- #1
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,124
- 20
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-09-29T191843Z_01_EIC956914_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-COURT-ROBERTS.xml
Have at it you ideologs
Have at it you ideologs
deckart said:But, fair enough, the senators are supposed to be the voice of their constituents.
I should have read this first.cronxeh said:Geez give more info will ya
What really disappoints me is that both democratic senators from NY, CA, NJ, MA, MD, IL, HI and others voted against Roberts. This pretty much makes up a bulk of democratic senator states. It almost seems like a partisan vote rather than a logical one
cronxeh said:I wonder if chief justices have some kinda pizza parties among themselves
You might wish to find transcripts from the hearings to see what she said, and not make assumptions.deckart said:Feinstein is making the assumption that Robert's would rule against abortion. That could very well be a bad assumption. If what you said is her entire reasoning (because I haven't researched her statements) the she is not voting rationally, IMO.
:rofl:Ivan Seeking said:Not quite. You've heard of beer and toga parties? How about robe and brandy parties? They're almost the same thing.
There is only one 'Chief Justice' of the US at one time. The other justices of the Supreme Court are Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_Statescronxeh said:I wonder if chief justices have some kinda pizza parties among themselves
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine-crier/contempt-how-the-right_b_7199.htmlThe Far Right wants to control our federal judiciary in order to enact this reactionary agenda. At first blush, the focus seems to center on social issues—abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, and religion in schools. These items certainly garner the most press attention, but don't be fooled.
There is another insidious aspect to their designs. Economic and political issues are crucial to them as well. If they are successful in our federal courts, this plot will have a profound impact on citizens in every arena. They are making efforts to curtail federal regulation of businesses, environmental protections, worker's rights, bankruptcy laws, tort liability, and property interests, among other causes.
This radical group also wants much more control exerted by the states. For over a century, the federal courts have built a safety net in order to protect the constitutional rights of every American. But Edwin Meese began arguing in the 1980s that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, and now the extreme Right supports his assertion that such Constitutional protections only exist to inhibit action by the national government. They want our individual guarantees surrendered back to the states, where enforcement will diminish and maybe disappear altogether.
Despite the Far Right's claims that they want the courts to leave Congress alone, they actually aim to reduce congressional authority. They want ultraconservative judges to strike down a great deal more federal legislation and to negate decades of legal precedent—the very definition of "reactionary." The extreme Right may argue against judicial "activism," but they certainly know how to practice it. And through it all, they camouflage these issues under a shiny veneer of values, morality, and religion.
"Roberts confirmed: 78-22" refers to the confirmation of a person named Roberts by a vote of 78 in favor and 22 against. This typically pertains to a confirmation vote for a political appointment or judicial nomination.
Roberts could refer to a variety of individuals, as it is a common last name. However, in the context of "Roberts confirmed: 78-22", it likely refers to a specific person who was nominated for a position and confirmed by a vote of 78-22. Without more context, it is impossible to determine who this person is or why they were confirmed.
The vote count of 78-22 indicates that the confirmation was carried out with a majority vote, as 78 is more than half of the total number of votes (78+22=100). This is a common method for determining the outcome of a vote, particularly in political or legislative processes.
Yes, "Roberts confirmed: 78-22" typically refers to the confirmation of a person for a specific position or role, such as a political appointment or judicial nomination. The details of the position or role may vary depending on the context in which the vote took place.
After a person is confirmed by a vote of "Roberts confirmed: 78-22", they may officially assume the position or role for which they were confirmed. This could involve taking an oath of office or beginning their duties and responsibilities in the designated role. The specific actions taken after confirmation may vary depending on the position or role in question.