Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Should Bush be allowed to put mark on Supreme Court for decades to come?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 04:26 PM
Original message
Should Bush be allowed to put mark on Supreme Court for decades to come?
Edited on Sun Sep-04-05 04:30 PM by Karmadillo
Let's see:

1. Bush wasn't really elected to the office in 2000;

2. He lied America into a criminal, disastrous war at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars; and

3. He has just committed a crime of, at minimum, horrible negligence against hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans.

Should he be allowed to influence the course of government for decades to come by appointing two, and maybe three, justices to the Supreme Court?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jawja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. NO
The Democrats in Congress should insure that we operate with a 7 Judge court until this bastard is out of office.

And they should NOT confirm Scalia for Chief Justice because of his unconstitutional interference in the Florida election theft of 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. And how would they do that?
How could the Democratic senators stop anything if they don't have the votes to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-05 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. If the Democrats were to go to the American people with the case for
impeachment, it's possible they would be able to develop the support to stop additional appointments to the Supreme Court. Even without the pursuit of impeachment, they could make a case Bush's massive incompetence is sufficient to deny him the right to make appointments that will harm the Democrats' core constituents (remember them? the Democrats sure don't) for decades to come. What do they have to lose? Why not go with the obvious truth for a change and see what happens?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. That's exactly what I'm saying!!
And all the non-complicit republicans would back it. Impeachment articles being draw up everywhere would scare the Bush admin backwards, then we really WOULD remove them and throw away the key.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. what makes you say that they don't have the votes?
we're the House minority and CAFTA only passed thanks to a few Dems--even some Rs were voting against it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skylarmae Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. just try stopping him....wondering what kind of kool-ade
you must be drinking to think we have any influence in what he does???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. He shouldn't be allowed to DO anything...
...he needs to be impeached and sent to prison to rot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. Should he, NO! But as long as he is in office, he can and will.
At this point, it doesn't matter if you believe he's in office due to vote fraud, or any other reason. He's there! Realistically, I don't see impeachment looming on the near horizon either! I'm not being a defeatist, but the folks who say elections have consequences are right, and I've read that here on DU as well!

He is legaly the POTUS, and hass the authority to nominate people to the Supreme Court, and all the other shit he's been doing, like recess appointments and executive orders that we all hate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. NO but he will. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. No, but who can stop him?
I'm afraid the answer is: No One.

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Who can stop him? The Democratic Party. Who will stop him?
I think your answer is most likely the correct one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. He'll do whatever he damn well pleases
Edited on Sun Sep-04-05 05:43 PM by fujiyama
I'm worried that in 3 years time he'll have a third appointment, which would give them a lopsided majority, enabling to enact whatever they wish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tyranny_R_US Donating Member (988 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. NO! He should be handcuffed and thrown to the international courts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Ding, ding, ding...
We have a winner!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. Should he? Hell no. Will he? Hell yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-04-05 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
13. He is a mass murderer.
Totally qualified to shape the Supreme Court. I think I'm gonna be sick.

Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Quite a country when a psychopath gets to determine the path of
the Supreme Court for decades. Lying us into a war? Leaving citizens to drown in their homes? Not a problem. Appoint way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Algorem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-05 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
16. NO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fescue4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-05 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
17. Doesnt really matter
whether he should be allowed to.

The reality that we are faced with, is that he will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-05 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. I damned well don't think so. I don't think he should have got even one
permanent appointment through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FloridaPat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-05-05 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
20. Starting impeachment proceedings should slow him down a little.
Get some backbones to the Democrats to allow real judges on the court, not right-wing nut cases. This jerk should not be allow to pick the colors of the White House table clothes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC