›

Roberts Hearing

djannadjanna 1,543 Posts
edited September 2005 in Strut Central
So I'm watching this hearing for Judge Roberts and I have to say that dude does not seem entirely evil. Am I wrong? He seems aight right now. Maybe I missed the part where he talked about taking away all of my freedoms.But yo, LAWYERS, watch what you say. Shit WILL be used against you 25 years from now if you're trying to be Chief Justice."Anna, it says right here that 25 years ago you stated 'Grapes are yucky'. This is very troubling to me. Do you stand by this statement?"
«1

  Comments

  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts




    I thought nothing could be worse than Sam Brownback's (R-KA) opening statements, but jesus christ (zing)...



    I wanted to assassinate my TV when I saw that bitchturd Tom Coburn (R-OK) start crying about how we should "stick together and be above partisanship". UGH! This, after he ran one hell of a filthy ass campaign last fall against an articulate (not to mention pro-life/pro-war) Democrat. Coburn had to get super fucking filthy to scare out the right wing reactionaries--and he only barely won. Now he's crying that we can't all get along. Dude, people want you dead.







  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    He seems Ok and I think will make a pretty good judge. I worry that he never had to struggle and thus doesnt know what its like for most Americans.
    Schumer gave a baller opening yesterday. And Ive got a non sexual crush on Lindsay Graham.
  • BigSpliffBigSpliff 3,266 Posts
    So I'm watching this hearing for Judge Roberts and I have to say that dude does not seem entirely evil. Am I wrong? He seems aight right now. Maybe I missed the part where he talked about taking away all of my freedoms.

    But yo, LAWYERS, watch what you say. Shit WILL be used against you 25 years from now if you're trying to be Chief Justice.

    "Anna, it says right here that 25 years ago you stated 'that dude does not seem entirely evil[/b]'. This is very troubling to me. Do you stand by this statement?"

    You don't have to be entirely evil to fuck this country up. But he is entirely evil in that he is a political appointment, helped engineer the 2000 Florida "victory" has already compromised his integrity by not recusing himself from a major "war on terror" case.

    JUST FOUR DAYS before the Bush administration named John G. Roberts Jr. to fill retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court, the District of Columbia federal appeals court decided a case called Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. In a crucial victory for the administration, the court upheld President Bush's creation of special military tribunals for trials of alleged terrorists and denied them the protection of the Geneva Convention. Roberts was one of the judges who decided that case, but he should have recused himself.

    While the case was pending in his court, Roberts was interviewing with high White House officials ??? including Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove ??? for a seat on the Supreme Court. In the words of the federal law on judicial disqualification, this placed the judge in a situation where "his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-lubet13sep13,0,1515736.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

    Does anyone NOT think this experiment called America is about to flush itself down the shitter? It's all so

    Just like Grover Norquist wanted, the Federal Government has been shrunk to the size that it can be drowned in a bathtub. A fixed Supreme Court plus Republican Reps and Senators like the ones who spoke yesterday can take care of the rest.

  • CosmoCosmo 9,768 Posts
    He's the Ace In The Hole. Lifetime appointee.
  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    he reminds me of the son in the new manchurian candidate

    creepy
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    The next appointee will be the kicker.

    Watch.
  • bassiebassie 11,710 Posts
    he has dead eyes.
  • Birdman9Birdman9 5,417 Posts
    The next appointee will be the kicker.

    Watch.

    Plus, 3 more years + several old judges = potentially more Judges from Bush



  • DrWuDrWu 4,021 Posts
    I was happy to hear his take on Roe v Wade but the problem is that he can change his mind at any time. He seems to have conservative leanings. My guess is that he will get more conservative with time.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    he has dead eyes.

    Not as dead as this guy...I'm surprised he doesn't have blood dripping from the corners of his mouth...

  • bassiebassie 11,710 Posts
    he has dead eyes.

    Not as dead as this guy...I'm surprised he doesn't have blood dripping from the corners of his mouth...


    or this guy - he one of Canada's

  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    this guy is a baller with his language skills. I think its a good sign that he is very careful and precise with his language.
    He's a conservative judge appointed by Bush who we elected. If you dont like it, you should have worked harder for kerry.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    this guy is a baller with his language skills. I think its a good sign that he is very careful and precise with his language.
    He's a conservative judge appointed by Bush who we elected. If you dont like it, you should have worked harder for kerry.

    WTF?? Who's we[/b]? I remember electing Al Gore and then Bush being appointed by the Supreme Court....
  • Sun_FortuneSun_Fortune 1,374 Posts
    this guy is a baller with his language skills. I think its a good sign that he is very careful and precise with his language.
    He's a conservative judge appointed by Bush who we elected. If you dont like it, you should have worked harder for kerry.

    WTF?? Who's we[/b]? I remember electing Al Gore and then Bush being appointed by the Supreme Court....

    yeah, but it was his brother who got it sent to the court. He did get elected this time around and we knew that Renquist was about to peace out. Its our damn faults.
  • pknypkny 549 Posts

  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    He did get elected this time around and we knew that Renquist was about to peace out. Its our damn faults.



    So true.



    I told everyone I knew that Bush would put up three or more to the Supreme Court during his second term.



    Anyone notice how people like Trent Lott and Newt Gingritch (sp) seem somewhat reasonable--by comparison--these days?



    Weird, huh?



    Well,



    I bet my life savings (funny thing is that I am--whether I want to or not) that the next two appointees are going to make Scalia and Thomas look like moderates.[/b]
  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    i don't understand why there can't be an amendment to the constitution, requiring the supreme court to consist of an equal number of republicans and democrats for some sense of balance. there are 10 sitting republicans and 8 democrats right now? even it out. (save for the fact that those are merely titles in this day and age.)
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    i don't understand why there can't be an amendment to the constitution, requiring the supreme court to consist of an equal number of republicans and democrats for some sense of balance. there are 10 sitting republicans and 8 democrats right now? even it out. (save for the fact that those are merely titles in this day and age.)

    There are only 9 seats on the Supreme Court. Where'd the other 9 come from???
    They also do not have explicit political affiliation (aside from that of the President that appointed them)...
  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    The next appointee will be the kicker.

    Watch.

    been saying.
  • tiptoetiptoe 57 Posts
    i don't understand why there can't be an amendment to the constitution, requiring the supreme court to consist of an equal number of republicans and democrats for some sense of balance. there are 10 sitting republicans and 8 democrats right now? even it out. (save for the fact that those are merely titles in this day and age.)

    This is the funniest thing I have read all day.
  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    i don't understand why there can't be an amendment to the constitution, requiring the supreme court to consist of an equal number of republicans and democrats for some sense of balance. there are 10 sitting republicans and 8 democrats right now? even it out. (save for the fact that those are merely titles in this day and age.)

    There are only 9 seats on the Supreme Court. Where'd the other 9 come from???
    They also do not have explicit political affiliation (aside from that of the President that appointed them)...
    okay, i'm now in a position to where i appear uneducated/unimformed, but i'd rather know, than care how dumb i look. i always thought there were 9 seats, but on the radio yesterday, i was under the impression that there are 10 republicans and 8 democrats (in the selection/approval committee?) with two seats vacant, one by o'connor, and the other by rehnquist. what am i missing? thanks. -matt
  • CosmoCosmo 9,768 Posts
    Nine seats, dog.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    i don't understand why there can't be an amendment to the constitution, requiring the supreme court to consist of an equal number of republicans and democrats for some sense of balance. there are 10 sitting republicans and 8 democrats right now? even it out. (save for the fact that those are merely titles in this day and age.)

    There are only 9 seats on the Supreme Court. Where'd the other 9 come from???
    They also do not have explicit political affiliation (aside from that of the President that appointed them)...
    okay, i'm now in a position to where i appear uneducated/unimformed, but i'd rather know, than care how dumb i look. i always thought there were 9 seats, but on the radio yesterday, i was under the impression that there are 10 republicans and 8 democrats (in the selection/approval committee?) with two seats vacant, one by o'connor, and the other by rehnquist. what am i missing? thanks. -matt

    Matt
    I think they may have been referring to the House Judiciary Committee.
    F16
  • CosmoCosmo 9,768 Posts
    i don't understand why there can't be an amendment to the constitution, requiring the supreme court to consist of an equal number of republicans and democrats for some sense of balance. there are 10 sitting republicans and 8 democrats right now? even it out. (save for the fact that those are merely titles in this day and age.)

    There are only 9 seats on the Supreme Court. Where'd the other 9 come from???
    They also do not have explicit political affiliation (aside from that of the President that appointed them)...
    okay, i'm now in a position to where i appear uneducated/unimformed, but i'd rather know, than care how dumb i look. i always thought there were 9 seats, but on the radio yesterday, i was under the impression that there are 10 republicans and 8 democrats (in the selection/approval committee?) with two seats vacant, one by o'connor, and the other by rehnquist. what am i missing? thanks. -matt

    Matt
    I think they may have been referring to the House Judiciary Committee.
    F16

    Yup.
  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    This is the funniest thing I have read all day.
    i'll bet you lead a rich, flourishing social life.
  • tiptoetiptoe 57 Posts

    okay, i'm now in a position to where i appear uneducated/unimformed, but i'd rather know, than care how dumb i look.

    Thats good, cause you are looking plenty-o-dumb.

  • CosmoCosmo 9,768 Posts
    John Roberts will not be David Souter.
  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts

    okay, i'm now in a position to where i appear uneducated/unimformed, but i'd rather know, than care how dumb i look.

    Thats good, cause you are looking plenty-o-dumb.

    better to ask and stand corrected, than remain ignorant. thanks cos and 16.
  • tiptoetiptoe 57 Posts
    This is the funniest thing I have read all day.
    i'll bet you lead a rich, flourishing social life.

    My social life is not as crazy and complex as yours but I was busy with that whole school thing, which by the sounds of it you didn't bother with, or were you sick on Supreme Court Day?
  • KARLITOKARLITO 991 Posts
    My social life is not as crazy and complex as yours but I was busy with that whole school thing, which by the sounds of it you didn't bother with, or were you sick on Supreme Court Day?
    you sir, are coming of like an asshole.
Sign In or Register to comment.