• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Chief Justice Rehnquist has died

Status
Not open for further replies.
When has he been polling below 40%? Never.

Hell, he's probably below 30% after his handling of the Katrina disaster.

Besides, y'all are flat out wrong. Notice how Social Security reform is dead in the water.
 
This is not a catastrophe for the left. What would be a catastrophe is if Ginsburg or Souter died or retired. Since Bush won in 04, the left was fucked anyway, but this is one of the least painful scenarios (Rehnquist dying and replaced by another conservative) for the left, not the worse case.
 
Lardbutt said:
This is not a catastrophe for the left. What would be a catastrophe is if Ginsburg or Souter died or retired. Since Bush won in 04, the left was fucked anyway, but this is one of the least painful scenarios (Rehnquist dying and replaced by another conservative) for the left, not the worse case.
You clearly tend to be moderate or perhaps to the right. Is what I posted about the mindset overall being typically moderate and liberal correct?
 
Robertson now has the power to kill judges with prayer. Fantastic. I can't wait to see what these slimy bible thumpers do now.


pats.jpg

The apocalypse is nigh.
 
Hitler Stole My Potato said:
Robertson now has the power to kill judges with prayer. Fantastic. I can't wait to see what these slimy bible thumpers do now.


pats.jpg

The apocalypse is nigh.

The picture is amusing, the sentiment is distressing.
 
So seriously guys, what's your assessment of the Supreme Court overall? Is it as conservative as we think? Or is it more moderate, even with Roberts? Rehnquist's replacement isn't gonna shake things up really... it's just gonna be another staunch conservative.
 
Diablos said:
So seriously guys, what's your assessment of the Supreme Court overall? Is it as conservative as we think? Or is it more moderate, even with Roberts? Rehnquist's replacement isn't gonna shake things up really... it's just gonna be another staunch conservative.

But it's going to be a shitty neocon. Rehnquist was a man of serious intelligence and quality who Bush cannot be trusted to adequately replace.
 
But when it comes to the issues, even if he's a neocon... he can only vote to the left, somewhere in the middle, or to the right. Rehnquist was always to the right. A neocon will approach it the same way. With absurd reasoning perhaps, but the result would be no more shocking or different. You could be a typically religious man with a high level of intelligence (Rehnquist), a neocon and/or fundamentalist evangelical Christian, or heck, a republican athiest (yes they do exist)... voting against abortion is voting against abortion. Voting against gay marriage is voting against gay marriage.

And it seems some Republicans (that aren't in the spotlight) in Washington are really unhappy with Bush's performance in appointing people to the Supreme Court. Not all, but some. They HAVE to be pissed about the whole Roberts thing. Bush might not be able to get what he wants... either for John Roberts being appointed, or Rehnquist's replacement.
 
Are we though? Is it really going to be THAT bad? Look at the previous page... and look at where they all stand individually.

That being said, John Paul Stevens is an ooollld man, being born in 1920 and being appointed by Ford and all. IF he cares about the liberal side of the supreme court, he'll stick around until 2008 when Democrats can hopefully win the election.

Now, if he either dies or resigns due to his old age of 85, that would be the appropriate time to start worrying. He's old but no one talks about him. He could be in very poor health for all we know. And Bush is gonna be around for quite some time.

That being said I'm not worried about NOW so much as I am the future.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Libs fretting because Rehnquist dies? Has the world gone mad?

The only downside is that a younger conservative will be put in place. The tilt of the court won't shift, but it decreases the amount of influence a democratic president could exhert, assuming the DNC ever gets their shit together and the party grow some balls.
 
GhaleonEB said:
The only downside is that a younger conservative will be put in place. The tilt of the court won't shift, but it decreases the amount of influence a democratic president could exhert, assuming the DNC ever gets their shit together and the party grow some balls.
If Stevens resigns when there is hopefully a Democrat in the White House in 2009, then they will have the opportunity to appoint a young Democrat. I'm betting that is what Stevens holding out for, since he does tend to support the liberal side of things.

He IS 85... he'll be 89 in 2009. I dunno. :\
Oh man. I don't know. 85 and it's not even 2006. He has been in the Supreme Court the longest. Bush could very well end up appointing three staunch conservatives this term. :|
 
Malakhov said:
As a Quebecer, can someone explain me why you're all claiming doom?
Because the Supreme Court ultimately decides on controversal issues in the country. They vote on it. Such as abortion, gay marriage, hate crimes, etc. Rehnquist gave the 5th vote in Bush's favor which then let him sadly be elected in 2000.

The concern is that if Bush keeps appointing very strong and biased conservatives in the Supreme Court, then every serious social, economic, etc. issue will always go in the conservative direction. Which is a bad thing to a lot of us.

And, like I said, although no one seems to be paying attention to the fact (in the media specifically)... the oldest member of the court that typically has a liberal mindset can't last that much longer (be it in terms of his career or his lifespan is yet to be determined; he's 85.) That will give Bush a total of three extremely conservative people appointed.

There should be a law that does not allow the court to be too conservative or liberal. Moderate is really the only sensible way to go in the supreme court.
 
Malakhov said:
Ah ok I see, thanks Diablos.
Just for clarification:

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court in the United States of America. It consists of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices, who are appointed by the President with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Justices of the Supreme Court serve for life.

The Supreme Court is the only court established by the United States Constitution; all other federal courts are created by Congress. It holds both original and appellate jurisdiction, but the latter is by far used more often. Like other federal courts, the Supreme Court may exercise the power of judicial review, or the power to declare federal or state laws, as well as the actions of federal and state executives, unconstitutional. The decisions of the Supreme Court may not be appealed to any other body; as Justice Robert H. Jackson once famously remarked, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

The Supreme Court meets in Washington, D.C., in the U.S. Supreme Court building. The court is sometimes known by the acronyms SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and USSC (United States Supreme Court).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
 
Bush has clearly allied with Satan. He has the House, the Senate and 2 Supreme Court nominees. And the guy is a fucking retard. WTF??? The horsemen are riding, and I now owe the next two years to the NY board of ed. My permanent Euro trip has been delayed that long now. :( PEACE.
 
Pimpwerx said:
Bush has clearly allied with Satan. He has the House, the Senate and 2 Supreme Court nominees. And the guy is a fucking retard. WTF??? The horsemen are riding, and I now owe the next two years to the NY board of ed. My permanent Euro trip has been delayed that long now. :( PEACE.
Could be 3. Don't forget about Stevens' age. :(
 
Diablos said:
Because the Supreme Court ultimately decides on controversal issues in the country. They vote on it. Such as abortion, gay marriage, hate crimes, etc. Rehnquist gave the 5th vote in Bush's favor which then let him sadly be elected in 2000.

The concern is that if Bush keeps appointing very strong and biased conservatives in the Supreme Court, then every serious social, economic, etc. issue will always go in the conservative direction. Which is a bad thing to a lot of us.

And, like I said, although no one seems to be paying attention to the fact (in the media specifically)... the oldest member of the court that typically has a liberal mindset can't last that much longer (be it in terms of his career or his lifespan is yet to be determined; he's 85.) That will give Bush a total of three extremely conservative people appointed.

There should be a law that does not allow the court to be too conservative or liberal. Moderate is really the only sensible way to go in the supreme court.
....And what's so bad about it being mostly conservative? According to dictionary.com, conservative means:
One favoring traditional views and values. Our traditions and values have made America what it is today.
 
Diablos said:
Because the Supreme Court ultimately decides on controversal issues in the country. They vote on it. Such as abortion, gay marriage, hate crimes, etc. Rehnquist gave the 5th vote in Bush's favor which then let him sadly be elected in 2000.

.. the problem being that that isn't the Supreme Court's job. They aren't supposed to "decide on controversial issues" -- they are supposed to interpret the law. The folks deciding on the issue are in Congress, passing the laws to determine how we deal with the issues.

Rehnquist was a neat guy, all things considered... as you may have noticed, he has gold stripes on his robe. These aren't traditional for a supreme court justice... however, he had seen a production of Gilbert & Sullivan's Iolanthe, and saw the large gold braids on the outfit of a judge in the play. He showed up at the next session with gold braids sewn on his judicial robes.
 
DavidDayton said:
.. the problem being that that isn't the Supreme Court's job. They aren't supposed to "decide on controversial issues" -- they are supposed to interpret the law. The folks deciding on the issue are in Congress, passing the laws to determine how we deal with the issues.
Wait, wait. I'm confused.

Synbios: "Conservative" and "liberal" can be the most useless of labels. Hell you could argue that Kerry was the "conservative" one simply because his proposed approach to everything was much less agressive and more thought out than what Bush was doing, regardless of how flawed you may think they were.

The labels "conservative" and "liberal" really don't mean anything anymore.
 
I think the SCOTUS is gradually moving to the right, but I think people need to take a chill pill. Even if the absolute nightmare scenario for the leftists happen, that is Roe vs Wade gets overturned, all that will happen is that abortion becomes a states-decided issue, and you can probably still get an abortion in more than half the states in this country.

What other horrible "damage" can a more conservative SCOTUS inflict?...ban gay marriage?....allow religious symbols to be displayed in courthouses?...are these really decisions that are going to have drastic effect on most of our daily lives?
 
Lardbutt said:
I think the SCOTUS is gradually moving to the right, but I think people need to take a chill pill. Even if the absolute nightmare scenario for the leftists happen, that is Roe vs Wade gets overturned, all that will happen is that abortion becomes a states-decided issue, and you can probably still get an abortion in more than half the states in this country.

What other horrible "damage" can a more conservative SCOTUS inflict?...ban gay marriage?....allow religious symbols to be displayed in courthouses?...are these really decisions that are going to have drastic effect on most of our daily lives?

Yes.
 
GhaleonEB said:

Well, you could always pressure Congress to change the laws to match what you believe to be right. That would be more effective and far reaching that hoping the Supreme Court sides with your point of view would ever be.
 
DavidDayton said:
Well, you could always pressure Congress to change the laws to match what you believe to be right. That would be more effective and far reaching that hoping the Supreme Court sides with your point of view would ever be.

I'm not worried about my state, so much as the fact that the reps from my state are in the minority. Which means they can't really do much with an administration hell-bent on a preexisting agenda.

For example, Oregon is the only state with an assisted suicide law on the books - twice approved by ballot - and that just pisses off the conservatives in congress. After the medical pot decision by the supreme court, it was made clear that stripping that one away was next on their agenda. My state - but their decision.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Libs fretting because Rehnquist dies? Has the world gone mad?
Meet your new Supreme Court Justice, Animated Corpse of Hitler.

zombiehitler1.gif


Seriously. When has this Administration EVER thrown an olive branch to the CENTER, much less to the left? We lose Ashcroft but we gain Gonzales? We keep Rummy, the worst Sec. of Defense EVER? We lose Powell for Rice?
 
Here's the problem..

When Bush nominated Roberts, he had to be careful to not put up someone TOO conservative for a number of reasons. But now that he's done that, it's like he has a "freebie," and even if he nominates someone crazy conservative, he can always refer to his Roberts nomination.

I expect to see someone definitely more conservative than Roberts nominated.
 
fugimax said:
Here's the problem..

When Bush nominated Roberts, he had to be careful to not put up someone TOO conservative for a number of reasons. But now that he's done that, it's like he has a "freebie," and even if he nominates someone crazy conservative, he can always refer to his Roberts nomination.

I expect to see someone definitely more conservative than Roberts nominated.
You rang?
ashcroft_john_attorneygeneral.jpg
 
sp0rsk said:
this is all that 700 club guy's fault.

i guess national disasters happen in 3s too :( whats next? california finally breaks away from the continent?

Man, that would be devastating.

As if airfare for my constant trips to New York wasn't expensive enough.
 
I found this out while I was playing World of WarCraft last night, and then a discussion started, and most people didn't even know who he was. Then one of the guys who didn't know who he was goes "He was probably an idiot like George Bush".

And I said, the man served the Supreme Court for decades, he has no direct affiliation with George Bush.

"So"

Me: So then give the man some respect not only did he just die, he basically dedicated his life to his country. He has nothing to do with George Bush.

Someone Else: It has EVERYTHING to do with George Bush he has to choose someone to replace him. Take your government classes kid.

Me: I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about Rehnquist in general

Someone Else: Shut up man

All I could do was shake my head and sort of laugh. These people have no idea who Rehnquist was, and they're condemning him just because their impression of George Bush? Wish probably isn't even their opinion because it's the "cool" thing for those who aren't really into politics to hate on W. Whatever.
 
Malakhov said:
As a Quebecer, can someone explain me why you're all claiming doom?
Diablos, you forgot a really important part:

Supreme Court Justices have life terms.

They can be impeached (never happened to a Supreme Court Justice), but they can serve as long as they want. So even when W is long gone, his power is still felt in his Supreme court nominations.
 
Won't matter anyway. W.R. was a conservative and nominating another conservatve won't have a big impact on the supreme court. If Stevens died, then yes. All hell would break lose.
 
ToyMachine228 said:
I found this out while I was playing World of WarCraft last night, and then a discussion started, and most people didn't even know who he was. Then one of the guys who didn't know who he was goes "He was probably an idiot like George Bush".

...

I can't believe you expected a reasonable conversation from what sounds like a public discussion in WoW. MMOs are like an Internet message board taken to the next level. I remember Election Night 2004(An EA title) in one of the main hubs of Everquest travel, Plane of Knowledge. I stuck around for about 15 minutes doing trivial shit and listening to the retards argue about rumors that had been disproven months before. At least once I saw the conversation end in a phrase similar to "Oh yeah! Come over here and we'll duel to see who is right!" After that night I pretty much gave up on perceiving vocal MMO players as even moderately informed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom