I know. It makes me laugh all the time.

Ronnie Reagan---the guy who appointed two liberals to the court, sold explosives to Iran that ended up being used to kill 244 Marines in Beirut, supported The pro-Apartheid government of South Africa and allowed the White House basement to become a cheap den of illegal arms deals.

A great American.

The GREATEST american, according to the Discovery channel's recent poll. I think it was the discovery channel. I don't have cable.

yeah i know but i was wondering if you'd seen anything reliable one way or the other regarding reasoning behind appointing the chief now.

Look, it's Bloor on Ronnie's grave



I think he may appoint Fred Phelps.

well Rehnquist has the cancer pretty dead and may expire or retire soon. So its already being speculated on his replacement.

that's because monkeys decide that poll.

monkeys love that guy.

Monkeys vote too, sadly.

Nice makeup. Jesus. He really had more in common with Dee Snyder than either would care to have admitted.

That's as funny as someone (but not me) stepping in dog shit.

so does Knut Rockne, sadlier.

I should be on the Supreme Court. I'd even do it for less money. Put me on the SC, and I guarantee you C-Span's ratings will eclipse the WB within two months.

nice Mr. Show reference. I was afraid dumbass would get to appoint a justice. If he doesn't have a more difficult time than he's had appointing Bolton, this country is truly down a path of destruction.

i'm with you on this. i think with all the hot air that's coming out of washington right now about "judicial activism" i think that whomever is appointed will not be out to overturn any precedents. i just read a synopsis of the most likely noms and none really seem like crackpots. and look at souter--he ended up being more liberal than anyone thought. just look out for the woman (i can't remember her name) she seems the more conservative than most.

c.

This is a sad day for infidels like myself.

It's not just that she was a moderate, but oftentimes she was the deciding vote. In many ways, she was the supreme court.

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck.

I am not happy.

perhaps you're thinking of janice rogers brown?
but i'm not optimistic about his pick. he's going to be under massive amounts of pressure from his base to nominate another scalia-style conservative. not to mention that whatever you think about the guy, he's got a pair, and hasn't shyed away from nominating candidates that liberals find completely unacceptable. ten to one that his litmus test involves hostility to abortion rights and a rather narrow reading of the establishment clause. this is exactly what all the slack-jawed evangelical yokels elected him for, and so far he has yet to disappoint them.
and i'm sure karl rove realizes that a knock-down drag-out nomination fight is going to rally the party and take the media coverage off of iraq and his saggy approval ratings.

Yeah, those democrats block all the judges.

How many was it? 10? In 4+ years?

Out of around 230?

Man, Bush is only getting 95%+ of his judges through! He can't get any!



Meanwhile, Republicans blocked 48 of Clinton's judges... in his first two years.


Little advice... stop getting all your thoughts from Fox News.

But they only cry "activist judge!" when it goes against the conservative agenda--you didn't hear peep one from Bushies when Roy Moore was carving "There is no God but me" into Alabama's forehead.

It's all about the propaganda.

This administration is far and away the most effective propaganda machine I've ever seen. They don't even have to lie to make people believe ridiculous things.

Right here in this thread we have people believing that Democrats are blocking a lot of judges, with no idea that Bush is getting 95%+ and that Republicans blocked 5 times as many judges in half the time. Studies have shown that a large percentage of Republicans still believe Saddam was involved in 9-11, and that some of the Hijackers were from Iraq (rather than Saudi Arabia).

How do they do it? How do they get seemingly rational humans to believe absurd things, without having to outright lie? It's amazing.

Oooh, nice propaganda work there. Where are all these judges? Lower level courts my friend. Look at what's happening at the circuit level, where the filibusters are occuring. Our ol' pal George has had fewer than 20 judges confirmed here, like maybe half.

Maybe you should get your thoughts from somewhere other than moveon.org

Are you trying to blame me for YOU not mentioning you were talking about only "circuit court" judges? I don't want to insult you unfairly, but it looks like that is what you are doing.

In that case, Bush has appointed 34 circuit judges, not "fewer than 20".

Democrats have still only blocked 10, which is exactly what I said. Republicans blocked more than 6 times that many of Clinton's judges. The few blocks the democrats have done are largely in retaliation for the much more numerous blocks the Republicans used on them.


By the way, you may have shown me how they get people to believe absurd things without outright lying.

In your original post you say that Bush can't get his judges through. You make no mention of "circuit court" level.

As a result, people reading your post naturally come away with the idea that Bush can't get his judges through, despite the fact he is getting 95%+.

You make people believe a lie, without actually lying. When called on it, you can just say "oh, I was talking about circuit court. I didn't say it, but you should have read my mind."

Of course, you were still wrong about the circuit court level as well. But then you can just say "oh, I wasn't lying, I was mistaken."

When asked why you didn't know Republicans blocked 6 times more of Clinton's judges, you can just say "oh, nobody told me that."

Perfect. No lying necessary. You just say you were talking about something else, that you were mistaken, and that nobody ever told you. Genius.

Having said all that, I think there is a good chance Democrats will try to block Bush's Supreme Court nominee.

The main issue will be the possibility of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade.

No, dickcheese, I'm not trying to blame you for anything. You accused me of propagating a myth, based on misleading statistics that you puked forth. Now you focus on some irrelevant minutia to dispute what I originally wrote. My original post was to the effect that Bush will have a tough time getting his nominations through, a notion with which you agreed in your last post.



But you meant to insult me, just not unfairly. I don't care what you say, fuck you.



Clinton and his record have nothing to do with this. I don't know why you insist on injecting it into your feeble attempt at discourse.

What is this, second grade?

You said: "Calm down, Slappy. At the pace W's getting judges approved, there won't be a Supreme Court, just a bunch of mummies in black robes."

You later said: "Our ol' pal George has had fewer than 20 judges confirmed here, like maybe half."


The "pace W's getting judges approved" is 95%+.

Then you said you were talking about Circuit judges, and that he had only had about 10 approved.

In fact it was 34.

You posted false and misleading information in every post, and I called you on it. Nothing personal. You have to admit people would get a wrong impression based on your posts.


The reason I bring up the fact that Clinton had 6 times more judges blocked is to show that comparatively Bush is not getting blocked very often, and because the Democrats are using some blocks in retaliation for what happened to Clinton. Not that I agree with that. I'm just sick of letting misleading and false comments slide.

Personally, I think Democrats should let Bush appoint a judge who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

That would be a disaster for the Republicans. Women today don't remember how bad it was before they had reproductive rights. Once they remember, the backlash will wash the Republicans right out of office.

(At least, that is my hope)