olyclimber Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Peter, this is a name calling thread only. Please leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 (edited) Oh my MalCon you must be thinking of the 1930's! yeah, let's just add justices to the court until we get a majority... oh wait that's OK 'cos a Democrat tried to do it. Edited September 29, 2005 by KaskadskyjKozak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 (edited) You're one to talk, Mr. McLimbaugh. like sack What amazing wit you have! You like sack!!?? good for you! Edited September 29, 2005 by olyclimber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 You're one to talk, Mr. McLimbaugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted September 29, 2005 Author Share Posted September 29, 2005 You're one to talk, Mr. McLimbaugh. lick sack Well, that was the most informed statement you've made in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mal_Con Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 In the 1930's FDR did try to pack the court BUT he was defeated in congress which his party controlled by more than 2/3d's. It is true that he appointedDouglas bu Ike appointed Warren and Truman Black (hint he was conservative) The first attempt to pack the Court was by Nixon with Hanswoerth and Carswell who were defeated by a Democratic Senate but we endedup with Burger and Reinquest instead. Reagans appointments were not particularly idelogical nor were Carters, Fords, or Clintons (GOP controled Senate then). Bush I gave us Scalia and Thomas who were although neither said so at their hearings. I can pretty much guarentee that Roberts will be just as reactionary, which is different from conservative (conservatives want to keep things the way they are reactionaries want to take things back). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I knew a righty would have something stupid to say. Last time I checked, senators are supposed to represent their state's interests, not bow to the president's whim. You might want to retake a basic American political systems course. the precedent is to confirm the President's nominees unless they are grossly unqualified. If you want to talk precedent, it was also precedent to not threaten rule changes to block fillibusters. Irregardless, a senator's "boss" is his (or her?) state's citizens, not the president. In any event, I was never really against this Roberts character. I think he is certainly unqualified to be Chief Justice as I tend to think Chiefs should be nominated from existing Justices, or at least somebody with a history at the federal court level. He has nither. (oh really???) But aside from that, i'll take him as a presumed improvement to Renquist. 1)Your use of Irregardless shows poor form. 2)The ABA rates Roberts as "exceptionally well qualified". Its highest rating. 3)Like you, I would have preferred to see Scalia appointed chief justice. 4)Roberts was previously appointed to The DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a federal court. Josh, forget about that "American Political Systems" course. You obviously aren't learning anything. Might I suggest you take a sub-100 level course in English, and then move forward with your post-primary education? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 3)Like you, I would have preferred to see Scalia appointed chief justice. Josh, forget about that "American Political Systems" course. You obviously aren't learning anything. Might I suggest taking a sub-100 level course in English, and then moving forward with your post-primary education? What do you expect from a product of our secondary school education system combined with "higher" education in liberal arts by left-wing professors, and tempered by an 18-25 year old mind. That's right, a grammatically-challenged, brain-washed, ignoramus/besser-wisser. This case is much more severe, however, and the recommendation for remedial education, although a noble suggestion, will not help Josh with his cranial-rectal inversion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 In the 1930's FDR did try to pack the court BUT he was defeated in congress which his party controlled by more than 2/3d's. It is true that he appointedDouglas bu Ike appointed Warren and Truman Black (hint he was conservative) The first attempt to pack the Court was by Nixon with Hanswoerth and Carswell who were defeated by a Democratic Senate but we endedup with Burger and Reinquest instead. Reagans appointments were not particularly idelogical nor were Carters, Fords, or Clintons (GOP controled Senate then). Bush I gave us Scalia and Thomas who were although neither said so at their hearings. I can pretty much guarentee that Roberts will be just as reactionary, which is different from conservative (conservatives want to keep things the way they are reactionaries want to take things back). You must work for the ACLU! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) I knew a righty would have something stupid to say. Last time I checked, senators are supposed to represent their state's interests, not bow to the president's whim. You might want to retake a basic American political systems course. the precedent is to confirm the President's nominees unless they are grossly unqualified. If you want to talk precedent, it was also precedent to not threaten rule changes to block fillibusters. Irregardless, a senator's "boss" is his (or her?) state's citizens, not the president. In any event, I was never really against this Roberts character. I think he is certainly unqualified to be Chief Justice as I tend to think Chiefs should be nominated from existing Justices, or at least somebody with a history at the federal court level. He has nither. (oh really???) But aside from that, i'll take him as a presumed improvement to Renquist. 1)The use of Irregardless is poor form. 2)The ABA rates Roberts as "exceptionally well qualified". Its highest rating. 3)Like you, I would have preferred to see Scalia appointed chief justice. 4)Roberts was previously appointed to The DC Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a federal court. Josh, forget about that "American Political Systems" course. You obviously aren't learning anything. Might I suggest you take a sub-100 level course in English, and then move forward with your post-primary education? Hey fairweather, don't you have some unanswered questions waiting for you on another thread? Perhaps you were feeling a little embarrassed, and tried a few diversionary tactics over here? I still want to know your .... answers please! Edited September 30, 2005 by sexual_chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 Thanks for the grammar lesson FW, obviously your schooling was well spent. Sorry, I admit I forgot about his whopping TWO YEARS experience as a federal judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 * I don't believe the last election/referrendum was conducted fairly. I don't believe it represents the will of the people. I believe I did answer your question with this response. Read, SC. For your open mind, I have broadened my response on the thread to which you allude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.