Okay, this is something i've been pondering for awhile.
Bush has nominated Roberts for cheif justice...
Why is this allowed?
Now, i'm not going to take a partisan side on this, I'm not going to take this as a quazi-political thing and judge this by political agenda--i'm not Questioning Bush here, I'm questioning the system. Roberts JUST got appointed to the supreme court--and they're making him the chief justice? Am I the only one that sees this as fundamentally wrong? Shouldn't the person that has been on the Supreme Court bench the longest, or at least more than a year have the shot at it?
I think it's high time for a constitutional amendment. The chief justice is the one that's been in the supreme court the longest.
Your opinions?
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Not a bad idea, but that would require that IIRC Sandra Day O'Connor would be chief justice, and she's not staying on longer than she has to.
There isn't much greater amount of power associated with being chief, however, they are to author the opinion when in the majority, really, they only thing that can be discerned is that they hold the interpretation rights when they votes with the majority. Aren't decisions rendered by secret ballot anyhow, before they are announced (to preclude party politics)?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
The after Sandra, it would be who's next.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
I think they should make whomever has the most senority chief, not some newcomer
1989 Turbo Trans Am #82, 2007 Cobalt SS G85
The fact that Roberts has gotten to be nominated for Justice is such short tiem frame is baffling enough as it is,
I agree, its pretty odd that hes already being pulled for Chief.
he gettin pushed up above everyone because he is Bush's boy. Bush needs him on top so he can break a tie in favor of his and the Republican's views. like if something was to come up about abortion being legal it would probably be turned around because the Bush crew is high on God. the jusitices decisions should be made by what the law says and not personal belief which is probably gonna occur
It has just been this way heck Rehnquist is one of the Few Justices that was ever Elevated up to Chief Justice. :shrug:
Still, the way the system is working is as flawed as the latest beta release from Micro$oft....I think it needs to be changed.
Regardless of the political impact of this (i'm not saying this because I'm anti-republican, because i'm anti-democrat too), i just find it very flawed that someone, in the supreme-court sense, doesn't even know yet which which way to sit down on a toilet and they're giving him the keys to the corporate 'vette...
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
It's purely a title....its just like being called the senate majority leader, or minority leader, their vote's are no greater than anyone elses. Its just for show or prestige.
Actually Adam: it's not PURELY title.
If he votes in the majority, it is his job by default to author the majority opinion. I wouldn't have a problem with this, but given Roberts' FAR-right stand on things, I think it's a mistake to have him as chief.
I'd like to see seniority rule as well, or, have the chief justice as a non-voting entity and write the majority opinion and minority opinion under advisement.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Actually, if he votes in the Majority, it;s his job by default to assign who writes it...
PCS: I thought t was up to him to write it?
I'll take your word on it, but that was my understanding.
Either way, a neo-con as the chief justice of the Supreme court puts me ill at ease for your rights as an individual.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Ok most supreme court cheif justices have been appointed from outside the of the court. Its not like the presidency where if Bush gets dead somehow Cheney takes over and so on. For the supreme court its almost always been an outsider that has been put into the cheif spot. Why Roberts? Why now? It has nothing to do with him being Bush's "boy" but rather the fact that his confirmation hearings were already set to begin when Renquist died. So rather then fill the lower chair vacated by O'Conner its more important to fill the cheifs spot first and then seek a replacement for O'Conner.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Yes, but merit and seniority may just be a better way to do it.
I understand the process for confirmation is only a little different if at all. At least the chief's vote carries no more weight than the other 8.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
ShiftyCav wrote:he gettin pushed up above everyone because he is Bush's boy. Bush needs him on top so he can break a tie in favor of his and the Republican's views. like if something was to come up about abortion being legal it would probably be turned around because the Bush crew is high on God. the jusitices decisions should be made by what the law says and not personal belief which is probably gonna occur
High on God? I wish George Bush and the Republican party were high on God. If they were, they would follow the Constitution as it was intended by the founding fathers.
Chris Crossont
A.H.M. Performance
Baltimore, MD
http://www.ahmperformance.com
^ Ha, yea right follow the Constitution, thats a funny one. well yea they are high on God preaching this and that, and abortion and stem cell research is wrong. No one running this country should ever use their religious views to do anything to help the people of America. Not everyone living here believes in God . If a Christian president says that God says abortion is wrong than what about a hindu or muslim person. Its like God is being forced upon them. As a leader of this country you should do the best of all the people, not just a certain group. when you look at it though, Bush does all of this. he only cares about a select group of people(oil companies, halibuton) and wants to govern like this country is a church.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
i just dont want this stupid ass John Roberts bozo on the Supreme Court. I dont care how many times the man goes to church, reads the Bible, or any of that other junk. you want to talk about your religion go become a pastor or something, dont be in charge of something in America.
ShiftyCav wrote:^ Ha, yea right follow the Constitution, thats a funny one. well yea they are high on God preaching this and that, and abortion and stem cell research is wrong. No one running this country should ever use their religious views to do anything to help the people of America. Not everyone living here believes in God . If a Christian president says that God says abortion is wrong than what about a hindu or muslim person. Its like God is being forced upon them. As a leader of this country you should do the best of all the people, not just a certain group. when you look at it though, Bush does all of this. he only cares about a select group of people(oil companies, halibuton) and wants to govern like this country is a church.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
i just dont want this stupid ass John Roberts bozo on the Supreme Court. I dont care how many times the man goes to church, reads the Bible, or any of that other junk. you want to talk about your religion go become a pastor or something, dont be in charge of something in America.
I do not believe that George Bush is doing God's will as a leader of this once great Christian nation. Republicans talk all the time about being the party of God and they are quite far off the mark.
God comes into play with everything. The leaders of this country should be doing God's will and nothing outside of God's will. Because we have, as a whole, turned our collective backs on God, we have the problems that we have.
Chris Crossont
A.H.M. Performance
Baltimore, MD
http://www.ahmperformance.com
Dude, he is acting like he is doing a good deed or something when in turn is @!#$ the world up. and everyone jesus freak in America believes him so they voted for him.
Quote:
God comes into play with everything. The leaders of this country should be doing God's will and nothing outside of God's will. Because we have, as a whole, turned our collective backs on God, we have the problems that we have.
Actually they shouldnt because if you knew the law then they should do whats best for the people and not due to religious views. you do know that there are other people in this country besides yourself so if they dont believe in God then why should a leader of this country do God's Will. im not saying its wrong to believe in God or anything like that, but you cant have a leader in this country, which is so diverse, try and force one set of beliefs upon everybody. In America everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. If you want everyone to be christian go find a damn island somewhere and make your own government.
And like i said before its SEPARATION OF CHRUCH AND STATE for a reason. thats why there is no prayer in public schools, and also why the government cannot pay for the consturction of a place of worship.
It's also the reason you do not have the Pope as the head of state.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
This is the wrong topic but no where in the constitution does it say seperation of church and state. Its from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to the constitutional congress
but it never says that in the actual constitution. What it says is there shall be no state sponcer religion. NOTHING about this seperation stuff so please let it drop.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
go to school and find out what it means. nowhere in the Constitution does it say you cant kill anyone but im sure you know its wrong. why are you allowed to speak your mind and believe in whatever you want? its because of separation of church and state which the founding fathers decided upon because they knew it would hurt the country as a whole. try going to the middle east somewhere and talk about christianity.. they'll kill you. this john roberts guy is gonna be the head of the Supreme Court and i dont care how many times he says that he wont let his personal views impede on his decisions because i think they will have an impact. most people feel he should be in there just as much as Bush is, and thats becasue "my views of religion are the same as his and he will stop abortion"
Now if i wanted to vote in a guy that said he was going to bomb a country for no reason then you would tell me im stupid and thats no reason to vote for him. you cant go around just killing people for no reason. . . then y is Bush still president?
/\ /\ /\ Do you actualy make a point or do you always just talk in circles like that?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
jackalope ( a.k.a. the prick ) wrote:This is the wrong topic but no where in the constitution does it say seperation of church and state. Its from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to the constitutional congress
but it never says that in the actual constitution. What it says is there shall be no state sponcer religion. NOTHING about this seperation stuff so please let it drop.
I have to correct you here. The letter was to a Baptist church leader that had concerns about government involvement with the church. Thomas Jefferson was assuring him that the government would stay out of church affairs (hence seperation of church and state) and that they could govern themselves according to God's will.
What that phrase has been perverted into is what we have today and that is a movement toward total Godlessness in our government. The same government that got it's power from God. We are doomed!
Chris Crossont
A.H.M. Performance
Baltimore, MD
http://www.ahmperformance.com
Only if you live in a state that thinks that a theocratic tinge to laws it passes is a good idea.
Ignoring the fact that there are numerous other religions in one hand, and governing all followers of that religion as though they were infidels in the other is a way to double fist f*** yourself.
I wouldn't want some jack-ass firebrand protestant minister breathing damnation upon all that don't follow. That's foolish, unworldly and counter-productive. It also happens to be how Iran governs themselves. It's a slippery slope.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
