[RIRedinPA]

those of you heard around the Washington D.C. Beltway yesterday right after Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice was Justice Scalia's cry of anguish when he finally realized that President Bush wasn't kidding and was appointing someone else as Chief Justice.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

those of you heard around the Washington D.C. Beltway yesterday right after Roberts was sworn in as Chief Justice was Justice Scalia's cry of anguish when he finally realized that President Bush wasn't kidding and was appointing someone else as Chief Justice.

Yeah, I said in another thread that I'd be pissed if I was a sitting justice and wasn't considered for the Chief's chair and then they bring in some new guy to be the CHIEF??? Grrrrrr!

But wasn't there some comment Scalia made about group sex that made him a certain bet not to pass confirmation? Hmm. Does a SITTING justice have to be confirmed if he were being considered for Chief?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by mojo2

about group sex

Scalia and group sex, thanks for the imagery, now I need a shower and perhaps a priest.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Scalia and group sex, thanks for the imagery, now I need a shower and perhaps a priest.

Oh Vicar! Oh Vicar! Let ME pour the liquor!

Which reminds me of the sign above a saloon.

"Liquor in the Front. Poker in the Rear."

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Does a SITTING justice have to be confirmed if he were being considered for Chief?

Yes.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Yeah, I said in another thread that I'd be pissed if I was a sitting justice and wasn't considered for the Chief's chair and then they bring in some new guy to be the CHIEF??? Grrrrrr!

I wouldn't. This is how it's been done for the vast majority of Chief Justices, in whatever way the term "vast majority" can apply to a group of only 18 people. It wouldn't be reasonable for any sitting justice to expect consideration unless that justice had been specifically told otherwise, and as far as I'm aware Scalia was never told otherwise.

[Mark Larr]

Nevertheless the Republic is safe from moonbats for a while now.

Now all we need is an extrteme conservative to fill O'Conner's position to help overturn any inane judgement the left tries to slip past us sane people.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Millennium

I wouldn't. This is how it's been done for the vast majority of Chief Justices

Yes, I DO recall your having brought this to light that other time as well.

[Monique]

Now God help all the women in the beautiful United States now that a heartless conservative is now Chief Justice and will for now one have one agenda work against them.

[Mark Larr]

He will be protecting the unborn future Republicans.

[Dakar]

He'll let unborn future democrats be aborted?

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Monique

Now God help all the women in the beautiful United States now that a heartless conservative is now Chief Justice and will for now one have one agenda work against them.

How will he do this?

[Monique]

I am sure he will find a way to manipulate justice that once was before the conservatives took over.

[Macrobat]

Again Monique reveals her profound ignorance of the way government is conducted in the United States.

This American politics thing can get confusing to people from other countries. Not sure what makes you think anything profound is going to change. The Supreme Court cannot unilaterally overturn the laws of the land, despite what you might believe.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

I am sure he will find a way to help undo the manipulation of justice that once was before the conservatives took over.

Fixinated.

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Monique

I am sure he will find a way to manipulate justice that once was before the conservatives took over.

How will he do this?

[Macrobat]

That would be the same "justice" that saw criminals convictions overturned because of "violations of their civil rights" despite the fact that they were guilty of any and everything up to and including murder?

[Spliffdaddy]

Technically, to achieve the "balance" which lefties insist should be in the Supreme Court, it will require one more conservative justice. So far there are 3 conservatives, 2 moderates, and 4 liberal justices. We conservatives intend to restore that balance the lefties so vehemently seek. When one of the four liberal justices (O'Connor) retires in the near future, we will replace her with a conservative. Then the score will be 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moderate. (it's that 'new math', ya know)

I'm all for restoring balance. and ending legalized abortion.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Technically, to achieve the "balance" which lefties insist should be in the Supreme Court, it will require one more conservative justice. So far there are 3 conservatives, 2 moderates, and 4 liberal justices. We conservatives intend to restore that balance the lefties so vehemently seek. When one of the four liberal justices (O'Connor) retires in the near future, we will replace her with a conservative. Then the score will be 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moderate. (it's that 'new math', ya know)

Actually, "Balanced Supreme Court" to a liberal would be 5 liberals and 4 moderates. They have NO interest in giving the conservatives a voice. To bad for them!

[Y3a]

As long as the "Supreme Court" Justices borrow from other sets of laws not made in the US they are not serving their oaths, but making it up as they go. THOSE TYPES should be removed from all the courts.

[jlfspook]

In case anyone cares, Scalia wasn't at the swearing in of Roberts as Chief Jusitce. He was at a meeting of the Federalist society in Denver, CO.

He must've been really miffed, I guess.