logo Sign In

R.I.P. Chief Justice Rehnquist

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
The Chief Justice Has Died.

If it wasn't getting nasty with Roberts' confirmation, just wait until now. The balance is going to be forced to one side.

I am the BASF of the film community. I don’t make the films you watch. I make the films you watch better.

Author
Time
Post link
My sympathies go out to Justice Rehnquist family.


So it seems that Bush will be able to appoint a new Chief Justice. God help us all.
Author
Time
Post link
Even speaking from the point of view of a male, now Bush is going to elect another WASP Male. He like all of his people, secretly hates anyone different from him. Yes, he will elect some up tight conservative like he has now. It's a secret party in the oval office tonight! They just don't stop do they? They overtook the white house, the courts, brainwashed over half the country, started a war, and now wish to conquer the world! His death was a tragedy. But for Bush, it's just another opportunity to give the government more of a conservative bias.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
They just don't stop do they?


Yeah, darn it, Bush really has to stop killing these justices like that. He won't quit.

Quote
They overtook the white house, the courts, brainwashed over half the country, started a war, and now wish to conquer the world!


Typical liberal attitude. I'll respect your stupid opinion when you provide some basis in fact. Conquering the world

My simplified opinion: I think that we were right to go over and fight the terrorists/Taliban and bring them to justice. We DID NOT start the war- the suicidal Al-Quida maniacs did that. The fact that we've stayed over there for so long is troubling, however. If Bush has a reason for doing this (besides oil), he apparently doesn't trust the public with it and I don't like that. If I was the father of a soldier that was killed in Iraq, I would be EXTREMELY upset because I still wouldn't know what we were fighting for.

So I disagree with Bush on his handling of this. But I didn't say they "started a war and now wish to conquer the world"; nothing personal, but that's just plain stupid.
Author
Time
Post link
In starting a war I should have been more specific. Of course Bush didn't start the original war in 2001. He started the 2003 Iraqi invasion. That was all Bush!
Author
Time
Post link
RIP, Chief Justice.

There seems to be a death plague going around...
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Davis

I think that we were right to go over and fight the terrorists/Taliban and bring them to justice.


It's 2005 now, y'know... how's that hunt for Bin Laden coming along?
For as much as some people claim to hate what Star Wars has become, they sure seem incapable of shutting up about it.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
It's 2005 now, y'know... how's that hunt for Bin Laden coming along?


No clue. None of us do. And THAT'S what is wrong, not the fact that we went in to begin with. An uninformed public is dangerous.

The point is that it was NOT a mistake to go in there at first. Four years and many lives later, it IS a mistake to the best of my knowledge because we don't have any info- only dead soldiers.
Author
Time
Post link
ADM Beat slashdot with this news, way to go.
Author
Time
Post link
CNN beat me though. I'm a news junkie, but it's still spoon fed to me ever since I got out of the business myself.

I am the BASF of the film community. I don’t make the films you watch. I make the films you watch better.

Author
Time
Post link
Oh you were a news person, cool, were on tv ever?
Author
Time
Post link
Newspaper guy.

I am the BASF of the film community. I don’t make the films you watch. I make the films you watch better.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
In starting a war I should have been more specific. Of course Bush didn't start the original war in 2001. He started the 2003 Iraqi invasion. That was all Bush!


You know, I've made a real effor to keep my mouth shut about politics, but I just can't this time: It seems like the only war the left has ever agreed with in the past 100 years was a war that in their view was to save Stalin.

But, back on topic: RIP.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I think the elevation of Roberts is quite curious. It keeps O'Connor on the bench a wee bit longer while ensuring that Bush's main nominee sits in the "center chair" for the next 30-35 years (health willing).

I truly expected Scalia to get the nod, and I'll bet he's smarting right now.

Gonzales to get the second nom? What odds is Vegas putting on that?

I am the BASF of the film community. I don’t make the films you watch. I make the films you watch better.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
My simplified opinion: I think that we were right to go over and fight the terrorists/Taliban and bring them to justice. We DID NOT start the war- the suicidal Al-Quida maniacs did that. The fact that we've stayed over there for so long is troubling, however. If Bush has a reason for doing this (besides oil), he apparently doesn't trust the public with it and I don't like that. If I was the father of a soldier that was killed in Iraq, I would be EXTREMELY upset because I still wouldn't know what we were fighting for.

So I disagree with Bush on his handling of this. But I didn't say they "started a war and now wish to conquer the world"; nothing personal, but that's just plain stupid.


Going into Afghanistan made sense. We thought Bin Laden was there.

As for Iraq, there weren't any "terrorists" in Iraq until we invaded. There was never a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They used Iraq as a rallying point after we turned the country into a war zone.

I seriously question the intelligence of any middle class American who voted for Bush, especially his second term. Anyone find it interesting that the Bush family gets its wealth from oil? Anyone find it interesting that the Bush family is so very very tight with the Saudi royal family? Anyone with a reasonable view of the future can see the looming oil crisis and what it means to our country. Our entire economy is based on cheap, abundant oil. Tons of goods are made from petroleum byproducts, and the goods are all shipped on ships, planes, and trucks that require huge amounts of fuel. China is growing, India is growing. They'll need oil like crazy in a few years. Oil is getting scarce and you can bet the U.S. is positioning itself to have a firm grasp on middle eastern oil for the future. This "war" has nothing to do with terrorism--nothing at all.

And the Bush family is laughing all the way to the bank.

We're all playthings for rich people.
Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Jay
Quote
My simplified opinion: I think that we were right to go over and fight the terrorists/Taliban and bring them to justice. We DID NOT start the war- the suicidal Al-Quida maniacs did that. The fact that we've stayed over there for so long is troubling, however. If Bush has a reason for doing this (besides oil), he apparently doesn't trust the public with it and I don't like that. If I was the father of a soldier that was killed in Iraq, I would be EXTREMELY upset because I still wouldn't know what we were fighting for.

So I disagree with Bush on his handling of this. But I didn't say they "started a war and now wish to conquer the world"; nothing personal, but that's just plain stupid.


Going into Afghanistan made sense. We thought Bin Laden was there.

As for Iraq, there weren't any "terrorists" in Iraq until we invaded. There was never a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. They used Iraq as a rallying point after we turned the country into a war zone.

I seriously question the intelligence of any middle class American who voted for Bush, especially his second term. Anyone find it interesting that the Bush family gets its wealth from oil? Anyone find it interesting that the Bush family is so very very tight with the Saudi royal family? Anyone with a reasonable view of the future can see the looming oil crisis and what it means to our country. Our entire economy is based on cheap, abundant oil. Tons of goods are made from petroleum byproducts, and the goods are all shipped on ships, planes, and trucks that require huge amounts of fuel. China is growing, India is growing. They'll need oil like crazy in a few years. Oil is getting scarce and you can bet the U.S. is positioning itself to have a firm grasp on middle eastern oil for the future. This "war" has nothing to do with terrorism--nothing at all.

And the Bush family is laughing all the way to the bank.

We're all playthings for rich people.


Well, I disagree with nearly everything you said, but you're free to have an opinion. Bush made clear the reasons we were going for war based on intelligence he THOUGHT was true, at least. I am losing faith in the way it is being handled, but I don't think going was a bad idea to begin with.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I'm still on the fence. I agree that the reasons Bush and the republicans have been giving don't justify going into Iraq. And while I was never crazy about going there, I can't say Saddam didn't deserve to be overthrown. He was an evil dictator who murdered many of his own people. I think we tend to overlook that fact too often in this debate. I'm not saying that alone justifies the invasion, but I just don't we should forget who would be incharge of Iraq if we hadn't invaded. I can only hope and pray the war ends quickly and that things improve for the people of Iraq. But, I somehow don't see either happening.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
Quote
Originally posted by: Adamwankenobi
In starting a war I should have been more specific. Of course Bush didn't start the original war in 2001. He started the 2003 Iraqi invasion. That was all Bush!


You know, I've made a real effor to keep my mouth shut about politics, but I just can't this time: It seems like the only war the left has ever agreed with in the past 100 years was a war that in their view was to save Stalin.

But, back on topic: RIP.


That was the past, and a different group of us. I fully supported W's retaliation efforts on Afghanistan. But four years later, and no Osma, the rel mastermind of the terrorism, I just can't support GWB's efforts. IMHO, Iraq was a diversion of sorts, to distract the general, unthinking public from the truth. Bush never fulfilled his promise of finding Bin Laden, and instead went after Saddam, calling him a terrorist to this country, when Osama was the man actually responsible. Bush had my full support, until he turned his back on all the victims and families of the 9/11 attacks. Yes, Saddam is evil, yes he tortured and killed many, yes he was a dictator. But there are many like him. Why not Cuba for instance? Well, they have ties with Russia. Hmm, can't mess with Cuba or we'll have Russia on our backs, and that can't be good. That would lead to a large world-war type conflict. He had to go with Saddam, in order to take care of his dad's unfinished business, and make a profit off of it while he's at it. Now, Bush has other countries against the US due to his actions. It seems that his spreading of Nationalism has led to all of his followers, and his re-election. And, now, the ones who claim that their opinion of him has changed are only saying that due to rising gas prices, not because they truly disagree with him. All he needs is a little trip to New Orleans to get his ratings back up. Right in the knick of time, the hurricane came to rescue him from his lowered ratings. Because of his "caring" attitude, he now seems like such a great man to so many, many people, it sickens me. Another reason he won the election is that he so skillfully (with a LOT of help from his friends) played on the beliefs of the voters to make small issues outweigh the large, more important issues. To the average american, as long as he shows himself to be a good, (cringe) moral person, then he can be president any day.

Author
Time
Post link
The question is, who is better renquist, or roberts. Eh, probably the same.
Author
Time
Post link
Rehnquist has a lifetime of work on the bench to cite, while Roberts is a relative neophyte. I am surprised Scalia wasn't promoted up while Roberts is tapped to fill the O'Connor seat. I guess Bush realizes that 2 confirmations will be easier than three. More importantly, this ensure conservativism in the top spot for the next 35 years. Political genius. Then again, Hitler was a political genius too.

I am the BASF of the film community. I don’t make the films you watch. I make the films you watch better.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
Rehnquist has a lifetime of work on the bench to cite, while Roberts is a relative neophyte. I am surprised Scalia wasn't promoted up while Roberts is tapped to fill the O'Connor seat. I guess Bush realizes that 2 confirmations will be easier than three. More importantly, this ensure conservativism in the top spot for the next 35 years.


Yeah. Thank God we won't have a liberal supreme court chief justice for a LONG time. Now all that's left is to purge the 9th circuit.

4