Hopefully no one.

[/lolmode]

I frankly don't think in the US there's any danger of that happening.

There shouldn't be. That's why it was specifically addressed in the constitution. That doesn't seem to stop people or courts from trying though.

Oh yes, to stop that constant persecution that Christians face by government!

Yes, but not just Christians.

Wouldn't it be great if the US had some sort of... power to combat this huge force of anti-Christian and anti-religious activity.. Wouldn't it be great if the US had like... an openly Christian president? Or.. like... 43 of them? Consecutively?

Ohh.. to dream.

Wookie: 208 out of 218.


How would pushing a conservative nominee through screw the GOP?

1. The public opposes the nuclear option. The Republicans' already bruised reputation took beating the last time it was attempted, which is why they backed down. They're unlikely to try it again. If they do, the party will probably suffer in the upcoming election.

2. The public opposes overturning Roe v. Wade, and less than 15% of Americans believe abortion should always be illegal. Forcing the appointment of a judge who would appease the most conservative of Christians would alienate most Americans.

3. O'Conner has been beatified in the media recently as a moderate swing justice, and the Supreme Court venerated. To try to replace her with a hardliner would grind against the spin.

4. Conservative Christians only turn out to vote when they're hot and bothered.

Brilliant generalization, Ictus.

Thanks. I was too lazy to look it up. I've heard the figure before and, to be honest, it seems a little deceptive to lump all of the lessor and, comparatively, minor courts in with those of the higher courts but whatever gives the impression people want to give, I guess. Also, I think there should be a distinction between an up or down vote and a minority party preventing it



I have no idea why the public would be against the nuclear option. I suppose it's because most probably don't understand the filibuster, how it's evolved or, rather, devolved. Frist only backed down when an agreement was made but the option was never withdrawn. If the Dems start to pull the same stuff again hopefully it will be implemented.



But nobody is talking about making abortion "always illegal". Even if the case is ever revisted it would not result in a total nation-wide ban of abortion. Some states might ban certain types of abortion.



"Hardliner"? "Spin"? All I know is that the progressive judges are the ones in the Supreme Court that are voting against individual interests.



?



Which has nothing to do with the government alienating religion.

/revival
Lmao. Not me, my ex.
/end revival

I should ban you...