And if Bush nominates Owens or Brown for SCOTUS?

tgnyc

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-24-05 01:05 PM
Original message

And if Bush nominates Owens or Brown for SCOTUS?

If either of these two makes it on a floor vote for lower courts, why wouldn't Bush go for it at the SCOTUS level? A chance to put up a woman, or, even better, a BLACK woman? Would he not jump at the chance? They would essentially be unfilibusterable, thanks to the new aggreement. And do we really envision enough GOP Senators voting against either, if she's what Bush wants, to stop it? So how do we feel about that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

GreenArrow

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-24-05 01:06 PM
Response to Original message

1. duck

and cover.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

onehandle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-24-05 01:07 PM
Response to Original message

2. He will.

And since we caved on them this time, they're shoe-ins for SCOTUS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

paineinthearse

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-24-05 01:09 PM
Response to Original message

3. There is no requirement that a SC justice come from the Appellate Courts

Or even be a member of the bar.

I believe this "agreement" was for these specific appointments, not for their lives.

Or do I misunderstand the "agreement"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

tgnyc

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-24-05 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. The agreement prevents use of the filibuster in judicial

appointments, barring "extraordinary circumstances." That goes for all judicial appointments, including SCOTUS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Name removed

(0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-24-05 01:18 PM
Response to Original message

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

ComerPerro

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue May-24-05 01:23 PM
Response to Original message

6. You know the two most interesting things I have heard about Brown?

(1) She is a black woman

and

(2) She was overwhelmingly voted in by California by a "wide margin"

That is all well and good, however:

(1) Why in the world would we care if she is black or white, male or female? Moreover, why would conservatives care. Aren't they supposedly concerned with someone's qualifications and not their race or gender? Isn't that why they are against affirmative action? Why then would they keep mentioning that she is black.

and

(2) She was voted in, yes. But she was uncontested, and got 76%.
How is that "overwhelmingly"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 08:49 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

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.