PDA

View Full Version : Roberts nominated chief justice


Donovan Rebbechi
September 5th 05, 07:17 PM
http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html

--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

JMW
September 5th 05, 07:38 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html

I was wondering if he would move Scalia up. That probably wouldn't be
a good idea, though. Rehnquist may have been a strong conservative,
but he got along with everyone, and he was good at getting everyone to
work together. I don't think Scalia's personality is suited for that.
Roberts seems like he might be able to do that, although I think that
all the senior justices might resent a younger guy getting CJ.

Donovan Rebbechi
September 5th 05, 08:05 PM
On 2005-09-05, JMW > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>>http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html
>
> I was wondering if he would move Scalia up.

Yeah, same. In fact I was expecting it. This would have started a hideous fight
in the senate, and I think that could have cost the Dems a lot of political
capital regardless of the outcome.

I don't expect a whole lot of controversy with Roberts, he's actually a very
unprovocative nomination. I think the Dems will look silly if they try too hard
to fight this one. This is why the more politically savvy Democrat senators
like Reid, Clinton and Leahy are all fairly low key about the whole thing so
far. Of course I expect Senator Kennedy to blow a lot of smoke and look silly
regardless, but then, it wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

John Hanson
September 5th 05, 08:07 PM
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:38:36 -0400, JMW > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>>http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html
>
>I was wondering if he would move Scalia up. That probably wouldn't be
>a good idea, though. Rehnquist may have been a strong conservative,
>but he got along with everyone, and he was good at getting everyone to
>work together. I don't think Scalia's personality is suited for that.
>Roberts seems like he might be able to do that, although I think that
>all the senior justices might resent a younger guy getting CJ.

You do know that Scalia and Ginsberg are the best friends, right?
Polar opposites politically but great friends on a personal level.
That has to say something for his personality.

JMW
September 5th 05, 08:17 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>On 2005-09-05, JMW > wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>>
>>>http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html
>>
>> I was wondering if he would move Scalia up.
>
>Yeah, same. In fact I was expecting it. This would have started a hideous fight
>in the senate, and I think that could have cost the Dems a lot of political
>capital regardless of the outcome.
>
>I don't expect a whole lot of controversy with Roberts, he's actually a very
>unprovocative nomination. I think the Dems will look silly if they try too hard
>to fight this one. This is why the more politically savvy Democrat senators
>like Reid, Clinton and Leahy are all fairly low key about the whole thing so
>far. Of course I expect Senator Kennedy to blow a lot of smoke and look silly
>regardless, but then, it wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

Teddy?! No!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:)

Peter Allen
September 5th 05, 09:32 PM
Joe Humble wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:17:14 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> > wrote:
>
>> http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html
>
> If it isn't a natural disaster impacting 100s of thousands of black
> Americans then Bush is All Over It. Rehnquist's body isn't even cold
> yet...

You really think Bush decided that over the last few hours?

That decision will have been made months ago. Bush just had to get up and
announce it.

Peter

Mr-Natural-Health
September 5th 05, 10:08 PM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html

Yeah, I heard.

Dear Bush,

Don't you think that the Chief Justice should be someone with some
prior experience? Obviously, NOT!

You have my condolences, Bush. But, will the other Justices ever get
overy your snubb?

Midtown Bob
September 5th 05, 10:38 PM
How much can Roberts bench? What can he squat?

Peter Allen
September 5th 05, 11:09 PM
Midtown Bob wrote:
> How much can Roberts bench? What can he squat?

Google says 365lbs, 515lbs.

but that might be a different guy...

Peter

JMW
September 5th 05, 11:14 PM
Joe Humble > wrote:

>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:17:14 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote:
>
>>http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html
>
>If it isn't a natural disaster impacting 100s of thousands of black
>Americans then Bush is All Over It.

Oh, puleeze! That was almost as pathetic as your black Magic Marker
underwear.

ATP*
September 6th 05, 03:10 AM
"Midtown Bob" > wrote in message
.. .
> How much can Roberts bench? What can he squat?
Bill hasn't posted here in ages......

JMW
September 6th 05, 03:16 AM
"ATP*" > wrote:
>
>"Midtown Bob" > wrote in message
.. .
>> How much can Roberts bench? What can he squat?
>
>Bill hasn't posted here in ages......

Didn't he have a genetic limitation of 225?

ATP*
September 6th 05, 03:32 AM
"JMW" > wrote in message
...
> "ATP*" > wrote:
>>
>>"Midtown Bob" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> How much can Roberts bench? What can he squat?
>>
>>Bill hasn't posted here in ages......
>
> Didn't he have a genetic limitation of 225?

Bodyweight, I thought that was. IIRC posting lifts was considered bad form
at the time, but there may have been some discussion about his bench.

Pete
September 8th 05, 02:51 AM
Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> http://nytimes.com/2005/09/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05cnd-scotus.html
>
> Yeah, I heard.
>
> Dear Bush,
>
> Don't you think that the Chief Justice should be someone with some
> prior experience? Obviously, NOT!
>
> You have my condolences, Bush. But, will the other Justices ever get
> overy your snubb?

Apparently you're not aware that naming an outsider Chief Justice is,
traditionally, the rule rather than the exception.

ATP*
September 8th 05, 03:23 AM
"JMW" > wrote in message
...
> "ATP*" > wrote:
>>
>>"Midtown Bob" > wrote in message
.. .
>>> How much can Roberts bench? What can he squat?
>>
>>Bill hasn't posted here in ages......
>
> Didn't he have a genetic limitation of 225?

I couldn't find the original post, here is a later comment:

"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/browse_thread/thread/f7a20b5f0c8780db/779e12600cefd566?lnk=st&q=%22genetic+limit%22+group:misc.fitness.weights+a uthor:bill+author:roberts&rnum=4&hl=en#779e12600cefd566

Steve Kidwell wrote:
> Bill Roberts > wrote:

> >On the other hand, it would be prime AOM material and if Rob Schuh
> >was here, I know Steve would get the award for sure with this stuff.
> Bill, go back to doing something important like figuring out how your
> going to break your genetic limitations of a 225 lb. bench press max.



Illogical, Steve. If my genetic limit under natural conditions were
225 (which I think is a low number, I'd say 250 or 275) then the
solution to that is a no-brainer. Good old Vitamin T is the solution. "

IIRC he had access to that solution, not sure if he was using it.

Hank
September 8th 05, 03:40 AM
Mr-Natural-Health wrote:

> Don't you think that the Chief Justice should be someone with some
> prior experience? Obviously, NOT!

He's got experience abusing the Federal Court
System and violating Federal Law...

Federal law clearly states that a judge "shall disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might
reasonably be questioned." Obviously, neither bu$h nor
Roberts follow or respect the rule of law, as they clearly
ignored it.

From:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/06/149245

"But on a key part of the case, whether there were rights
under the Geneva convention under what we lawyers call common
article three. It was a 2-1 decision with Roberts in the two
and there being a concurrence by Williams saying that he
believed that the Geneva Convention did provide certain
fundamental rights to Guantanamo detainees. Now what's
remarkable to me that case came down on July 19-- I'm sorry,
the case came down on July 15. It was argued on April 7. On
April 1, Judge Roberts met with Alberto Gonzales to discuss
the question of his being nominated as a Supreme Court Justice.
So a week before the case is argued, he's meeting with Alberto
Gonzales. And over the course of that litigation, before it
is decided, hes met with really everybody in the oval office
and the white house. Hes met with the president. Hes met
with the vice president, he's met with various aides, counsel,
etc., while the case is pending. Now it seems obvious that
here he is counsel in the case didn't know anything about
those meetings. He is sitting on a case that's central to
this administration's claims for power in the so-called
war on terror which is the application of the Geneva
conventions. He's meeting with Alberto Gonzales, the very
guy that actually is the architect of part much the policies
of the Geneva conventions and yet, he says nothing to the
lawyers for the Guantanamo detainees, nor does he actually
recuse himself from the case. Because of the obvious
appearance of impartiality. That is where it stands.
And then we have taken some action since then."



--


Ever wonder who benefits from the 150 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own war crimes in Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf Hitler

"Brutal and sadistic? By what girly-man standards? Compared
to how Saddam treated his prisoners, a bit of humiliation was
a walk in the park. AFAIK, No one died or even lost any blood."
-Albert Nurick, a usenet kook, on the rape, torture and murder
at bu$h's Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0512-10.htm)


George W. Bush: "Intelligence gathered by this and other
governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues
to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever
devised." March 17, 2003.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com
http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://globalresearch.ca/
http://www.wsws.org/

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

JMW
September 8th 05, 07:36 AM
"ATP*" > wrote:
>"JMW" > wrote:
>> "ATP*" > wrote:
>>>"Midtown Bob" > wrote:
>>>> How much can Roberts bench? What can he squat?
>>>
>>>Bill hasn't posted here in ages......
>>
>> Didn't he have a genetic limitation of 225?
>
>I couldn't find the original post, here is a later comment:
>
>"
>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/browse_thread/thread/f7a20b5f0c8780db/779e12600cefd566?lnk=st&q=%22genetic+limit%22+group:misc.fitness.weights+a uthor:bill+author:roberts&rnum=4&hl=en#779e12600cefd566
>
>Steve Kidwell wrote:
>> Bill Roberts > wrote:
>
>> >On the other hand, it would be prime AOM material and if Rob Schuh
>> >was here, I know Steve would get the award for sure with this stuff.
>> Bill, go back to doing something important like figuring out how your
>> going to break your genetic limitations of a 225 lb. bench press max.
>
>
>
>Illogical, Steve. If my genetic limit under natural conditions were
>225 (which I think is a low number, I'd say 250 or 275) then the
>solution to that is a no-brainer. Good old Vitamin T is the solution. "
>
>IIRC he had access to that solution, not sure if he was using it.

Not that you could tell from looking at him.

Mr-Natural-Health
September 9th 05, 10:33 AM
Pete wrote:

> Apparently you're not aware that naming an outsider Chief Justice is,
> traditionally, the rule rather than the exception.

Then it is stupid, stupid, ... stupid!

John Hanson
September 10th 05, 03:32 AM
On 9 Sep 2005 02:33:34 -0700, "Mr-Natural-Health"
> wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>
>Pete wrote:
>
>> Apparently you're not aware that naming an outsider Chief Justice is,
>> traditionally, the rule rather than the exception.
>
>Then it is stupid, stupid, ... stupid!

Why? It makes perfectly good sense to me.

Bill Rodgers
September 10th 05, 03:34 AM
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 21:32:20 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

> It makes perfectly good sense to me.

Because you're a moron.
TBR

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day
the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the
White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
"Anyone with degrees from Yale and Harvard is presumed to be intelligent,
but George W. Bush has managed to overcome that presumption."