patricia92243
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:29 AM
Original message |
2 SC, now Greenspan replacement. Bush has been able to choose on his |
|
watch. I feel depressed.
If we finally get a Democratic prez next time, will there be any likelihood of an openings on the SC. Also if the Federal Fiance Chairman is somebody crazy, can the next president appoint a new one? It's not an appointment for life like the SC. I hope, I hope.
|
tinrobot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:31 AM
Response to Original message |
1. SC Chairman is a 7 year term |
|
Supreme court - who knows who might retire.
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. it's a lifetime appointment |
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:32 AM
Response to Original message |
2. frankly, i think it was amazing he didn't get a supreme pick 1st term. |
|
i have to give props to o'connor, i actually think she was hanging on because she didn't want her resignation sullied by his disastrous swing vote in loser shrub v. president gore. i just wish she could hold on for 4 more years....
|
Chan790
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
It was equally obvious that she was not going to let her replacement be appointed by a Democrat, her response in 2000 to the initial claim of a Bush win showed that. If 2004 had been a clear Democratic lead, she'd have resigned early enough to make sure GWB got the appointment. Likewise, there was no way she was waiting until after 2008 when the GOP might (probably will hopefully) lose the WH.
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. i think her plans shifted once her statements became public |
|
once people knew her bias relating to the retirement and who's president, it became unseemly for her to retire while shrub was pres.
it's also not clear that, had kerry been certified to have won, that a 'last-minute' retirement wouldn't have been stalled in the senate until kerry took over.
|
still_one
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-24-05 10:34 AM
Response to Original message |
3. people knew what the issues were in 2004 |
|
in 2000 they might have ignored it, but at a minimum there is no excuse that anyone didn't know that roe v wade would be threatened, that social security and medicare would be threatened, that our entire foreign policy was based on lies
Sorry, but the freedoms we are losing are based on the apathy of the American people. They have only themselves to blame.
In the meantime, for those that still want to fight the good cause, start by backing candidates that fight for those principles, at all levels of government
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:58 AM
Response to Original message |