Chief Justice Rehnquist Dead..

  • Thread starter Lookin4Precious
  • Start date
Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I guess I could put a little more information... just a little blown away (not that he wasn't ancient... was just really hoping he would hang on for a couple more years).

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died Saturday evening of cancer, ending a 33-year Supreme Court career during which he oversaw the court's conservative shift, presided over an impeachment trial and helped decide a presidential election. His death creates a rare second vacancy on the nation's highest court.
 
This is VERY interesting.

Along with the Katrina devistation and the US government's fatally-slow response, there are a lot of intricate parts of this Performance of Existance played on the world stage happening right now.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a conservative judge placed in the seat of the Chief Justice, but I more expect there to be some liberal, so-called activist judge put into place.

Well that's how it'd be in Canada at least. Maybe this country's political games have gotten to me.

I wish I knew something about this Rehnquist person before I just learned about him via news of his death. sigh.
 
but I more expect there to be some liberal, so-called activist judge put into place.

Then you are very un-informed (though no offense.. i couldn't begin to tell you ANYTHING about Canadian govt )

BUT, we can hope!

I think American's (and the world at large) are disgusted by our Gov't response (or lack of) to the victims of Katrina. Talking to friends around the world (and many here also) they can't believe that in a country such as America it took 5 days for the Gov't to really get involved and start helping. They said watching news, seeing babies, the elderly, the sick.. and in some cases healthy middle aged people dying in the street because of a LACK OF WATER AND FOOD (!!!!!!) was like they were watching some 3rd world country.

Time will tell what this will mean as far as public opinion goes, though I am not sure if any of the qustions/probelms Katrina has brought to the table will bear any weight on who is appointed to the Supreme Court. My guess (and Lord knows I pray I am wrong) that Bush takes this GOLDEN opportunity to appoint an UBER-Conservative Judge to the court.

Certainly not a boring time in the US right now. Though certainly not a good one either.

NOTE: Can someone fill me in (forgive my ignorance) but whoever is appointed does not assume the role as Chief Justice do they? I would assume a current Judge on the Court would be promoted rather than allowing somebody new to fill the highest seat.
 
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Then you are very un-informed (though no offense.. i couldn't begin to tell you ANYTHING about Canadian govt )<hr></blockquote>

Thanks for mentioning the idea of Bush bringing in some uber-conservative guy, I didn't know how Bush worked with regard to promoting different people (I've seen him promoting figures for different jobs but not known anything about the persons themselves).

I just know that in Canada, the party in power is a pretty liberal one, and they play the political game pretty well. I only just learned that it is illegal for a person to be President of the USA for more than 2 terms or 10 years maximum if coming into power during the previous president's term results in less than 2 years.

Our government had the same leader (Jean Chretien incase anyone didn't know) was in for just over 10 years, but would probably STILL be prime minister if not for his retirement which was 2 years ago.

And the Liberal party apparently likes to play around with the court system.

Well, whoever gets appointed to the post of Chief Justice, I hope the guy is a good person to be there.
edit - this just in: <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/05/roberts.nomination/index.html" target="_new">Judge John Roberts nominated by GWB</a>
 
Well Nemo, here in the US, the Republicans (or conservatives) are the party in power right now and they play the game VERY WELL. Almost to the point were the Democrats (liberals) can't compete. They have their @#%$ together.. and have dominated the media aspect of politics for decades. Only recently (i'm talking post 2000 election (errr... coup) ) has the left decided to really push for a place in the spotlight and compete with the media machine that is the right.

Yes, a President can only serve for 2 terms (Four years each) and then another President is elected. However, like you said, if for some reason a vice president is suddenly made President and this occurs with 2 or less years remaining in the former Presidents term, than that President is still eligable to run for two more terms.

The only time a President has served longer was in WWII when Franklin D. Roosevelt served 4 terms!!! But that was a time when the country needed one leader and I dont think there was much complaining. (He was and still is one of the most beloved Presidents in history).

And John Roberts was actually nominated months ago when Justice Sandra Day O'Conner's seat became empty. It seems with this second vacancy, Bush has moved Roberts over from her seat to fill the Chief Justice's seat (which answers my question from before). Now he will have to go back and fill Sandra Day O'Conners seat...

Ok, that concludes this Government Lesson, remember to read chapters 8 and 9 and hand in you essays before you leave. Have a good day class:speech
 
Lookin4Precious do you feel the need to wear your politics on your sleeve? I notice you try really hard to get the whole political stuff going.
 
How am I trying to get anything going???? The highest member of the highest court in the country has died. Is that not news worthy??? Also, what am I saying that could be considered "getting things going"????

Most of this thread has been betwween Nemo and I discussing our countries different politics, and since he asked some questions I answered them the best I could.

As far as my personal feelings regarding politics, yes, I'm very politically aware and involved. But I don't feel that I berate anybody. True, there have been political discussions in the past on certain threads where I did argue (though in an adult manner I believe) and challenge others that thought differently, but what's wrong with that?

anyway... :rolleyes
 
I didn't read anything that should be taken extremely personal by the other side of the political isle here in the states. There is nothing wrong with this thread IMO and even if it became a political debate as long as it stays in the OFF TOPIC section and stays a discussion in a adult manner I see it as no big deal.
 
<img border=0 src="https://www.maxwellsgoldenhammer.com/emo/duff.gif" /> Well said, L4P.

Thank you also for putting in that the republicans are the equivalent of conservatives. I could never ever remember which was which, and I've been told numerous times. I hope this time I don't forget (though it's very possible.. heh).

I know that most, if not all political parties are pretty crummy when in power, but when out of power everyone gets frustrated with whoever is IN power. Well that's the way it seems because most people I hear talking about the government are not talking about how great it is, but rather how terrible it is.

But they fail to consider how the population will think that when the other party gets into power, problems will not go away, they just change to different problems.

And to put forth a bit of trivia that I have in my head- Roosevelt, though I didn't know he was in power for 4 terms, was succeeded by his VP Truman in office, and I believe it was during one of Truman's terms (since he had two) that he brought in the new legislation for maximum of two terms for a person. There may be something wrong with my summary but it's just what my memory tells me.

The media machine of government parties is the opposite in canada where you have the liberals/democrats knowing how to manipulate the media- in fact that's what nearly brought down the entire government in 2004-2005. There was a media sponsorship scandal in which (correct me, fellow canadian people) the federal Liberal party gave away $100,000,000 of taxpayers money to Liberal-friendly advertising and communication agencies... something more than "a little" pocket stuffing going on there hmm?

But I don't doubt if the conservatives got into power, the leader of that party would make major goofs and blunders all the time just like most every political leader. Such is the way of the world, as far as I've been manipulated to understand. <img border=0 src="https://www.maxwellsgoldenhammer.com/emo/banghead_1_.gif" />
 
No prob Nemo :toast

And yes, politics (and the political parties that make it up) are always changing, though public perception, for the most part remains the same. People are always wanting more out of their government and usually, government comes up short. It is certainly not a perfect beast. Though imo, a lot of the responsibility falls upon the people (at least here in the US). Many are uninformed and don't do nearly as much as they should. After all, in a democracy WE THE PEOPLE have the power, yet we have allowed govt to really run the gambit because of a large majority of ignorance or indifference. Then of course when something big happens everybody clamours on about the govt doing this and that (not to say that Gov't is not at fault), while they (the public) never took an interest before.

And no politician is perfect.... all the more reason for the public to take more power. Just my 2 cents.
 
No LRP every chance you get you try to bring YOUR politics up.
I respect you as a collector but you really like to tow your party's line.
But if you guys don’t think politics can ruin a forum or make it quite unpleasant you’re wrong. That's why there is a saying don’t talk politics, abortion, and religion at work for that very reason.
When hasn't a president placed some one on the Supreme Court that that is in line with their views? You make it sound like its some big conspiracy, and Nemo activist judges are judges that feel they make laws instead of interrupt the law


They have their @#%$ together.. and have dominated the media aspect of politics for decades. Only recently (i'm talking post 2000 election (errr... coup) ) has the left decided to really push for a place in the spotlight and compete with the media machine that is the right.

Give me a break.
 
Viking... I am not here agrueing. I am not try to stir anything, in fact, the only person on this thread who has done anything remotely close to disturbing the peace is YOU.

Have I towed my party line in the past on other threads? yes.

Is it clear to people reading through this thread what my affiliation is? yes, i would assume so. I am not trying to hide my opinions at all, but I am also not pushing them.. I am just talking about current events.

And PLEASE, if you are going to sit there and tell me that the Republicans have not dominated the news media for decades you really need to wake up. It was not an insult, far from it. I was praising them. They REALLY REALLY have their @#%$ together. I WISH we could be half as organized and affective as they are. Truth is, until recently, the left REALLY hasn't known how to play in the media.

Sorry if you are offended by anything in this post/thread, but I really don't see what there is to get offended over. You say you shouldn't talke politics with friends, perhaps that is true. But THIS is a current event and one of pretty large proportions. I think it is relatively simple to discuss topical events such as this and NOT get into arguements over it. The fact that Bush will most likely appoint a conservative judge is expected also seeing as how HE is conservative.

Again, I really think you should pay more attention to what is actually being said in this thread before jumping down my throat about its content. Before you posted (or after even) has there been one minor disagreement? Has anyone been offended? I don't think so.
 
I’m not jumping down your throat I’m making an observation of what I have been seeing. So if it seems that way I apologize to you.
Sitting somewhere talking to a friend about politics is quite different than something like this.


And PLEASE, if you are going to sit there and tell me that the Republicans have not dominated the news media for decades you really need to wake up

Actually I totally disagree 60s on its been the other side to have the media coverage.
Only from 2000 on has the democrat party lost some of it because of all infighting and trying to find common ideas. Were the very far left is pushing hard on the moderate left to take its ideas.

Sorry if you are offended by anything in this post/thread, but I really don't see what there is to get offended over.

And again if I came off like I was offended I am sorry but Ive seen good forums go down the drain when this kind of stuff went unchecked. And it just was flaming posts all over.:\
And if you go to SDCC next year we are trying to go I'll be happy to sit down with you and talk politics over a drink.
 
So if it seems that way I apologize to you.

No need to apoligze. Its all good. Just didn't think this thread warranted the remarks it got...

Actually I totally disagree 60s on its been the other side to have the media coverage.
Only from 2000 on has the democrat party lost some of it because of all infighting and trying to find common ideas. Were the very far left is pushing hard on the moderate left to take its ideas.

Well, I of course completely disagree with that assesment. But as most political debates go... that is as far as I think we will go with this. So let's leave it at that...

Ive seen good forums go down the drain when this kind of stuff went unchecked. And it just was flaming posts all over

Well, yes, I've seen that too (and have most likely been a part of it). Sometimes you cannot help getting a little heated when you have two or more people discussing things they feel strongly about... whether it is if Legolas and Gimli on Arod look too cartoony or if Bush is a competent leader. It just happens. But I would think most of the time, despite heated debate, we don't resort to screaming children hurling insluts... i would hope.

And if you go to SDCC next year we are trying to go I'll be happy to sit down with you and talk politics over a drink.

Hmmmm... should we REALLY add alcohol to the mix? :lol It's all good Viking....
 
My two cents: <img border=0 src="https://www.maxwellsgoldenhammer.com/emo/mwaha.gif" />



Additional pennies:

Hey Viking, I was glad to see how you and L4P explained your separate points of views clearly and relatively calmly and came to a pretty friendly back-and-forth.

I much clearly now see your initial perspective when you first posted in this thread, and it's entirely valid. L4P explained in much similar words to how I would have (tried to) explain the ground on which we talk about this stuff.

He and I once started a very controversial conversation that got a lot of other people involved in the chat including 2 people I remember who were split one on my side and one on L4P's side in the extreme, and it was a very interesting (and unfortunate) thing for myself to see first hand people getting uncontrollably aggressive in their points of view. Fortunately I was able to explain myself to L4P and he was able to explain himself clearly to me, and we found it a very enlightening experience.

But it is entirely true that someone who is emotionally charged and happens to read a thread like this can go off like a cannon pretty quickly and set fires going which often cannot be contained.

At this exact moment, and in the past when L4 and I chatted, I think though for the purpose of seeing what can come of a conversation about a very touchy subject between two people with sometimes opposing views AND at the same time be entirely calm and logical, and hopefully quite open minded, it's great to let the conversation carry on. It's quite the rewarding experience!

I hope that nothing I said was rough around the edges.

Have a great night everyone!

Also I should add- I don't know if I'd want to join you two (vik and L4) in any conversation about politics at SDCC <img border=0 src="https://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif" /> I'd rather talk about entertainment <img border=0 src="https://www.maxwellsgoldenhammer.com/emo/duff.gif" /> <img border=0 src="https://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif" /> <img border=0 src="https://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif" /> also happy faces. I looove them happy faces.
 
then here's some more for you Nemo

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

and I often find that :toast often times leads to :lol ... though sometimes... too much :toast can lead to :thud
 
There's a really funny one of two smileys drinking and singing then one passes out and rolls on the ground like a spun coin that is nearing its death of motion. I love that.

Or am I forgetting? Does the smiley just pass out?
nopee nope! I just found it after I searched for 30 seconds-

<img border=0 src="https://www.galbox.com/foros/smileys/drunk.gif" />
 
Back
Top