Fuck You, Sandra Day O'Connor

Joe Wordsworth

Logician
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Posts
4,085
Bush is nominating John Roberts to take her place. This wouldn't have happened had she just held out a couple more years. Damn.
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
Bush is nominating John Roberts to take her place. This wouldn't have happened had she just held out a couple more years. Damn.


I agree. This is what I warned my sister was going to happen because of her vote.

(Or are you being sarcastic and I'm just missing it because I've been drinking?)
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
I agree. This is what I warned my sister was going to happen because of her vote.

(Or are you being sarcastic and I'm just missing it because I've been drinking?)

Oh, no... I'm serious about it. And my lawyer is also pissed--and when he gets frustrated like that he starts babbling about reprocussions beyond the scope of most laymen. I think he summed it up with "that guy can choke on my fuck".
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
Oh, no... I'm serious about it. And my lawyer is also pissed--and when he gets frustrated like that he starts babbling about reprocussions beyond the scope of most laymen. I think he summed it up with "that guy can choke on my fuck".

:) I think I like that phrase.

(By the way, good to see you again, Joe. )
 
I'm appalled as well. It's the first time, that I can remember, that I've felt an affinity with Joe's emotional state.

And it is an intellectual emotional state. Bush is a destructive force in politics.
 
cantdog said:
I'm appalled as well. It's the first time, that I can remember, that I've felt an affinity with Joe's emotional state.

And it is an intellectual emotional state. Bush is a destructive force in politics.

I think Bush is a powerful force in politics, and I'm convinced that he's doing what he thinks is best for America... I just wholly disagree with what he thinks is best in this case. I don't want my Supreme Court Justices coming in with these sorts of agendas.

Oh, and it's good to be back, Sarah.
 
See Joe, we ARE on the same side sometimes.

I have to wonder if Bush thinks he can actually push this through or if he thinks he can play this card, then pull him back and present a more "moderate" candidate to a warm welcome...
 
Does anyone know anything about John Roberts? Just this morning Yahoo had a piece up about Edith SomeoneOrAnother. The article led me to believe she was favored to be the Nominee.

:confused:
 
sweetsubsarahh said:
Yeah, I watched the announcement on television. Then, as I was flipping channels, I passed Jon Stewart on Comedy Central. Kinda figured out that Judge Roberts was miles right of center.

:(

~lucky

p.s. Does this snippet bug anyone but me? The president said he had recently spoken with Senate leaders of both parties and said they ``share my goal'' of confirmation proceedings conducted with dignity and fairness.
Not sure if I have the right definition of fair or not.
 
Belegon said:
See Joe, we ARE on the same side sometimes..

Never said we couldn't be... I don't understand the need to "pick sides", in any case.

But, yeah, I don't like John's politics. I hope he doesn't get it. I didn't like O'Connor much, either, but I wonder how much she was paid to step down during this administration, as young as she is.
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
I think Bush is a powerful force in politics, and I'm convinced that he's doing what he thinks is best for America... I just wholly disagree with what he thinks is best in this case. I don't want my Supreme Court Justices coming in with these sorts of agendas.

Oh, and it's good to be back, Sarah.

I think bush is a blind chimp with a loaded gun. Dick Cheney is his seeing eye dog. What a day they had in school, everywhere that chimp went the dog was sure to go.
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
I wonder how much she was paid to step down during this administration, as young as she is.

I've been wondering this very thing myself.
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
Never said we couldn't be... I don't understand the need to "pick sides", in any case.

But, yeah, I don't like John's politics. I hope he doesn't get it. I didn't like O'Connor much, either, but I wonder how much she was paid to step down during this administration, as young as she is.
I did hear some senators on a talk show saying O'Connor didn't say "no" when faced with the question of taking the chief justice position if it was offered to her. I don't know if this is still a possibility or not.
 
In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a D.C. Metrorail station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.

And at only 50 years old, this dude could very well serve a half a century. :rolleyes:

I had really been hoping it was John Roberts from NBC News.
 
This isn't going to be popular, but:

Sandra Day is old enough to wnat to spend her remaining years doing something other than being a constant lightening rob for critidism. And she is well within her rights to want to retire.

By what right are you prepared to demand she stick around for two more years?

In the first place, there isn't any evidence I am aware of the Dems have markedly increased their chances of capturing the white house in the next election.

In the second, she's a Regan appointee and it would make sense she would want to retire white the conservatives hold the white house.

Thurgood Marshall hung around forever, just to get a dem int he white house befor he retired. Nobody said jack about his decision so why is Oconnor different?
 
Colleen Thomas said:
By what right are you prepared to demand she stick around for two more years?

The same right anyone has when faced with the oncoming misfortunes that can happen when someone puts their personal priorities above the good of the many--which isn't to say its an absolute right, or that people aren't allowed personal priorities, or even that that constituted the whole of the situation... but it is to say that feeling disappointed is a right, and it's in no way wrong to feel that way.

Of course, I'm sure you knew that was going to be the response.
 
Joe Wordsworth said:
The same right anyone has when faced with the oncoming misfortunes that can happen when someone puts their personal priorities above the good of the many--which isn't to say its an absolute right, or that people aren't allowed personal priorities, or even that that constituted the whole of the situation... but it is to say that feeling disappointed is a right, and it's in no way wrong to feel that way.

Of course, I'm sure you knew that was going to be the response.


It seems to me retirement age has been reached and far exceeded by her. You take in a lot of ground blaming her for possible coming misfortunes. She served her country, well and faithfully, often assrting her independence of thought in doing so. It's my opinion, she deserves a lot of thanks, a lot of credit for misfortunes she helped keep from coming about, and not a fuck you.

But that's just my opinion.
 
At present, if you thought a moderate was needed in the SCOTUS this might be the best time to retire. The Democrats are already waging a war with the White House about Judicial appointments. Better to add fuel to fire and put moderate Republicans to the wall now than after a possible defeat on a lesser judge.

I think Roberts is a sacrificial lamb; he's going to cause a war in Congress, which will distract the media and public from the Iraq and Rove. Even if Roberts gets ixnayed Bush comes out smelling like roses to his supporters because he TRIED.

For Bush, nominating Roberts was win-win, either the fathead gets on SCOTUS or Bush has the appearance of 'sticking to his guns'.

To be honest, I'm surprised that the nominee is not more incindiery.

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
Colleen Thomas said:
It seems to me retirement age has been reached and far exceeded by her. You take in a lot of ground blaming her for possible coming misfortunes. She served her country, well and faithfully, often assrting her independence of thought in doing so. It's my opinion, she deserves a lot of thanks, a lot of credit for misfortunes she helped keep from coming about, and not a fuck you.

But that's just my opinion.

I find her bowing out fairly early for a Supreme Court Justice, and most especially during this administration. I don't blame her for coming misfortunes, that's just the "right" that sort of exists around the whole thing--I hardly believe you're saying that people haven't any right to feelings of disappointment that come from an ill-timed event.

And, I'll even go one further, if Sandra Day O'Connor is reading this right now, I will apologize profusely for telling her "fuck you"... short of that, I still think it a clever title and funny.
 
Did anyone honestly believe no justice would retire over Bush's 8 years?


Its been a long time since one was nominated.
 
BigAndTall said:
Did anyone honestly believe no justice would retire over Bush's 8 years?


Its been a long time since one was nominated.
I honestly figured since most of them had "their boy" in office that they would be in for the "ride". The early retirement caught me a bit off line.
 
This is why she retired.

Judge O'Conner's husband is very sick. She has stated that the reason that she is leaving is so she can be with him and care for him.
 
A Reagan appointee, I don't understand your criticism of O'Connor. Perhaps because her decisions tend to favor individual rights, an anathema to modern conservatives?

Only when we have a judiciary composed of religious fundamantalists, that will do the trick. The Christian way is the only way.

So, O'Connor was a traitor then (for opposing Roe v. Wade) and a traitor now (for stepping down early). You can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top