The Next Supreme

[Shapley]

"Reaganland"

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Shapley:
"Reaganland"

:eek:

Sounds like the name of a water theme("trickle down"?) amusement park, but I wouldn't ever want to go there.

How about "South California"?

Selma's right(again......always.......). It'd be nice to be able to do something about the filth washing up from TJ.

[Shapley]

Nah! "South California" would be too confusing, since there have been (unofficially) a "Northern California" and a "Southern California" for decades.

I suppose some might press for "X-treme Southern California" but I think we need to get away from the "California" thing altogether. If you have to keep the "California" thing in there, then call it "Baja California" which is, after all, its name.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

I believe it is currently called "Baja California".

[Shapley]

That's what I mean. We wouldn't have to print new t-shirts.

[OperaTenor]

I don't know. I think the Mexican government might feel like we're rubbing their noses in it continually if we don't change the name.

Besides, we'd still have to make new tee shirts, just to get the "Baja California" printed in English.

Wait.........



<small>[ 06-29-2005, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I think it should be just "Baja". Everyone knows what we mean, and we've been getting by for a really long time just calling Alta California "California". So half the name obviously works.

"Baja" to the south, "Alta" to the north, "Ellay" in the middle, don't worry about the tee-shirt!

(We really will have to insist on U.S. style public sanitation, though. Parts of Baja have never seen indoor plumbing. Urban parts, not rural!)

[haggis]

"Sounds like the name of a water theme("trickle down"?) amusement park, but I wouldn't ever want to go there."

Well, Reagan WAS a life guard.......

[Shapley]

He sure saved this country from drowning!

[OperaTenor]

I don't know about that, but he was a real hoot in Bedtime for Bonzo!

[Haggis@wk]

Sandra Day O'Connor has annouced she will retire. Let the circuses begin!!!

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Checked the text of her resignation letter on cnn.com - it's effective upon the nomination and confirmation of her successor.

I'm glad she showed the good judgement to avoid an empty chair for the duration of the circus and I hope she doesn't end up dying of advanced old age waiting for her letter to take effect!

[BigJon@Work]

This made me laugh.
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Go get 'em!

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I'll be lunching at the Just Desserts Cafe. Don't care how long the drive is, I'm going to drive in just to eat there. Wonder if they'll have lasagna?

[mmichaelson]

Originally posted by Selma in Sandy Eggo:
I'm glad she showed the good judgement to avoid an empty chair for the duration of the circus and I hope she doesn't end up dying of advanced old age waiting for her letter to take effect!

I'm with you Selma. Although you all know I'm a Bush supporter (what's up Shap!) I think he did himself a real disservice when Powell left and Bush put Rice in his place. Powell actually challenged things that Bush did that were questionable. Rice just goes along with whatever Bush says.
I hope that Bush pays attention to the balance of the SC and tries to keep the balance in place, instead of just arbitrarily putting someone in who will vote exactly how the adminstration would like.

That's just my two cents.

[Haggis@wk]

confirmation politics:

Read the whole thing, it’s very informative and balanced.

” Confirmation hearings for nominees to the high court only make matters worse, for the would-be justices are forced to sit before the cameras, under oath, as senators ask them questions they cannot ethically answer, on how they would vote on cases that might come before them. This process began not in the early Republic but in the battle over Jim Crow. In the 1950's, the Southern Democrats who controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to require every nominee to appear in person in order to grill them about Brown v. Board of Education. Before Brown, it was almost unheard-of for a nominee to testify. When the Dixiecrats changed the rules, the liberal position was that inquiries about such matters as judicial philosophy posed a threat to the independence of the judiciary.
The left of that era was correct. The spectacle we have made of confirmation hearings reinforces the public notion that the justices exist to decide cases the way political movements want them to. Liberals think the right started it, and conservatives think the left started it, but the important question is not who started it but who is going to stop it.”


Saxy,

"I hope that Bush pays attention to the balance of the SC and tries to keep the balance in place, instead of just arbitrarily putting someone in who will vote exactly how the adminstration would like."

Why? a balance is the last thing we need. there are so many narrow 5-4 votes now with so many narrow decisions that many of the decisions will be tried again in the future.

What I find perplexing is the argument that the President need to consult with Democratic senators before he nominates a replacement.

I can't recall any Democratic President asking for recommendations from Republican senators.

I recall that during the Scalia and Souter confirmations both of them refused to answer questions. The Republicans didn't press the issue and easily confirmed them, even though they were clearly going to be very liberal.


What's the chance the Democratic senators are going to accept a Bush nominee who refuses to answer questions??

<small>[ 07-06-2005, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Haggis@wk ]</small>

[Shapley]

Haggis,

I agree with you regarding the balance question. The arguments used against Judge Bork was that, while he was eminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, he would upset the "delicate balance" of the court (i.e., he would tip the scales in favour of common sense, and we can't have that).

As we have learnt in several instances, the President, nor the Congress, can determine the direction a particular justice may take once he has taken the oath, nor should they. The best we can hope for is a judge who understands the rule of law and the limitations it imposes on the power of government. Too many in all three branches of government have ignored those limits, and many will fight tooth and nail to keep them from being reinstated.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Hi Haggis,

Thanks for the link. Well worth the read, and I think he nails it.

[piqaboo]

Saxy, re Bush/Powell/Rice - well put.

Hotel - I'll be checking in for a week! Make my reservations for next July 4th, please!

[Haggis@wk]

It's official now. Bolton's the U.S. Rep to the UN.

This was the right thing to do. Recess appointments should be reserved for special circumstances. Using filibuster tactics to block a nominee who has clear majority support qualfies. When our system is functioning properly, a branch of government that acts abusively pays a price. The Senate Democrats, through their over-use of the filibuster, have acted abusively.

Bolton's opponents are saying he is "damaged."
If that's true, it's because they have for months been working assiduously to damage him.

They say he will be less effective because he doesn't have Senate approval.

If that's true, it's because a few Senators prevented their colleagues from having an opportunity to vote for (or against) him.

They say without Senate approval, Bolton won't represent the Congress.

He will, however, represent the President of the United States.

The fact that he may not represent Chris Dodd should not be terribly debilitating.


Shapely,
As an aside, have you noticed that the B.com rabid left is silent when you and I don't post?

I'm sure it's just a coincidence

Please note that I don't consider OT and Piq to be members of the rabid left.

(Damn! It's hard to label people you've met and who you like!!!)