TJ_Eckleburg 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 First let me preface everything by saying I fully expect a flame war to develop out of this, and I have no intention of getting involved. So go at it kids.I was perusing some fun semi-fringe websites, and came across this. Granted, the source is a website entitled "confirmthem.com" but they cite an "anonymous reputable source". They say Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist is to resign in the next 4 weeks, and his replacement has already been found.I did some research. His replacement is to be Michael W. McConnell, currently nominated to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. I googled him and did some more research... born in Louisville, resides in Utah, he's staunchly anti-abortion, anti-gay marraige, and big on religion/1st amendment issues.There is actually precedent to appoint a Chief Justice directly with no Supreme Court Experience. In American history 10 Chief Justices were appointed with no supreme court experience (11 counting John Jay in 1789). Only 3 have been promoted from an associate justice. All three (including Rehnquist) were in the 20th century... so precedent could easily be skewed for Scalia, Thomas, or whatever new guy the Republicans put up.For the record I am conservative on economy/defense issues. I'm a fan of the tax cuts, a fan of the war in Iraq, and a fan of drilling ANWR. I'm not a fan of thought control Republicans prying their Father Conservative views into people's lives. Nobody should care about gay marriage. I'm morally opposed to abortion, but I don't necessarily think it'd be the greatest thing in the world if Roe v. Wade was overturned. That having been said, I don't think it's a bad thing if there are pro-life people on the bench... but from what I read this McConnell guy sounds kinda scary.Also for the record I think the democrats are being entirely unconstitutional with their filibusters, and the Republicans have no spine. Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada are getting shafted and they don't deserve to be. And no... I don't particularly want to debate anything with you, because you're not going to change my mind and I won't change your mind. I'm just throwing this out there.http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=662Again... this could easily be bad information from a lunatic website. But Rehnquist isn't getting any younger, and it'll be a huge issue if it has to be dealt with during this presidency. Stupid people, don't waste time responding, because you're only making fun of yourself. Link to post Share on other sites
Ninjaballz 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Social policy has dropped back a good 20 years during the Bush presidency. So much intolerance. Link to post Share on other sites
railmonkey 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Social policy has dropped back a good 20 years during the Bush presidency. So much intolerance.I think some of that has to be attributed to the times we live in. It is much more comfortable for people to think/say 'the y (insert minority here) are different therefore 'they' are dangerous' since 9/11. It is not right but it has to be a factor. So I can't say all the blame should go towards the presidency. p.s. for the record, I am a staunch democrat living in Texas who has never voted for a Bush and never will Link to post Share on other sites
econ_tim 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Who's this Reinquist dude? A poker old-timer? (sw) Link to post Share on other sites
Socko669 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 yeah, there are plenty of political blogs and message boards...we are here to talk about poker not politics...i would love to hear about your approach to implied pot odds...but i dont give a damn what you think about anything else...keep it poker related Link to post Share on other sites
TheIceman05 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Bork anyone? Robert Bork? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?Ice Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 First let me preface everything by saying I fully expect a flame war to develop out of this, and I have no intention of getting involved. So go at it kids.I was perusing some fun semi-fringe websites, and came across this. Granted, the source is a website entitled "confirmthem.com" but they cite an "anonymous reputable source". They say Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist is to resign in the next 4 weeks, and his replacement has already been found.I did some research. His replacement is to be Michael W. McConnell, currently nominated to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. I googled him and did some more research... born in Louisville, resides in Utah, he's staunchly anti-abortion, anti-gay marraige, and big on religion/1st amendment issues.There is actually precedent to appoint a Chief Justice directly with no Supreme Court Experience. In American history 10 Chief Justices were appointed with no supreme court experience (11 counting John Jay in 1789). Only 3 have been promoted from an associate justice. All three (including Rehnquist) were in the 20th century... so precedent could easily be skewed for Scalia, Thomas, or whatever new guy the Republicans put up.For the record I am conservative on economy/defense issues. I'm a fan of the tax cuts, a fan of the war in Iraq, and a fan of drilling ANWR. I'm not a fan of thought control Republicans prying their Father Conservative views into people's lives. Nobody should care about gay marriage. I'm morally opposed to abortion, but I don't necessarily think it'd be the greatest thing in the world if Roe v. Wade was overturned. That having been said, I don't think it's a bad thing if there are pro-life people on the bench... but from what I read this McConnell guy sounds kinda scary.Also for the record I think the democrats are being entirely unconstitutional with their filibusters, and the Republicans have no spine. Janice Rogers Brown and Miguel Estrada are getting shafted and they don't deserve to be. And no... I don't particularly want to debate anything with you, because you're not going to change my mind and I won't change your mind. I'm just throwing this out there.http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=662Again... this could easily be bad information from a lunatic website. But Rehnquist isn't getting any younger, and it'll be a huge issue if it has to be dealt with during this presidency. Stupid people, don't waste time responding, because you're only making fun of yourself.I agree with you almost entirely.....not the reason for replying thoughI really just wanted to say: damn nicely worded in so many ways......great post..... Link to post Share on other sites
DeadMoney6545 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I have to agree with zerospace... great post...And the clownshoe that bitches about it being a poker site needs to close his C o Ck Sucker... it'll be in the off topic soon enough.. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I have to agree with zerospace... great post...And the clownshoe that censored about it being a poker site needs to close his C o Ck Sucker... it'll be in the off topic soon enough..hehehehehe. Someone should learn how to beat the censor I kid, of course.......but yeah, whoever that was: lighten up a bit. It'll get moved to off-topic soon enough. not everybody goes there. everyone sees general though.....he just wanted to get his point out there. no harm done...... Link to post Share on other sites
DeadMoney6545 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 It just seems that one of these square-ass monkey-blowing clownshoes pops up posts something closely resembling the Bu LL S hi t that homeboy posted...Just from now on he knows that if hes got an opinion about what kind of things can be posted on here nobody wants to here it...Damn Newbies... Link to post Share on other sites
cdddc75 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 You deserve a cockpunch for trolling General with this instead of posting in Off Topic. Link to post Share on other sites
TJ_Eckleburg 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Author Share Posted June 7, 2005 really just wanted to say: damn nicely worded in so many ways......great post.....Preesh.You deserve a censoredpunch for trolling General with this instead of posting in Off Topic.I post this in general for visibility. The thought police will move it to Off Topic soon enough.Online poker is already illegal. We all should care very much about this. The appointing of justices in a Republican presidency and two Republican houses is the single biggest reason I (almost) didn't vote for Bush. Link to post Share on other sites
SDLAW 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I have been waiting for the day Reinquist steps down because I disagree with almost all his beliefs and rulings on cases regarding the death penalty and many other issues. However, a justice chosen by Bush certainly cannot be better than the racist Reinquist. Based on what you discribe, the new guy is not any better if not worse. Having justices who blindly follow the lead of Reinquist and Scalia is detrimental to our justice system (I'm talking about justice Thomas).I just wish out presidents could nominate judges who are best for the job rather than those who are farthest to the right or to the left( in this case to the right).As far as abortion rights, I don't see Roe Vs. Wade being overturned regardless of who occupies the supreme court, and personally I'm a pro-choice. However, I do care a great deal about the death penalty laws.Anyway, I guess we will wait and see. Link to post Share on other sites
SDLAW 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I guess the word "r a c i s t" is censored. Link to post Share on other sites
fluxer 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Jeb Bush = next president, continue the legacy Link to post Share on other sites
TJ_Eckleburg 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Author Share Posted June 7, 2005 I have been waiting for the day Reinquist steps down because I disagree with almost all his beliefs and rulings on cases regarding the death penalty and many other issues. However, a justice chosen by Bush certainly cannot be better than the censored Reinquist. Based on what you discribe, the new guy is not any better if not worse. Having justices who blindly follow the lead of Reinquist and Scalia is detrimental to our justice system (I'm talking about justice Thomas).I just wish out presidents could nominate judges who are best for the job rather than those who are farthest to the right or to the left( in this case to the right).As far as abortion rights, I don't see Roe Vs. Wade being overturned regardless of who occupies the supreme court, and personally I'm a pro-choice. However, I do care a great deal about the death penalty laws.Anyway, I guess we will wait and see.All in all, I think Rehnquist did a good job. I also lean towards liking Scalia and Thomas... so we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.I'm just scared of a super-moralistic supreme court. I really wish the Republicans would man up and get someone in there who's a fan of property rights and individual liberties.... but an Originalist will have to do for now. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Visability?the reason people read general is because they want to read about general poker...The reason they don't read off topic is because nobody cares about your or anyones political opinions... If we did, we wouldnt be clicking on general poker.Post it somewhere else. Seriously... Millions of message boards on the internet and you chose to post this in a general poker section of a poker message board. I don't really understand your point. Link to post Share on other sites
SDLAW 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I absolutly agree with you. Link to post Share on other sites
SDLAW 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 I mean i absolutly agree with you, TJ_Eckleburg, not the guy who posted after!! Link to post Share on other sites
TheIceman05 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Hey... anybody want to start a discussion about the sudden conservative distaste for "activist" judges? I do.Ice Link to post Share on other sites
TJ_Eckleburg 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Author Share Posted June 7, 2005 Visability? the reason people read general is because they want to read about general poker... The reason they don't read off topic is because nobody cares about your or anyones political opinions... If we did, we wouldnt be clicking on general poker.I post here because I genuinely care about this forum, its members, and most of its members' opinions. If you're so horrified about a non-poker thread existing in general, the title "Rehnquist stepping down in 4 weeks?" might have been a big clue to keep on surfing.And if you look through any 80% of what's in general, you'll find more intellectually sterile stuff anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 Visability?the reason people read general is because they want to read about general poker...The reason they don't read off topic is because nobody cares about your or anyones political opinions... If we did, we wouldnt be clicking on general poker.Post it somewhere else. Seriously... Millions of message boards on the internet and you chose to post this in a general poker section of a poker message board. I don't really understand your point.It'll get taken to off-topic as soon as the mods get ahold of it. Chill Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 7, 2005 Share Posted June 7, 2005 didnt say if I agreed or disagreed...fact is that i read political meesage boards as well, mostly at work and such...What I dont do is work all day and get home, crack a beer, and click on general poker to read ones polictal opinions. Im relaxing now reading about poker which I enjoy. I read this forum to relax and enjoy the game and talk of it. my point is simply that I don't understand why you would post this in a general poker forum of all places on the internet. I agree, but even still, I dont want to think about politics when I read a poker forum. GENERAL POKERthats what I clicked on and thats my only point.Does anyone want to tell me how to enlarge my penis, make my girl cum, or how to make money from home??? if so please post in GENERAL POKER Link to post Share on other sites
TJ_Eckleburg 0 Posted June 7, 2005 Author Share Posted June 7, 2005 Hey... anybody want to start a discussion about the sudden conservative distaste for "activist" judges? I do.IceGo for it... Your opinion is intelligent enough that I respect it.I'd prefer an originalist... because I think that's what all the justices should be anyway. The term originalist doesn't always include originalists.First and foremost I want someone who will stand up for property rights. Ever since the Supreme Court poo-bah'ed the issue of whether or not "increasing tax base" fit the definition of "for the public good," real estate developers are getting their congressmen to condemn private property to flip and sell at huge profits.Eminent domain has been around since English common law, and it deserves to exist. Libraries, schools, and roads still need to be built. But I'd feel much better if there were an explicit Supreme Court decision that said something to the effect of "increasing a tax base does not fit the 'public good' statute."And, "legalize it."As long as I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony too. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now