So everyone that's ever made a u-turn when no sign was present voted for Bush? All this time I thought it was legal.

I think this applies for both parties and every level in-between. If you want to take it one step further can we say liberals interpretation says this: If it does say you can't do it, then you can do it? Because the right to bear arms and eminent domain for public use [not private] is clearly stated.

My point is, you can't really categorize the parties and justices this easily. They are very smart individuals with their reasons. It takes a law degree just to be able to understand some of their rulings. We may even be way off in what we've dicussed in this thread. That said, I don't think Roe v Wade has a problem because of the potential dust storm it would create if overturned. Not only that but it would make the court look weak. So every liberal and dem can relax! You'll still be able to have unprotected sex, be irresponsible and have the right to kill your unborn child. No worries.

Maybe when subaruguru comes back from Thailand and Cambodia he can clear this up for us.

 

It is legal, that's my point. In this country, if there is a law saying NOT to do it then you can't. BUT if there is no law, or sign or whatever, then the choice is yours. For example, smoking cigarettes. If there's a no smoking sign, then you can't. But if there's no sign, then we assume (correctly) that you can. So relating to the constitution (which, as you point out, is a huge stretch because we're not lawyers...) if it's NOT in there, then it should be ok. Like abortion. And smoking pot. And owning cars that go faster than the highest speed limit in the country.

 

Like abortion? The fetus is deprived of life without due process of law. So if anything, my interpretation of liberal being: "If it does say you can't do it, then you can do it" would be true. They've already taken our property right and would love to take our arms.

What's the point of your point and my rebutal? I'm lost as to how it deals with a new Justice. Or are you just trying to put in your .02 for the sake of another post?

 

...just trying to contribute...

 

Bush gives his answer at 6pm PST

 

oh the goodness...

 

John G. Roberts Jr.

Take that liberal America! But seriously, he's a bright judge...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8625492/

Guess what?! He's absolutely right! There wasn't anything written about eminent domain for private use either!


I'm willing to bet this is a classic case of liberals misunderstanding what rights are truly afforded to them. Let’s see... Should I side with the liberal groups or the Harvard Law grad that has a ton of experience with Supreme Court cases? Hmmmm... tough one.

 

.. haha cant wait for this one to pan out..

 

Good link. I knew nothing about the man before I read that, but for a short description of him and his career, I'm not unhappy with his nomination.

He is? Because he disagrees with that statement...

If the Court were to revisit Roe v. Wade, I would gladly trade abortion rights in exchange for the property rights case being overturned as well. I don't think either one will happen though.

"Liberal groups" could mean anyone from the Unabomber, to any group left of the current administration. As it is, I'm sure you could find someone pissed off about every single potential nominee for every single Court position.

Regardless, despite my mostly Liberal political views, I think he's got the Right Stuff for a Justice. As I said previously in the thread, a good Justice doesn't use his own opinions and beliefs as the yardstick for ruling on any case being argued before him.

 

I think he'll be a fine justice, he seems very logical in his rulings and has done a great job (from what I can tell) of seperating his own personal opinion from court rullings. BTW, I think he'd vote to support Roe v Wade because of his stance on the precedent of the court (he knows his role, he's not a legislator).

And saying this guy trumps all liberals because he's a Harvard grad and has worked on the supreme court is hilarious, Salty. There are liberal justices too, you know, and I'm sure they all attended very good law schools...and they don't agree with you or Judge Roberts. We know that you'd side with Roberts even if his degree was from DeAnza and he had worked in the People's Court.

 

From what I have read I agree. Sounds like a good candidate.

:rotfl:

 

HOW DARE BUSH NOMINATE A WHITE MALE!!!! THIS IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS FOR ANY WHITE MAN TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR HIS TALENT AND WORTH!!!!!!!!!!

After all, I'm sure there are several liberal-extremist hispanic or african affirmative action beneficiaries that he could have chosen.... who in their right mind would choose a white devil?

THIS WILL NOT STAND!

 

Don't worry Hella, a female will be appointed to replace Rehnquist after Roberts is comfirmed. I think they wanted to get this out of the way first so they'll have an easier time getting someone like Brown(maybe) confirmed. :conspericy theory:The conservatives are all in on it. From the justices, to the administration, to propagandists like Ann Coulter :conspericy theory: