Chief Justice Clarence Thomas...

[spiderman]

...Ted Kennedy & Company are placing calls to Anita Hill as you read this.



:D

[Ballbustah]

Yawn......

Ho hum...

Somebody say something.

[Undertaker #59]

I wonder what Judge Bork is doing these days...

[townes]

I hope he nominates him, David Brock, who wrote the book trashing Anita Hill has recanted completely. Let's revisit the issue asap, it will be loads of fun.

[Ballbustah]

Judge Bork is removing pubic hairs from Justice Clarence Thomas's coke cans.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
I wonder what Judge Bork is doing these days...

There has been some talk that Bush is leaning in his (Thomas') direction. What do you think? Think he'll have a chance?

IMO, his nomination would be historic and it would also put the Dems is a terrible situation.

[dchester]

Originally posted by spiderman
There has been some talk that Bush is leaning in his (Thomas') direction. What do you think? Think he'll have a chance?

IMO, his nomination would be historic and it would also put the Dems is a terrible situation. He's got a chance, but Scalia would be my guess to be nominated.
________
buy extreme vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/extreme-vaporizer)

[townes]

It will be Scalia.

[bideau]

It's my understanding that the chief justice has very few extra responsibilites as compared to the associates. Here's the standard definition I've found:

The Chief Justice of the United States is the head of the Judicial Branch of the government of the United States, and presides over the Supreme Court of the United States. The office is often, and incorrectly, referred to as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is composed of nine members, though that number has varied over the years, headed by the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, like all the other justices, is nominated by the President and confirmed to sit on the court by the U.S. Senate. Some justices, like William H. Rehnquist, were elevated to the highest post on the court by the President after having served previously on the bench as associate justice. Most others, like William Howard Taft and Earl Warren, were nominated to the highest bench without any previous experience on the court.

Duties

In addition to the duties of the Associate Justices, the Chief Justice has the following duties:

- If the Chief Justice is in the majority on a Supreme Court case, he or she may decide to write the Opinion of the Court, or may assign it to an associate justice of his or her choice.

- Presides when the Senate tries impeachments of the President of the United States.
Two Chief Justices, Salmon P. Chase and William Rehnquist, have had the duty of presiding over Presidential impeachments and trials--Chase in 1868 over the proceedings of President Andrew Johnson and Rehnquist in 1998 over the proceeding against Bill Clinton.

- Traditionally officiates at the inauguration of the President of the United States. (This is not a Constitutional responsibility, however. All federal judges are empowered by law to administer oaths and affirmations, and the Chief Justice administers this oath due to the pomp and circumstance. The incoming President technically could choose any judge or any other officer with notarial powers.)

- Serves as the Chancellor of the Smithsonian Institute (also not a Constitutional responsibility).

So other than a few ceremonial responsibilities, can someone explain why it matters who the chief justice is.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
It's my understanding that the chief justice has very few extra responsibilites as compared to the associates. Here's the standard definition I've found:



So other than a few ceremonial responsibilities, can someone explain why it matters who the chief justice is.

I agree, I don't really think it means much of anything significant to be the Chief Justice. It is (in reality) just a title.

I just think it would be interesting to see what would happen. Would the media start to rehash all the old footage of him and Anita Hill sitting there before Congress? I'm sure most people in there late teens early 20s don't remember that whole thing, but that hearing is what really gave birth to the whole concept of "sexual harrassment".

[dchester]

I think it's mostly a prestige thing, more than any real additional power. The Chief Justice only has one vote, just like the Associate Justices.
________
buy vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/)

[townes]

It's important because the CJ decides who is writing the decisions, and that is the very voice of the court. The Supreme Court sets precedent and dictates the law of the land, so the Justice writing the decision affects the law through the language they choose.

It's big deal imo.

Kennedy would be the best choice imo, as he's a true swing vote, and the court would be well served by a "moderate" over a hard liner.

Bush won't choose Kennedy because he will never offer moderation to the rest of the country, only hard line right wing ideology.


If I'm wrong and he nominates Kennedy you will all witness a MEA CULPA from me, and I will praise the choice.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by townes
It's important because the CJ decides who is writing the decisions, and that is the very voice of the court.

Good point. Given the importance of the Supreme Court in deciding "evangelical" issues (abortion, gay marriage), I definitely expect that Bush won't elevate a moderate.

The strangest thing I remember from the Clarence Thomas hearings was that Orrin Hatch was wildly waving a copy of "The Exorcist" around because there's a reference in the book to pubic hair on a soda can. Hatch was flailing that book around claiming that it was some kind of proof that Anita Hill's story was fabricated. I never understood how that proved anything, other than that Clarence Thomas was reading The Exorcist in between Long Dong Silver episodes.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
Good point. Given the importance of the Supreme Court in deciding "evangelical" issues (abortion, gay marriage), I definitely expect that Bush won't elevate a moderate.

The strangest thing I remember from the Clarence Thomas hearings was that Orrin Hatch was wildly waving a copy of "The Exorcist" around because there's a reference in the book to pubic hair on a soda can. Hatch was flailing that book around claiming that it was some kind of proof that Anita Hill's story was fabricated. I never understood how that proved anything, other than that Clarence Thomas was reading The Exorcist in between Long Dong Silver episodes.

I definitely don't consider abortion an "evangelical" issue. Do you consider 1st degree murder an "evangelical" issue? I'm certainly not trying to start an abortion debate, we've had enough of that, but I just find it curious how you try and paint everyone right of center as some religious freak.

I'm about as anti-religious as anyone you could ever meet, but I'm sorry I just don't see this religious take-over that you and townes keep ranting about.

I apologize if I'm drifting off topic, but this thread was about Clarence Thomas, and your argument is that making him Chief Justice would be a major coup for the religious right? Please clarify I just don't see this at all.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by townes
It's important because the CJ decides who is writing the decisions, and that is the very voice of the court. The Supreme Court sets precedent and dictates the law of the land, so the Justice writing the decision affects the law through the language they choose.

It's big deal imo. It is a big deal. Also of note is that a CJ presides over any impeachment hearings, though this rarely comes up.

It's notable that Thomas isn't an ideologue in the partisan sense, but in a legal theory sense. He's very much anti-Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and he feels that precedent carries some weight but not as much as is generally acknowledged in the common law system that we think of. He's also a strong supporter of states' rights over federal rights.

Whatever you may think of Scalia's jurisprudence, his intellect is undeniable. He's well into the "genius of his field" category, but unfortunately is arrogant and off putting, so has problems generating coalitions. He's by far the most qualified justice on the court to be CJ, but not the best equipped.

Watching his confirmation hearings would be a riot, though, as he logically bludgeoned his interrogators into submission.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by spiderman
I definitely don't consider abortion an "evangelical" issue. Do you consider 1st degree murder an "evangelical" issue? I'm certainly not trying to start an abortion debate, we've had enough of that, but I just find it curious how you try and paint everyone right of center as some religious freak.

I'm about as anti-religious as anyone you could ever meet, but I'm sorry I just don't see this religious take-over that you and townes keep ranting about.

I apologize if I'm drifting off topic, but this thread was about Clarence Thomas, and your argument is that making him Chief Justice would be a major coup for the religious right? Please clarify I just don't see this at all.

I didn't say that being anti abortion or anti gay marriage necessarily made you an evangelical. However, to evangelicals issues like this have over-riding cosmic importance, with no shades of gray. Life begins when the sperm hits the egg and the microscopic cell begins to divide. Anything else, on the spectrum of possible interpretation, is an abomination against God.

The religious take over has already happened. RALPH REED was one of Bush's campaign chairmen. Every stance the administration has taken has been lock-step in line with the Christian Coalition.

It seemed an oddity when Pat Robertson ran for President in '92. He's now in the oval office in a more saleable form.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
Every stance the administration has taken has been lock-step in line with the Christian Coalition.This is just simply not true. As an example I give the stem cell issue - the Religious Right, by and large, was not pleased with Bush after he passed the ExO limiting fed funds for embryonic stem cell research, because it was such a moderate stance on the issue.

Yes, Ralph Reed was one of his campaign chairs. Yes, Bush is religious. Yes, the evangelicals helped put him in office. But they have their issues with him, too.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I didn't say that being anti abortion or anti gay marriage necessarily made you an evangelical. However, to evangelicals issues like this have over-riding cosmic importance, with no shades of gray. Life begins when the sperm hits the egg and the microscopic cell begins to divide. Anything else, on the spectrum of possible interpretation, is an abomination against God.

Like I said, I really want to avoid the whole abortion debate, but I will say this. For many, the abortion issue doesn't have anything to do with God, or any type of "cosmic importance" as you so eloquently put it. It's all about a right to life. Many don't consider it an "abomination against God" they simply feel that a fetus has the right to life at the moment of conception, and that it is the mother's responsibility to carry the child until it is able to live on its own.

This is why I shirk at all your references to God and religion, I think it is meant to belittle and frame conservatives as small minded. What I am trying to tell you is that many of us aren't religious by any stretch of the imagination. In my book, you could be an atheist and be a pro-lifer.

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
The religious take over has already happened. RALPH REED was one of Bush's campaign chairmen. Every stance the administration has taken has been lock-step in line with the Christian Coalition.

I disagree, but would love to read your specific examples aside from abortion and gay marriage, which we've already covered.


Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
It seemed an oddity when Pat Robertson ran for President in '92. He's now in the oval office in a more saleable form.

Once again, you seem to make this claim a great deal. I don't agree with it, but would love to read some examples.


I'm still waiting to hear how Bush appointing Thomas as Chief Justice would be a major victory for the christian coalition.

[Mark_Henderson]

I'll get to your other points later. I'm not sure if the best way to "avoid the whole issue of abortion" is to post a paragraph espousing a position on it. But, I'm glad you did because your language is pretty revealing.

Originally posted by spiderman
Many don't consider it an "abomination against God" they simply feel that a fetus has the right to life at the moment of conception.

It's a compelling point that a fetus has a right to life. However, you make the leap that a fetus exists at the moment of conception, which isn't the case.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/omd.asp?q=fetus

Fetus
The unborn offspring of any viviparous mammals, in the postembryonic period, after the major structures have been outlined. (Dorland, 28th ed.)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I'll get to your other points later. I'm not sure if the best way to "avoid the whole issue of abortion" is to post a paragraph espousing a position on it. But, I'm glad you did because your language is pretty revealing.



It's a compelling point that a fetus has a right to life. However, you make the leap that a fetus exists at the moment of conception, which isn't the case.

http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/omd.asp?q=fetus

Fetus
The unborn offspring of any viviparous mammals, in the postembryonic period, after the major structures have been outlined. (Dorland, 28th ed.)

My point: Once a sperm fertilizes an egg it will eventually become a human being, that is, unless you stab it with a knife and destroy it. Regardless of what you call it, many people are against this "unnatural" interruption to the natural cycle of life and feel that it is the responsibility of the person harboring the egg to avoid doing anything purposeful that would destroy it.

Do we really need to bring this topic to this level?

My point was that people who AREN'T religious are still Pro-Life for reasons that don't have anything to do with God.

You seem to be avoiding my main point by bringing up this discussion of what is/isn't a fetus.

[townes]

Originally posted by spiderman
I'm about as anti-religious as anyone you could ever meet, but I'm sorry I just don't see this religious take-over that you and townes keep ranting about.




Me?


Rant?


You're kidding.


Right?





I actually rant far more about the neo-cons than I do the christian right. The primary reason the christian right comes into it is that is W's ideology. But I agree with Flagg that this administration hasn't heavily pursued the goals deemed most important to the Christian Right, although they have thrown them a few bones along the way. I do believe that the christian right form the popular base for W, and they will demand and get far more out of a second term, and the long term, than they did to this point.



I rant about the neo-cons because they are actually Fascists with a cute hyphenated name that plays to the "conservative" brand name. In truth they are as far from conservative as a group could ideologically be. They are internationalist, not isolationists, they don't care about the deficit or huge spending, they believe in media consolidation in the hands of the few, a far cry from the strong local media bent of true conservatives, and the see the environment as a towel to wring dry of all it's resources, also a far cry from true conservative values.


In truth, the traditional conservative republican party has been hijacked. How long it takes true conservatives to grasp this is anyone's guess, but i'm guessing the fissures will start to show immediately, and there will be all out war for control of the party by the time the next election rolls around.