Welcome to the Court, Mr. Chief Justice

Published on September 29, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

NOw that the peyton place saga in the senate has played out, you have a position on the highest court in the land. The easy part is over. Now comes the tough part.

You will be expected to rule on constitutional issues. Be forewarned that anytime you do not find a right in the document, you wil be vilified by the Morons in the Media and on the Loony Loopy Luddite left. For it matters not to them what is in the constitution, only what they think should be.

I hope you uphold your oath, and interpret the Constitution, not use International laws as a guidepost for allowing NAMBLA to have sex with 12 year old boys.

Good luck and god Speed. I can say that as I do not represent the government. I would suggest you be careful saying that or Michael Newdow will have you up in Irons for daring to challenge his belief of no God.

Comments

Dr Guy

on Sep 29, 2005

"I have been proved wrong before on my confirmation votes." - Ted kennedy

He should not have qualified his statement. It would have been much more accurate.

ParaTed2k

on Sep 29, 2005

We have witnessed the end, and the beginning of an era. Pretty historic event.

Have you ever wondered why they call them "hearings" when there's not many in the Senate willing to "hear" anything said. ;~D

Dr Guy

on Sep 29, 2005

Have you ever wondered why they call them "hearings" when there's not many in the Senate willing to "hear" anything said. ;~D

Is that what they call an oxymoron? Senate Hearings?

ParaTed2k

on Sep 29, 2005

1 down, 1 (maybe 2) to go on one of the reasons I voted for Prs. Bush over Sen. Kerry in the first place. (((Although I admit that if I didn't like Prs. Bush I would have voted for Badnarik over Sen. Kerry every day and twice in Milwaukee!))) ;~D

Dr Guy

on Sep 29, 2005

There are a lot of things I dont like about Bush, and a lot I do. Is he "My" candidate? No. But like you, I could not stomach another Ginsberg on the court (plus I have less than no respect for hanoi John). If Lieberman had run, it would have been a close call for me. But Ruth Buzzi probably would have tipped it.

terpfan1980

on Sep 29, 2005

Piling on a bit, but not exactly.

Bush vs. Lieberman, I'm gonna go Bush. Bush vs. Kerry, Bush. Bush vs. Clinton, Bush. Bush vs. Delay, Bush. And a host of other possibilities that I would look at and find Bush being the better choice over.

But, Lieberman vs. a lot of other possibilities from the Republican side, I'm gonna go Lieberman (I think). Again, it really comes down to against whom, but I'm not that beholden to either party. I'll vote the best man (or woman) for the job.

On the choice of justices, I think Roberts is a good choice. I hope he doesn't turn out to be someone that is so staunchly conservative and so staunchly religious that religion comes to the front as a big issue on who our Supremes should be. I don't want Pat Robertson on the bench. I want someone more like Scalia, who recognizes the law as written, and doesn't go looking for outside influences (such as world opinion) to influence it. If a law is bad, Scalia recognizes that and basically puts the ball back into Congress' court to fix it. That is as it should be.

I hope that the next choice is a good one also. Again, I don't really care if Roberts or whomever is the next nominee is solidy anti-abortion or if they are pro-choice. I care that they interpret the law, and in so doing don't make up their own rules as they go.

Finally, to the Dabes, Myrrs, and others of the world that must be hating life over Roberts getting onto the court, I say again, if you aren't happy about it, you always have the option to vote for new Representatives or to demand that the ones you have now pass ammendments or laws that are constitutional and do address your issues. If you want a right to an abortion, pass an ammendment to get one if needed.

greywar

on Sep 29, 2005

not use International laws as a guidepost for allowing NAMBLA to have sex with 12 year old boys.

I am all for simply executing people who do this sort of thing out of hand. What I do hope the Court avoids is crossing the censorship line to ban discussion of it. It may be repulsive but once you start legislating what people can talk about you have already fallen waaaay down that slippery slope.

I look forward to a few years of new decisions from the Court. Nice to have some new blood about.

Dr Guy

on Sep 29, 2005

Bush vs. Delay, Bush

Is this a twilight zone episode? I dont think Delay has or will challenge Bush.

greywar

on Sep 29, 2005

I dont think Delay has or will challenge Bush.

Certainly not after this most recent issue.

Dr Guy

on Sep 29, 2005

I hope that the next choice is a good one also.

I think Spectre tipped his hand. Basically, get em as conservative as you want. Just with no paper trail.

Dr Guy

on Sep 29, 2005

I am all for simply executing people who do this sort of thing out of hand. What I do hope the Court avoids is crossing the censorship line to ban discussion of it. It may be repulsive but once you start legislating what people can talk about you have already fallen waaaay down that slippery slope.

I agree totally. NAMBLA can talk. Let them. But dont let them or (Buzzi) legislate! Especially not from an unelected position.

Dr Guy

on Sep 29, 2005

Certainly not after this most recent issue.

I dont think he ever had bigger aspirations than perhaps Speaker. And I dont think he thinks in those terms now. The Hammer has done his Job. And he knows it.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!