Why did not Scalia attend the new Chief coronation? Can he be
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:53 AM
Original message |
Why did not Scalia attend the new Chief coronation? Can he be |
|
any more transparent? Even the SCOTUS is turning into a freaking soap opera.
|
Zen Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message |
1. Scalia is soooo in a snit. Being chief justice was his wet dream. |
|
And I think he would have had it -- except for Bush's 40% approval rating.
|
TallahasseeGrannie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:55 AM
Response to Original message |
2. What was his official excuse? |
|
Did he have to like wash his hair?
|
Zen Democrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. He had a previous "speaking engagement." |
|
How transparent can it be??? It's been known for a while that the vote would be this Thursday -- and swearing in the same day. Everyone was there except Scalia. For the swearing in of the Chief Justice, you'd think he could postpone his "speaking engagement."
|
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I hadn't heard. What's the rumor? He's angry he's not Chief Justice? |
|
I wonder if he understands now the difference between being hired help and being one of them. He rigs an election for Bush, Bush passes him over. No loyalty for the help.
|
wanpete
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. that's the one shining star in this whole scotus thing. Scalia made |
|
shrub president. shrubster repays him by overlooking him for cj. how ironic, yet typical for this misadministration.
|
napi21
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. As soon as I heard Shrub named Roberts, I knew Scalia would |
|
be really pissed! He has been a Pub supporter for a long time and I'm sure his close friendship with Cheney make him think he was a shoe-in for the job.
I think it's pretty funny that he decided to stay away from the swearing in though. What a great way to start of the relationship with the new guy!
|
librechik
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
19. nah-too afraid his erection would be noticeable under the robe n/t |
leesa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. He also hid Cheney's Energy Papers. Another huge 'favor'..he's GOT to be |
jobycom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Hey, maybe Delay's case or Fitzgerald's investigation will make it |
|
to SCOTUS. Wonder how Scalia's two votes will go, then.
|
dhinojosa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Would it be cool, that he votes liberal in every issue from now on just... |
NV Whino
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
ms liberty
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:19 PM
Response to Original message |
11. I hope he's so pissed he never gets over it... |
|
I hope it knaws at him every day of his miserable life.
This is the man who called the Bill of Rights "an afterthought".
This is the man who considered * more deserving of equal treatment than either Al Gore or We the People.
This is the man who violated the Constitution for partisan politics.
I have nothing but disgust and contempt for him, and I wish for him all the misery his decisions have given all of us.
|
rocktivity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:28 PM
Response to Original message |
12. On what grounds did the other justices get bypassed anyway? |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 12:30 PM by rocknation
Obviously neither seniority NOR tenure have anything to do with it. What extra powers would he have? Are the other justices ready to sabotage him?
:shrug: rocknation
|
tinfoilinfor2005
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. I was wondering that too. |
|
I always thought seniority trumped, but I guess that's not the case. I wonder why others were chosen for that honor in the past. Guess I'll try googling it, but if anyone knows, please educate me!
|
eleny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
15. There's no strong history of Chief Justices being chosen from the SC |
|
I don't have the link handy to share the number of Chief's selected from within but it's small. Most Chief Justices in our history have been chosen from outside the SCOTUS. So, traditionally, it hasn't been a "promotion".
|
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
16. The Chief gets to pick the agenda in many ways. His clerks prepare |
|
the briefs, so he puts his bias into the case before it is even studied by others.
|
AntiCoup2K4
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Could you blame Fat Tony for being pissed? |
|
He (like many of us) probably assumed the Chief Justice gig was his after Rehnquist kicked the bucket. If I had served these thugs for 20 years and got snubbed like that, I'd be pissed too.
I don't think this will cause Fat Tony to convert to Liberalism though. It would be easier to sell air conditioning to penguins.
|
no_hypocrisy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 02:00 PM
Response to Original message |
17. I predict some really nasty concurring decisions wherein |
|
he'll tell Roberts how he got the right answer but his reasoning is abjectly wrong.
|
category5
(62 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 03:20 PM
Response to Original message |
18. If Bush nominates Scalia for CJ, then there would be THREE |
|
hearings...
1. Replace O'Connor 2. Replace Scalia 3. Scalia for CJ
Bush has enough trouble with 2 hearings. He bypassed Scalia to avoid the third hearing.
|
Silverhair
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
20. Exactly, plus it was faster. |
|
The hearing for Roberts were already on the calendar. It was an easy thing to convert them to a CJ hearing. So he already has Roberts as CJ, instead of two hearings to go and a crippled court.
|
category5
(62 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. personally I am glad Scalia is NOT the CJ....Roberts seems less extreme |
|
but then Soutar turned to be a surprise, so what do I know.
|
Silverhair
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-01-05 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #21 |
22. I don't think Jr, made the mistake that Sr. did. |
|
41 wanted to be liked and would capitulate to us when the pressure was put on him. 43 doesn't have any give to him, and would rather be defeated fighting than to compromise. He is an absolutist and made sure of his pick befor nominating him. Roberts won't be a Souter.
|
ReadTomPaine
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-01-05 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #22 |
|
He's the anti-Souter.. He's more conservative than he appears.
|
Poiuyt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-01-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message |
24. Were all the other Justices there? |
Neshanic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-01-05 09:50 AM
Response to Original message |
25. He was having fuzzy-headed monkey sex. He's in a snit too. |
Little-Jen
(38 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-02-05 01:35 AM
Response to Original message |
26. Wouldn't it be funny if Scalia is so pissed |
|
that he retires? Personally, I thought Bush was gonna pick Thomas for CJ, and when he chose Roberts it surprised me.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:20 AM
Response to Original message |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.