...At age 80.

i just heard it on the news. He was getting up there in years, and he had cancer too, so it was only a matter of time. It just happened, so i don't know the exact cause of death yet.

RIP


Plus, I wonder who Bush is going to appoint?

Damn you Pat Robertson!

GOD DAMN YOU REHNQUIST

*sobs*




why couldn't you have held on a few more years

Like he really wanted to die?

i'm not.. i'm not blaming him. i'm just venting my rage at this cruel, cruel world!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050904/ap_on_go_su_co/rehnquist

Bush is going to have quite an impact on the future of this country being able to appoint 2 Supreme Courst Justices.

Don't remember what he was liberal or conservative, but that's not the point. It's still sad.

Ok....

Im not one to "theorize conspirices", but could the death of Rehnquist happened at a better time for the bush camp?

Yes. It could have come at a time when he was actually enjoying some measure of public support. As things stand now, the Dems are free to bork his nominees all they want, and the people won't really care.

No... Media attention is shifting (Or is split) against these two stories, and no longer do the news agencies have as much time to put pundits on TV that talk about how bush botched Katrina, and is instead only talking about the positive efforts of the clean up.

I didn't know his name was Justine.

damn typo....

Crap.

GG america.

Rehnquist was a conservative to begin with, although he was never as vocal (read: annoying) about his belives as some of the other justices. In general, I think replacing him with another conversative isn't going to have that big of an impact, it will just ensure that the seat remains conservative and isn't going to go the other way a few years down the road. It's not the doomsday for liberals conversatives want you to believe. Rather, I think if a 3rd justice dies off or resigns (Ginsburg or Stevens, the later of which is 87), then yes, that would spell a major realignment of the court. In general, I think having an ultra conservative court isn't any better than having an ultra liberal one. I'd much rather prefer some balance. If it looks a bit more conservative right now, that's fine with me. The court has a tendency to shift left as time goes on anyway.

[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]Yes. It could have come at a time when he was actually enjoying some measure of public support. As things stand now, the Dems are free to bork his nominees all they want, and the people won't really care.[/QUOTE]

The Democrats are having a hayday shooting down everyone Bush nominates now matter how good they are. The US Circuit Court is running low on judges because the Democrats won't accept anyone new.

I don't want to sound insensitive... but...

his name was Justine?

Both of these judges were republican appointees so Bush replacing them has little impact on the slant of the court. A conservative court is better in my opinion because they are less likely to legislate from the bench. The people and their representatives make the law. Judges should not interpret the law to cover instances other than what they were intended to.

Guys, get ready for war in the U.S. Senate.

Roberts will get through no problem, but I bet whoever Bush nominates for Rehnquist's spot will face a bitter battle to the spot.

The Dems are likely to win that battle, too. They know Roberts fairly moderate, so their best play is to let him through. At the same time, though, they'll try to paint him as a far-right nutjob so it looks to the public like they're the ones making a concession. Then, whoever the next nominee is, they'll say, "No way, we already gave you one of your hardcore conservatives!" and the public will believe it.

In summary, I wouldn't worry about the nominee who eventually gets the spot. He or she probably won't be any more conservative than Rehnquist.

This damn country is so twisted.

lol i am a rebel yayyy

[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]The Dems are likely to win that battle, too. They know Roberts fairly moderate, so their best play is to let him through. At the same time, though, they'll try to paint him as a far-right nutjob so it looks to the public like they're the ones making a concession. Then, whoever the next nominee is, they'll say, "No way, we already gave you one of your hardcore conservatives!" and the public will believe it.

In summary, I wouldn't worry about the nominee who eventually gets the spot. He or she probably won't be any more conservative than Rehnquist.[/QUOTE]


Why? The Republicans have the Senate. All the Democrats can do is fillibuster.

Honestly with the way things are going, I can't see the Republicans controlling the Senate after the 2006 elections.

And damn, if another justice had to go, why couldn't it have been Souter? Or Scalia.

Well, I'm not so sure on that. While public approval is low for the President, there's not a huge amount that the other side is offering that's different or better in proposal.

The lesser of two evils it'll be

That's all they need to do, and it won't look bad because they're already seen as having compromised for Roberts, and Bush's approval rating is so low it's actually starting to look like the percentage of his decisions I personally agree with.

Pretty much what MacFarlane said. If the Republicans employ the "nuclear option" like it was portrayed last go around, they can pretty much hand the Senate to the Democrats in 06. Bush is not popular right now and he pretty much threw in Bolton "behind the Senate's back" so to say. I don't think that was a smart thing to do politically. Yes, I really want Bolton as U.S. ambassador but he should be confirmed as stipulated by the Constitution. I would rather have things follow the U.S. Constitution then have someone arbitrarily placed.

The Democrats are most definitely going to litmus test any nomination for pro-life/-choice and pro-life people are going to be probably given the boot. Or at least not someone who is really adament on overturning Roe v. Wade. Of all the criteron for Supreme Court nomination, this one single decision is like the end-all be-all for nominations. I don't understand it.

We need to just do away with our governmental system and switch to a system like England's. That way we can have a vote of non-confidence and vote our leader out of office. It would be WAY better than keeping this dumbass in office any longer.

I really dont think it's going to change much at all. I'm a leftist and I'd much rather see a Conservative court than a Liberal court. But usually you don't have the same party controlling all 3 branches of government either... it's all Rove's fault you know? He injected Rehnquist with free radicals. I can prove it too!

I think you need a moderate court. People can deal with liberal/conservative leaders, but once you think the law is stacked against you, I don't know.

I just realized something(yes, I'm going back to Pat Robertson). When O'Connor left, Robertson prayed for another opening in the Supreme Court. So which opening happens? One of the most conservative judges on the bench, who was against Roe vs Wade, dies. That is irony.

As much as I have a distrust and lost faith in Congress to do anything right and proper, our system of government is probably the best we've got. Problem is we have 532 (I'm giving 3 Congresspeople the benefit of doubt) politicians who would rather line their pockets with campaign contributions and remain in Congress for lifetimes because of the salary instead of being honorable people who would gladly put the nation's interests above their own.

But this is but a slight...rant on my behalf. We should not derail thread on the legitamacy of the U.S. Government...unless PW doesn't mind.