Reinquist died!

[Rogue]

who cares? :sleeping:

[Subjugation]

Your violent and slutty wife.

[DoTheFandango]

if wikipedia doesn't know him, I don't need to know him.

That's because I spelled his name wrong.

It's Rehnquist, so if any mod could change that, I would appreciate it.

[Jeansi]

Oh alright, if nobody in this thread knew to spell his name right, I don't need to know him either.

But I checked up anyways, thanks for clearin it up WEEZ <ER>.

[DoTheFandango]

teheh

[genocidal]

Lol, gen hates those damn liberal activist judges and everyone is stupid but him.

You're one dumb Mexican. (And no, being Mexican has nothing to do with you being dumb, you're just dumb).

Are you forgetting that it's not liberals who create ridiculous talking points about the judicial branch of the gov't? Did you forget all the bullshit over the summer about judicial activism...activist judges...litmus test for judges...unaccountable judiciary...these are all Republican talking points created to confuse the general public about the role of the judicial branch, and to create support for changes to the gov't structure---at the very least it's so they can get more conservative judges on the supreme court with as little obstruction as possible.

Talking about judicial activism and having litmus tests were the words spouted by the Republicans about their own nominees. They aren't created to confuse the public - but I'm not surprised that they confused you.

Bush, who I believe is for once on the right track mostly, doesn't want activist judges in either direction. Where does activism come from? People not adhering to a strict interpretation of the Constitution and pretty much ruling based on their own opinions and thoughts. That is what Bush and others don't want. It doesn't surprise me that you're too wrapped up in Democrat vs Republican mindset to realize that the pendulum swings both ways - in other words there can be activist judges who are liberal and ones who are conservative.

I don't know where you're coming up with stuff that the Bush administration wants to change the structure of the judicial branch to make them more accountable - that's mainly conservative media and other talking heads blabbering about their qualms with Roe v Wade. Show me some evidence before you say things like that.

As far as their conservative nominees are concerned, John Roberts is the only serious one I've read much about. He may personally be conservative but I have seen nothing in regards to his past decisions that would imply he would use his own personal views to influence matters of law. This guy has been a judge, he's a lawyer, and it's his job to know the law. I believe he's capable enough to make non-biased decisions. Rejected candidates based on their own personal views is stupid because everyone has those - the question is how much those views influence their job. In the case of Bush's nominee and my knowledge thus far of him, I'm going to say very little.

If you really are a liberal, as you claim, I would have thought you would realize that. But I think you're full of shit about that, because you seem to imply that the supreme court has no business making decisions about a women's right to choose and equal protection for gays. Well, according to your logic, the supreme court had no business making decisions like Brown vs. Board of Education.

I never implied that the Supreme Court had no business making those decisions. Show me where I said that. What I was saying was that personal biases should not influence decisions as they are strictly matters of legality. I realize it's impossible to be completely unbiased but the point is if we have judges who ground their decisions in the Constitution, past laws, and precedents then we get a much fairer verdict than if we had either the Director of the ACLU or Pat Robertson on the bench.

You may have misinterpreted me saying that the Supreme Court is not there for citizens to have an alternative law-making body but it's there to determine if the laws passed are good, Constitutional, whatever. In the case of Brown v. Board, they decided that a law was unconstitutional in a particular state - they didn't make a ruling saying "Segregation is illegal everywhere in the United States now". If you don't understand how judicial decisions and precedents work feel free to IM me and I'll explain more in detail.

[Krusnik]

Touche gen touche....... If you guys don't know who that dead guy is even after that huge post I suggest you go google it.

[Subjugation]

Gen, I stopped reading after the first line. Thanks for verifying right off the bat that you had nothing worthwhile to say. I hope you enjoyed wasting your time writing that long-assed post to me.

[genocidal]

If the post had been for you alone I would have private messaged you. This is a forum discussion so I think it's beneficial for everyone to read it. The original post was to Fandago and others anyway, so it was useful in further elaborating. Thanks for the discussion.

[Subjugation]

If it was a general comment, you most likely wouldn't have quoted me. Nice try and bullshitting your way out of it though.

Usually, when you quote someone, it's a direct response to their comments. And you were clearly trying to directly annoy me in particular, not everyone else, because of your Mexican comment (because of Ilya's other thread).

Lates.

[pv=nrt]

The interupted the last 2 minutes of my college football game with the "breaking news" that he had died and a 5 minute biography on him. Heaven forbid they allowed the football game to end before showing this. But the race to be first to show news is far more important. Frankly, the guy died, does it matter if they break the news 10 minutes later? ABC blows

[Pearl Jam]

you're just crabby because A&M lost, sucker

[genocidal]

You win j=t. Everybody shut the fuck up because j=t already won everything.

[Subjugation]

Nah, just you, Gen. :wub:

[DoTheFandango]

YOU GUYS STOP FIGHTING

He's dead!

:groovy: