• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Topic: DEEP SH!+

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    DEEP SH!+

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    We are really in trouble.

    Sandra Day O'Connor is going to be replaced by a conservative ~~~~~~~.

    Oh my god.

    Gonzales is being suggested as a possible candidate! This gets worse and worse.

    Oh my god.

  2. #2

    Re: DEEP SH!+

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Batzdorf
    .

    Gonzales is being suggested as a possible candidate!
    Are you serious! This bozo...jeez!

    Jim Jarnagin - no not THAT Jim Jarnagin, the other one.

  3. #3

    Re: DEEP SH!+

    I'm surprised O'Conner took so long. She announced back in 2000 that Bush had to win because she wanted to retire soon -- and surprise, surprise, the Supreme Court handed him the presidency... Maybe she stuck around to cover her a s s.

    As for a replacement, we're doomed. Get used to the idea of a rightwing court. How's the weather in Canada these days?
    --
    Robert Gregory Browne
    KISS HER GOODBYE (now available)
    KILLER YEAR: Stories to Die For (Jan. 2008)
    WHISPER IN THE DARK (2008)
    St. Martin's Press
    http://www.robertgregorybrowne.com

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Moderator/Developer Brian2112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Out of my Mind
    Posts
    1,858

    Re: DEEP SH!+

    Might as well shred the Constitution now.


    ...2112
    "So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
    Hint:1.6180339887498948482 Φ

  6. #6

    Re: DEEP SH!+

    i think rove will make a good replacement

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Santa Cruz California
    Posts
    225

    Re: DEEP SH!+

    I was gonna photoshop that page with Steelhed as a candidate with a little exerpt...LoL Lets not and say we did.... Scary isnt it?

  8. #8

    Re: DEEP SH!+

    She doesn't leave until an appointment is confirmed. The Dems will fillibuster "everyone" Bush nominates..on the grounds that anybody the RNC controlled WH nominates would not be qualified for the job based on being extreme. (read: not with liberal leanings)

    That's a swing vote chair in the supreme court. It's because of "that"..that whoever wins this seat..could ..have impact on future court rulings. And, the only way a liberal leaning justice is going to get nominated for that chair..is when the DNC takes back the WH. Because I know for "sure" that the current WH is not going to be nominating "liberal leaning" justices.

    So, then..the DNC position will be this....they are a protected minority..because they are 7 votes short of winning anything that falls on party lines in a straight up vote. And becuase they also do not have the WH..there won't be any liberal justices nominated. And, given the position of OConner as a swing voter..that having a non-liberal leaning justice would then favor the current conservative minority on that court. Therefore..because it might change the balance of things...and give the minority view in that court more weight...they will use the fillibuster ...as a minority..to protect the current majority they hold in the supreme court?

  9. #9

    Re: DEEP SH!+

    But liberals absolutely *do not* hold a majority in the Supreme Court, Danimal. There are four total fartheads and four fairly liberal justices. Sandra Day O'Connor is on the conservative side of moderate.

    The Democrats will not fillibuster a moderate conservative. They absolutely should and will fillibuster a raving ~~~~ing lunatic like the ones on that link I posted above with total dismay. Gonzales is being floated as a possibility!

    This country is going to be a disaster for generations to come as a result of this. Mark my words. This is an absolute tragedy. Just terrible.

  10. #10
    Moderator/Developer Brian2112's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Out of my Mind
    Posts
    1,858

    Re: DEEP SH!+

    Dcornutt,

    Are you really in favor of one party/ideology controlling all 3 branches of government? What about checks and balances? What if it were the other way around?

    Nick,


    There is really no safe bet with Supreme Court appointments. Some presidents thought that they were appointing staunch liberals/conservatives, but when one puts on those robes, it has been known to change them. Moderation is the only legitimate reading of the constitution. People are now starting to "wake up" as far as Bush is concerned. Once people start losing their freedoms, the Republican Party will be severely damaged for generations (which, by the way, I think is a bad thing). It is unfortunate that the misinformed must learn the hard way, and the more informed pay the price as well.

    ...2112
    "So what if some parts of life are a crap shoot? Get out there and shoot the crap." -- Neil Peart
    Hint:1.6180339887498948482 Φ

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •