PDA

View Full Version : Rehnquist Dies


Lindsey
September 3rd, 2005, 11:27 PM
AP and NBC are reporting that Chief Justice William Rehnquist died at his home tonight. I hope Pat Robertson is happy; his prayers have evidently been answered.

Story (such as it is) here: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/03/chief_justice_rehnquist_dies_at_home

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 4th, 2005, 12:14 AM
This is going to be one #$%# of an interesting next few months, on the Court, in the Congress, at the polls...

Lindsey
September 4th, 2005, 12:59 AM
This is going to be one #$%# of an interesting next few months, on the Court, in the Congress, at the polls...
Talk about news overload...

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
September 4th, 2005, 03:04 AM
I'm suffering from a baaaaaaad case of TMI ("too much information").

ndebord
September 4th, 2005, 10:04 AM
This is going to be one #$%# of an interesting next few months, on the Court, in the Congress, at the polls...

Judy,

Wanna take a bet on Gonzales getting nominated now?

Judy G. Russell
September 4th, 2005, 10:33 AM
Okay... here's an outrageous suggestion. W wants to clear the way for his brother to continue the family dynasty. So he nominates... Rudi Giuliani.

ndebord
September 4th, 2005, 04:20 PM
Okay... here's an outrageous suggestion. W wants to clear the way for his brother to continue the family dynasty. So he nominates... Rudi Giuliani.

Guilani is too much the rogue for Bush. He embraced him after 9/11, but has kept him at arm's length ever since. In the Bush universe, subservience is the key trait, unless you are Rumsfield, Cheney, Cord and of course Karl Rowe.

Judy G. Russell
September 4th, 2005, 06:02 PM
Well, I did say the choice would be outrageous. It'd be fascinating to see it, but it's only slightly less likely than that Bush would nominate me.

Dick K
September 4th, 2005, 06:59 PM
Well, I did say the choice would be outrageous. It'd be fascinating to see it, but it's only slightly less likely than that Bush would nominate me.Which might not be such a bad choice ;). I have no idea who will be nominated, but if it is anyone to the right of Michael Moore, you can bet that the left will scream that this is the end of civilization as we know it; I can hear MoveOn.org ripping up the cobblestones to make barricades as we speak. (All of a sudden, Roberts does not look so bad....)

In any case, we can take some comfort in the historical fact that many chief justices have grown and been transformed by the job. Who would have predicted that Earl Warren would have turned out to be a liberal champion?

Judy G. Russell
September 5th, 2005, 01:15 AM
I'm too practical to think that we're going to end up with anyone as centrist as Sandra Day O'Connor, but I keep worrying about some of the issues that people are trying to decide on what are -- essentially -- religious grounds. Abortion is the classic example. The idea that life begins at conception is, fundamentally, a religious idea. And I don't want to be forced to live someone else's religion.

Dick K
September 5th, 2005, 02:41 AM
I'm too practical to think that we're going to end up with anyone as centrist as Sandra Day O'Connor...Judy -
I agree with you on the abortion issue, but "centrist" may depend on the issue. Take, for example, the 5-4 SCOTUS decision in the case (Texas v. Johnson, or something like that?) which determined that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment as a form of speech. I am pretty sure that O'Connor voted against that decision, and Scalia <gasp!> voted for it!

Judy G. Russell
September 5th, 2005, 09:57 AM
Oh there have been some very strange 5-4 mixes and matches in this Court -- one of the things that makes it so incredibly interesting (even if occasionally terrifying). Frankly, I'd hate to see that change too terribly much -- in either direction. I think the Court often functions best in its constitutional role if its members are forced to seek consensus.