You are Bush and now you have to replace a judge on the supreme court

[63dot]

PRETEND FOR A SECOND YOU ARE GEORGE W BUSH:

congress is in the hands of the democrats

you are in hot water with your unpopular attorney general and firings of federal lawyers

your approval rating is, and has been low

so, if you were the president, and the chief justice who just had a stroke (2nd one actually), and wanted to resign, who would you put in that you think could:

1) get through the democratic senate

2) put a good spin on bad judicial scandals directly or indirectly tied to you and your party?

OR IS BUSH, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND A CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT REPLACEMENT ALL A PIPE DREAM?

[Thomas Veil]

I don't know that I'd worry about it, even as a hypothetical.

Roberts isn't going anywhere, at least that we know of.

And even if there were an opening, I haven't a clue who'd be Bush's ideal "replacement" candidate.

[Maui]

and the chief justice who just had a stroke (2nd one actually)

Stroke? Richard Dawson says: X

Next guess?

[SMM]

Actually, the Democrats can stonewall ANY nomination Bush makes until after he is out of office. This is exactly what the republicans did during Clinton's second term. He made nominations, but the side opposite took no action.

The democratic leadership has several weapons they can use over the next several months:

1) Cut the purse-strings
2) Refuse to vote on nominations
3) Appoint SPs and hold hearings
4) Impeach

[ham_man]

Roberts had a seizure, not a stroke. Big difference...

[63dot]

Actually, the Democrats can stonewall ANY nomination Bush makes until after he is out of office. This is exactly what the republicans did during Clinton's second term. He made nominations, but the side opposite took no action.

The democratic leadership has several weapons they can use over the next several months:

1) Cut the purse-strings
2) Refuse to vote on nominations
3) Appoint SPs and hold hearings
4) Impeach

first of all, thanks for the correction, and that thankfully it was just a seizure vs. a stroke (still not a great thing), but fox news and cnn were not able to get an answer as to what roberts was to do...only roberts knows, of course

dr. dean edell ruled out, mostly, a very serious condition, but there is a possibility that this seizure does not have a good explanation and that can open up a whole can of worms

so watching fox news, and their gop spin was interesting in the hypothetical situation of bush trying to appease dems by nominating a conservative dem or liberal/moderate republican, which some pundits liked and others did not...nobody on the right that i have heard believes bush can get an ultra con in the supreme court from now on if he wants to

as much as i don't like bush, i do know he has a history of appeasing the opposition at the last minute, and appearing to be even handed, both in texas where he started his bi-partisan reputation, and in washington where his true colors of partisan politics came out (after the safety of a second term)

my theory is that when the dems took both the house and senate, bush was against a wall and his offering to the dems was rummy's head on a platter...remember that impeachment talk and anger at bush was a major topic right before the 06 elections

bush cannot go for a third term, but he still has time to repair the damage done to his administration, and he is not against hiring democrats in key positions like norm mineta (d) to head up the department of transportation

whether bush is really bi-partisan, or whether this was a calculated move on his part is something only he knows, but bush knows how to squeeze out of a corner when he is in one, and who would dispute that

i once heard his father respond that the best way to beat someone is to make them think that they won

history has shown that republican supreme court appointees have voted more towards the center, and even the left once they took the bench...the job of a supreme court judge is not to further the agenda of any one party over another

anyway, a good google is marbury v. madison, and as a first year law student, i heard about that one very early on

nobody could have guessed bush would have tried harriet "what you ma call it" as a nominee :) ... and i think bush could use this, if roberts resigns, to make himself, or his legacy, look like a moderate like ronald reagan and bill clinton (i think clinton and reagan were true moderates...compared to bush, though neither reagan or clinton very exactly in the middle, of course)

personally, i think bush is likely very conservative and pretends to be moderate at times and likes to have some believe he still has a lot of support for the war

anyway, i will be glad when bush is out of office, and my most liberal friend i know told me, "junior makes his dad look like a gold star, by comparison" :)

[Queso]

Roberts had a seizure, not a stroke. Big difference...
Is that the way Americans refer to an epileptic fit?

[MacRumorUser]

PRETEND FOR A SECOND YOU ARE GEORGE W BUSH:

NO! That's the most distrubing thing I've ever had to do. Even though it was only 1 second, I felt my mental prowess de-evolve to somthing baring an uncanny resemblance to a single celled organism.

Please don't ever let me play pretend with you ever again.. :o:p;)

[63dot]

NO! That's the most distrubing thing I've ever had to do. Even though it was only 1 second, I felt my mental prowess de-evolve to somthing baring an uncanny resemblance to a single celled organism.

Please don't ever let me play pretend with you ever again.. :o:p;)

lol, big time

i too would not like to be bush, or any republican...or any politician :)

even though i don't like bush, i want him to do something positive for america so everybody will benefit, even if it means firing the current attorney general

law school could go from 3 years to 6 years if it included bush's legal scandals :)

[Swarmlord]

I don't know that I'd worry about it, even as a hypothetical.

Roberts isn't going anywhere, at least that we know of.

And even if there were an opening, I haven't a clue who'd be Bush's ideal "replacement" candidate.

Ginsburg or Stevens could decide to retire though. :)

[Ugg]

Ginsburg or Stevens could decide to retire though. :)

They're both true patriots and are deeply concerned about the future of the country. Neither would retire before Feb. 2009.

[atszyman]

NO! That's the most distrubing thing I've ever had to do. Even though it was only 1 second, I felt my mental prowess de-evolve to somthing baring an uncanny resemblance to a single celled organism.

Please don't ever let me play pretend with you ever again.. :o:p;)

Why is that so bad? No remorse, the assurance that no matter what you are 100% right, and you come from money and are looking at a comfortable and lengthy retirement. It's not all bad to be him...

[steamboat26]

I'd go with John Marshall posthumously, he seemed to do a pretty good job, served forever too :D

[Swarmlord]

They're both true patriots and are deeply concerned about the future of the country. Neither would retire before Feb. 2009.

Patiotism and concern doesn't keep them from being on the wrong side of Constitutional issues most of the time though.

[leekohler]

Patiotism and concern doesn't keep them from being on the wrong side of Constitutional issues most of the time though.

Oh- and John Roberts isn't? Give it a rest.

[Maui]

Patiotism and concern doesn't keep them from being on the wrong side of Constitutional issues most of the time though.

Yes, and you know that because questions of what the words in the Constitution mean are always absolutely clear and subject to only one interpretation. Anyone who disagrees with that clear meaning is motivated by a desire to do something illegitimate -- commit a sin, take over society, kill, maim, or whatever.

Kind of makes you wonder why the framers wanted to have judges, or felt the need to write the Federalist papers, or even disagreed among themselves about what the words in the Constitution mean.

[63dot]

Yes, and you know that because questions of what the words in the Constitution mean are always absolutely clear and subject to only one interpretation. Anyone who disagrees with that clear meaning is motivated by a desire to do something illegitimate -- commit a sin, take over society, kill, maim, or whatever.

Kind of makes you wonder why the framers wanted to have judges, or felt the need to write the Federalist papers, or even disagreed among themselves about what the words in the Constitution mean.

i don't know what type of person can understand the federalist papers though

it's incredibly dense reading, and i don't know if it's more for a lawyer with a specialty in constitutional law or some phd in political science

my basic, very basic, understanding of our founding fathers and the federlaist papers (it's hard to transport oneself to the founding father days) makes me alarmed at what bush seems to stand for

king bush seems appropriate :)

[Roger1]

so, if you were the president, and the chief justice who just had a stroke (2nd one actually), and wanted to resign, who would you put in that you think could:

1) get through the democratic senate

2) put a good spin on bad judicial scandals directly or indirectly tied to you and your party?

<sarcasm>
I nominate that judge from Inkster that walks through the TSA security check with a loaded hand gun, and flies to Florida with it. Oh, the TSA discovered the gun, but stated no special treatment was given. That's why the judge was allowed to continue on to Florida.
</sarcasm>

[lord patton]

I'd nominate Bill Hicks. I don't care that he's dead, he'd still be great.

[Don't panic]

in the great tradition of insane tyrants, i think a horse would fill the bill nicely.

[dswoodley]

Judge Judy. No question.

[ham_man]

in the great tradition of insane tyrants, i think a horse would fill the bill nicely.
So you are putting Bush on the level of Nero? Seriously?

[63dot]

So you are putting Bush on the level of Nero? Seriously?

man, if i were nero, i would be pissed :)

[Maui]

^^^^^^

Post of the day.

[Don't panic]

So you are putting Bush on the level of Nero? Seriously?

Of course not, silly.

Caligula.

[yg17]

Well lets see....if I were Bush, wouldn't that mean I'd be nominating an incompetent evangelical neocon that has no judicial experience whatsoever but is receiving the nomination due to campaign contributions, failed oil company partnership, best friend or other form of cronyism? :D

[63dot]

Well lets see....if I were Bush, wouldn't that mean I'd be nominating an incompetent evangelical neocon that has no judicial experience whatsoever but is receiving the nomination due to campaign contributions, failed oil company partnership, best friend or other form of cronyism? :D

actually, this may sound strange, but (assuming he is a lawyer, if he needs to be...i have not taken 2nd year con. law yet), but why not get an evangelical in there who is a democrat?

on some level, from now on until the end of his term, bush will be "forced" to negotiate with the dems on almost anything...he just does not have the votes in either house, not to mention his terrible approval rating and people like buchannan and coulter on his butt on certain issues, even nixon lover ben stein for gosh sakes

tip o'neil had an incredible reign on reagan which made ronny have to negotiate, unless it was his plan all along like nancy likes to say, to make him sound "level headed"

i wonder if w has his wife rail at him for his political stupidity after he received his second term? :)