3 Judges Hang In The Balance

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

saveuplife wrote:

Then why are you so concerned about the U.S. election if you don't even live here anymore? Are you coming back to live in the U.S. soon? Seems kinda strange to me.

Sorry if your confused, but I thought I already answered this question.

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Currently living in Canada. US born. Own a home in the USA. Pay taxes in the USA. Voting in this election. You don't know shit about me....Do you?

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

harrymanback wrote:

OK, when i heard this, i questioned what McCain said, and am a little confused ... is he contradicting himself? Is he saying that he does not think that someone who supported Roe v Wage would meet his qualifactions, because then he brings up the litmus test again?

That's exactly what he said. I'm very suprised the moderator didn't press him on it further because the debate could have taken a really interesting turn.

McCain had a really hard time hiding his motives on this. I think that statement about "Someone who supported Roe v Wade would not meet his qualifactions" was a very clear indication of what kind of judge he's looking to appoint.

And just look at Palin and Brown and all of these Anti-Choice people he's got around him. It's very obvious that ROE V Wade is very much on the line in this election.

know1 · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

Your right...They don't "Place" Laws. They are an appeals court with the power to overturn laws. But doesn't this in a sense Make a law in it's own?

NO.

chopitdown · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

And just look at Palin and Brown and all of these Anti-Choice people he's got around him. It's very obvious that ROE V Wade is very much on the line in this election.

i think they said that last election, and the one before that, and the one before that...

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

know1 wrote:

NO.

So if they overturn a law...Let's make if painfully obvious here. ROE V WADE. It would make that law extinct. In it's place a NEW LAW making abortion illegal.

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

chopitdown wrote:

i think they said that last election, and the one before that, and the one before that...

3-6 judges or seats on the Supreme Court were not up for grabs during those elections.

chopitdown · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

3-6 judges or seats on the Supreme Court were not up for grabs during those elections.

reagan nominated 3 judges
ghw bush nominated 2
clinton nominated 2
gw bush nominated 2

it's prob safe to assume that during each of those presidencies people thought at least 3 would retire shortly and some didn't.

i'd say it's safe to say that 2 will prob be up for appointment almost assuredly, and quite possibly another 2 shortly (w/in 4 - 6 years) thereafter

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

chopitdown wrote:

reagan nominated 3 judges
ghw bush nominated 2
clinton nominated 2
gw bush nominated 2

it's prob safe to assume that during each of those presidencies people thought at least 3 would retire shortly and some didn't.

i'd say it's safe to say that 2 will prob be up for appointment almost assuredly, and quite possibly another 2 shortly (w/in 4 - 6 years) thereafter

George W Bush's nominations, 1 of which was Roberts were extremely Conservative. If McCain get's 3 in there and follows suit. We could be in alot of trouble.

Solat13 · October 2008

chopitdown wrote:

reagan nominated 3 judges
ghw bush nominated 2
clinton nominated 2
gw bush nominated 2

it's prob safe to assume that during each of those presidencies people thought at least 3 would retire shortly and some didn't.

i'd say it's safe to say that 2 will prob be up for appointment almost assuredly, and quite possibly another 2 shortly (w/in 4 - 6 years) thereafter

Actually Reagan has 2 and Ford still has 1, but the Justices weren't this old as a whole in recent memory:

Stevens - 88 appointed by Ford
Ginsberg - 75 appointed by Clinton
Scalia - 72 appointed by Reagan
Kennedy - 72 appointed by Reagan
Breyer - 70 appointed by Clinton
Souter - 69 appointed by Bush, Sr.
Thomas - 60 appointed by Bush, Sr.
Alito - 58 appointed by Bush
Roberts - 53 appointed by Bush

O'Connon retired at 76 so it's likely that if the next president gets two terms, they get 6 justices. One term should be about 3 selections.

chopitdown · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

George W Bush's nominations, 1 of which was Roberts were extremely Conservative. If McCain get's 3 in there and follows suit. We could be in alot of trouble.

if he gets in there and doesn't follow suit, we won't be in a lot of trouble. It seems like there's a lot of trying to instill fear and panic into people...i'd be much more scared of having palin get picks than mccain...and I'm typically conservative.

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

Solat13 wrote:

Actually Reagan has 2 and Ford still has 1, but the Justices weren't this old as a whole in recent memory:

Stevens - 88 appointed by Ford
Ginsberg - 75 appointed by Clinton
Scalia - 72 appointed by Reagan
Kennedy - 72 appointed by Reagan
Breyer - 70 appointed by Clinton
Souter - 69 appointed by Bush, Sr.
Thomas - 60 appointed by Bush, Sr.
Alito - 58 appointed by Bush
Roberts - 53 appointed by Bush

O'Connon retired at 76 so it's likely that if the next president gets two terms, they get 6 justices. One term should be about 3 selections.

Exactly.
This is my concern.

chopitdown · October 2008

Solat13 wrote:

Actually Reagan has 2 and Ford still has 1, but the Justices weren't this old as a whole in recent memory:

Stevens - 88 appointed by Ford
Ginsberg - 75 appointed by Clinton
Scalia - 72 appointed by Reagan
Kennedy - 72 appointed by Reagan
Breyer - 70 appointed by Clinton
Souter - 69 appointed by Bush, Sr.
Thomas - 60 appointed by Bush, Sr.
Alito - 58 appointed by Bush
Roberts - 53 appointed by Bush

O'Connon retired at 76 so it's likely that if the next president gets two terms, they get 6 justices. One term should be about 3 selections.

reagan appointed 3...only 2 remain. My guess is one term will be 2 selections...with a poss wild card for the 3rd.

edit: and right now it's split fairly evenly in the senate, if the dems gain one seat in the senate then they'll be able to block a nominee. theoretically it should worry us more if there's a dem senate and dem president or repub senate and repub president b/c the system of checks and balances won't be nearly as strong.

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

chopitdown wrote:

if he gets in there and doesn't follow suit, we won't be in a lot of trouble. It seems like there's a lot of trying to instill fear and panic into people...i'd be much more scared of having palin get picks than mccain...and I'm typically conservative.

A Palin Presidency is a very real reality if McGramps gets in. Palin picking Supreme Court Judges or at the very least advising on such is a nightmare in itself.

saveuplife · October 2008

dunkman wrote:

because the US election is for ruler of the free world? at least thats what americans keep telling us on here... biggest, greatest, wealthiest, freest goddam country in the world.... he is an american citizen.. should he not be concerned with who leads his own country? perhaps every other member of his family and his wife's family still live there? should he just stop caring?

Look, I have duel citizenship in Ireland. I don't vote over there.

My point is simple, it's one thing for him to care about who's elected in American for the reasons you stated. That said, he chose to go to Canada. Anyway, caring and doing what he's doing are kinda different. I think wasting your time starting threads on a rock band's website about the impact to "us in America" when you live IN canada is kinda ridiculous.... but, that's just me.

Yea, I do the same. But, I'm not preaching about the Canadian election... I honestly don't care about it. I come here to talk politics about the country I live in.

josevolution · October 2008

whao i believe GONZO1977 just bitchslapped a few poster's here ....

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

saveuplife wrote:

he chose to go to Canada. Anyway, caring and doing what he's doing are kinda different. I think wasting your time starting threads on a rock band's website about the impact to "us in America" when you live IN canada is kinda ridiculous.... but, that's just me.

1) I'm an American Citizen Born and Raised in Chicago

2) I own a home in the United States and live there 6 months out of the year.

3) I'm working on a project in Toronto Canada right now and I'm living there during the duration

4) I pay Taxes in the United States,

5) My children go to school in the United States

So don't sit there all high and mighty and tell me that I have NO RIGHT to be concerned with issues OF MY COUNTRY or the direction of MY COUNTRY.

You act as if you know me when in fact you don't fuck all about me.

I'm as American as you are.

I have a unique situation that allows me to live, and experience LIFE in another Country.

I feel very lucky and Proud to be doing such.

It's one of the great benifits of having dual citizenship.

It's one of the Great Benifits of living in NORTH AMERICA.

Thank you very much!!

josevolution · October 2008

Gonzo1977 wrote:

1) I'm an American Citizen Born and Raised in Chicago

2) I own a home in the United States and live there 6 months out of the year.

3) I'm working on a project in Toronto Canada right now and I'm living there during the duration

4) I pay Taxes in the United States,

5) My children go to school in the United States

So don't sit there all high and mighty and tell me that I have NO RIGHT to be concerned with issues OF MY COUNTRY or the direction of MY COUNTRY.

You act as if you know me when in fact you don't fuck all about me.

I'm as American as you are.

I have a unique situation that allows me to live, and experience LIFE in another Country.

I feel very lucky and Proud to be doing such.

It's one of the great benifits of having dual citizenship.

It's one of the Great Benifits of living in NORTH AMERICA.

Thank you very much!!

like i said you bitchslapped a few of the above posters good job ...

Dirtie_Frank · October 2008

SO Obama will not appoint any radicals that have socialist ideas?

Gonzo1977 · October 2008

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

SO Obama will not appoint any radicals that have socialist ideas?

Socialist ideas?
Like what...Freedom of Choice?

Obama will probably elect a buch of Commie Fags to help out that damn Middle Class. What Socialist.

Or maybe he'll appoint his Terroist Pals like Ayers.

Heineken Helen · October 2008

know1 wrote:

For me, the biggest threat to freedom is higher taxes (or at least not cutting taxes)

wow, you've got a really strange perception of what 'freedom' is. Sure you refer to 'financial freedom' but there are much more important freedoms which are at threat as we speak.

3 Judges Hang In The Balance

Comments

Categories