pattern that whenever he uses the phrase "deliberate and thorough" he smiles. I don't know if it is because of some agenda or just that he was able to pronounce the words without fucking it up.

I saw that as well - they already know full well who they plan on submitting for nomination - now they are going to work on strategy to get whom ever it is through as quickly as possible

SinisterStudios · 07-01-2005, 02:00 PM

were in trouble now, lets just hope the democrats can stop some ultra conseravtive from getting in there. This could be really bad news for our industry

07-01-2005, 09:54 AM	#53
scoreman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,491	Oh shit, this is BAD news. All you adult guys that voted Bush, well we told you this would happen. Now the Bush administration gets to place at least one and probably two Justices. We need to pray we don't get another Scalia. That would be a major train wreck for us. __________________

07-01-2005, 09:59 AM	#56
Morgan Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Corona Del Mar, CA Posts: 10,520	both have a shot at the filibuster. lets hope Rehnquist lasts another 3 years. lets hope we get another swing vote in o'connors seat. lets just all put our heads between our legs and pray! __________________ PornstarPlatinum.com \| TransErotica.com

07-01-2005, 10:01 AM	#58
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	She was a swing voter on many important cases. This is going to be a liberal vs. conservative war to replace her. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

07-01-2005, 10:07 AM	#60
Tat2Jr Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sunny California Posts: 4,882	oh FUCK - That was NOT one of the SC judges we wanted Bush to replace. We are headed into a very dark era in this country. __________________ NICHE MONEY >> Ass Worship • Panties • Solo Teen • Pantyhose Serving up exclusive fetish sites since 1997!

07-01-2005, 10:23 AM	#62
scoreman Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 1,491	2257-Ben, We could have voted this clown out of office in November and then the Dems who bent over for the Administration on the Constitutional Option would have been a moot issue. When this exact issue was discussed on this board prior to the elections last year, Republican adult webmasters pooh poohed the issue and said it didnt matter. I am sure these same webmasters will say the same things right up to when the Court decisions start coming down 6-3 in favor of anti-porn. Then all of sudden they will wonder what happened to their rights. __________________

07-01-2005, 11:02 AM	#70
mockingbich Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 274	HAHAHAHAHa This is too funny Gonzalez is not a conservative - but he is Bush's butt buddy from Texas So he'll probably rule "moderately" like O'connor... but he'll definately give the bush family anything it wants when it comes to Patriot act, police state powers, voter reform, immigration reform, world trade deals, etc Don't worry about your porn being outlawed - Gonzalez looks like a fucking pedophile He's got mexican PEDO-FACE

07-01-2005, 11:05 AM	#72
smack Push Porn Like Weight. Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Inside .NET Posts: 10,652	i just saw this on the news. i am not pleased. __________________ Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

07-01-2005, 11:21 AM	#76
Tango Let's Tango! Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,570	anyone know what type of congress majority is required for the confirmation vote? __________________ ADULTS.com / ADULTS.net for sale AFFILIATE.com also for sale Serious Inquiries Only: Email: [email protected] for offers

07-01-2005, 11:33 AM	#80
Tango Let's Tango! Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,570	The Bush White House has held secret meetings on possible replacements and senior officials have interviewed some candidates. On Friday, Bush said he is looking for candidates "who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and laws of our country." what a crock of shit __________________ ADULTS.com / ADULTS.net for sale AFFILIATE.com also for sale Serious Inquiries Only: Email: [email protected] for offers

07-01-2005, 12:09 PM	#86
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	It is going to get even more nasty than it was. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

07-01-2005, 12:16 PM	#87
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	this should turn into a major knock down dragout type of fight. You know GW is going to nominate a reactionary conservative and the dems in the senate are going to have a fit. This may actually help the democrats if they use this fight to show the country what they stand for.

07-01-2005, 01:10 PM	#92
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	I think GW may hedge his bets and save the extreme right-wing judge for the next nomination he is almost certain to get to make. Gonzales would actually be a smart nomination politically since he leans enough to the right on most issues but they can call the abortion issue "compromise". This will be backed up by right-wing right-to-life groups bitching about the nominee. Then again once on the bench Gonzales could go to the other side on the abortion issue and with other Bush nominees be a 100% knockout for the Bush administration. __________________ .

07-01-2005, 01:11 PM	#93
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	One thing I've already seen some talking heads talk about on tv is that voters knew when they cast their ballots last November that whoever they elected would likely get to nominate for the supreme court. (lol, okay sure) In other words, whoever Bush nominates, the majority of Americans already approve of, lmao. It's brilliant really. If only they would use their powers for good ;) I dont think we want a "liberal" or "conservative" court system. It's a seperate branch and party politics shouldnt play into it.. We want a court that will deliberate fairly on disputed issues. Pretty simple. Best way to do that is nominate someone down the middle. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

07-01-2005, 01:12 PM	#94
selena Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: On The Edge Posts: 7,994	Here is an interesting read on most likely candiates: http://slate.com/id/2121270/?GT1=6666 __________________ ~ Doer of Things at MetArtMoney Where Flawless Beauty Meets Art ~The MetArt Network ~ selena.delgado9

07-01-2005, 01:36 PM	#96
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	The thing that scares me the most is during Bush's speech he says he will be "deliberate and thorough" in his choice, and he can not keep from smiling when he says those words. I have noticed a pattern that whenever he uses the phrase "deliberate and thorough" he smiles. I don't know if it is because of some agenda or just that he was able to pronounce the words without fucking it up.

07-01-2005, 01:39 PM	#98
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	Now all he has to do is declare a state of emergency and he could be in power indefinitely, non? __________________ email: [email protected]

07-01-2005, 02:00 PM	#100
SinisterStudios Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: New Joisey Posts: 3,087	were in trouble now, lets just hope the democrats can stop some ultra conseravtive from getting in there. This could be really bad news for our industry __________________ SEOIP.com Multiple IP Webhosting Shared and Dedicated IP's - Multiple Class A's - From $1.99/ip Last edited by SinisterStudios; 07-01-2005 at 02:02 PM..