Soooo

[DCJenn]

Whats the opinoin of the masses on the newest Supreme Court nominee.

Of course, the big scuttlebutt here is that she's just another Bush crony being appointed. (and in more bizarre news, the conservatives are ON FIRE about her. Don't like her at all...)

So, any opinions?

Jenn

Maybe Bush is trying to prove his point against affirmative action....

[PrincessFiona]

...stepping cautiously into the debate forum....

I'm on the fence. I think he chose her because she's 1. female and 2. a strong supporter of his (though didn't she give Gore money at one point???) She seems to support everything that Bush does...she's pro-life and very conservative. In addition, she hasn't said or done anything obvious that would come up during her confirmation. She also isn't really on-the-record with many beliefs, etc. So....it could be that the conservatives really are getting what they want but they just don't know it yet???

I think it's v. interesting that the conservatives are PO'd. I think they expected Bush to take this opportunity to make a slam-dunk and appoint some TOTALLY conservative right-winger to the bench.

I think the sheer number of "buddies" he's appointed is amazing - and this is a lifetime post (rather than the length of his term). I know he's not the first (ummm, Bobby Kennedy anyone?), but to a lifetime post on the highest court in the land? Also, his "buddy-ness" raises a huge conflict of interest if a case involving him or his administration reached the Court. We already had the problem with Cheney and his duck hunting buddy (which one was it - Scalia?). No one can MAKE them recuse themselves.

I think what unnerves me the most is the lack of paper-trail, which of course, is a large part of the reason she was nominated. I simply can't believe that he can say with a straight face "I nominated the most qualified person I could find." The end of that quote should be "in my circle of friends.".

I simply can't believe that he can say with a straight face "I nominated the most qualified person I could find." The end of that quote should be "in my circle of friends.".

Oh, then I think it would have been Alberto Gonzales.

[DCJenn]

She's Gonzalez' replacement, though. and has apparently been with him for a decade as his lawyer, etc.

I would have thought that the Mike Brown fiasco would have taught him a lesson. Even IF she's perfectly qualified (and apparently she is) the fact that she has no judicial experience (and to be fair, neither did Rhenquist lo those many years ago) makes me nervous. I personally like to take on jobs where I kind of know what I'm doing.

Jenn

[Rapunzel]

Eh, I don't care.

Politics at the moment is boring me.

I go through these periods of apathy where I have absolutely no steam and just like to observe.

My only comment is that almost three dozen Supreme Court justices in the court's history have NOT had judicial experience prior to their nominations and confirmations - including Rehnquist.

Jennifer

But I imagine there are other women who would have been more qualified for the position and I think one could make a better arguement for Gonzales' qualifications over hers. He tried to get a two-fer with having a woman and a crony.

[SueC]

I'm pleased that he chose a woman, but I'm nervous about what having another conservative on the bunch will do to Roe vs. Wade. I have a hard time believing there aren't ANY actual judges out there who are ready for the big time. I'm suspicious that he chose somebody that doesn't have a paper trail so they won't be able to be pinned down on the big issues until it's too late. So I guess it boils down to the only thing I really like about her is that she IS a woman.

[Meenah]

I'm so disgusted with GW that it really doesen't matter who he appoints, he is an IDIOT and anyone he appoints is bad (in my humble opinion). I am just tired. I have kids old enough to die in Iraq for that pig, and I am jut not happy. Maybe I am tired and "burnt out" but I cannot come up with anything positive. I want that ass to go to Iraq and fight alongside our children. For what purpose I don't know. If anyone can defend him, please take a moment and think, if it were your children, what would you say? Think very hard here, because in a few years it will be your children.

[Vanquisher]

I agree with Luanne. Bush couldn't possibly appoint anyone I would approve of. The very fact that he gets to make two lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court makes my skin crawl, and it was the #1 reason I was deathly afraid of him winning this election. Iraq is horrible, but eventually we will be out of there, and hopefully we can vote for someone decent next time, but these Justices are in there for the long haul. These appointments will have repercussions on our country's future for decades to come and maybe longer. Oh, I think I'm going to be sick...

Better learn to forget about Roe v. Wade, our civil liberties, they might not be here much longer.

[Meenah]

I am so amazed that people don't realize he is asleep at the wheel, and when he does wake up he overreacts.
Oh yes, wasn't this about the appointee? Sorry Jenn.
Luanne

I think the conservatives are ticked because a Dem recommended her. That she has supported Dems in the past makes her suspect is my guess.

Plus, I am sure some are remembering when O'Connor was appointed, everyone thought she was conservative, really bummed when she turned out to be not anti abortion and more moderater. They felt like they had been betrayed.

[twinsmom]

...conservetive stepping into the ring for just a little dance...

I am actually very happy that there is a chance to get some more conservative views into the court. I feel like things have swung WAY over to the whole 'politically correct, don't-want-to-offend-anyone-so-let- people-do-whatever-they-want' type of attitude and I would heartily welcome some stricter values in the court system as a whole. (Yes, I happen to be in the camp that thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned... should I leave now to avoid a lynching in here??! :! ) (I just feel like we are turning into a country who feels like we should be able do anything we want, and then be able to avoid the the consequences of our actions by tiptoe-ing around the 'loopholes' of the law).

As for the Iraq situation, I think the media has turned this whole thing into a giant fiasco. I don't think they tell the whole picture and I am sick of such a slanted view. I have been getting letters from some servicemen over there who tell a completely different story about Iraq than what you hear about in the news. I will absolutely not argue with the 'mothers perspective' - the thought of sending my children completely makes me sick to my stomach, so don't think that I have a stone hearted-just send them there to die and get the job done type of attitude - I just wanted to say that there is another side to this saga - a side of hope and freedom for people who have never known such things in their entire lives. In this situation, I think Bush is in a catch 22. If he acts pro-actively and actually takes action (which should have been taken all throughout President Clintons tenure due to Sadam's thumbing his nose at the regulations, practically taunting the US to take action against him... but I won't go there...), then we are up in arms over this. If he sits back and waits for another attack on our own soil with possibly more destruction than before, then we are up in arms that he didn't do anything to prevent the situation.

And now you have the 'conservative corner's' perspective...


... going back to my cave now to withstand the blows... :!

Jen B.

[Rapunzel]

Well, from the libertarian perspective:

I sincerely hope this means the overturning of that awful eminent domain ruling the liberals on the court made just recently. Talk about a terrible the-government-knows-best-so-there type decision!

Jennifer