# Chief Roberts



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I can't wait to see this seat filled ... and another with someone "Bushesk" in Social Philosophy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree. We have had to many activist judges who try make law rather than interpret the constitution. This is how extremists have sidestepped the constitution, and the congress. These type judges are out of line, and I have a news flash for them - what they do is unconstitutional. Their job is to interpret the constitution, nothing more, nothing less. That is what we are in dire need of, some judges that do their job correctly. If they want to make laws run for congress.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

It may be years down the road ... but folks will one day see the "Brilliance" of GWB.

As Dick Morris said several years back ... GWB has an appointment at Mt. Rushmore ...

I think much of what GWB is about ... will take a back seat ... until folks have the perspective of "20/20 Hindsight."

30 maybe 40 years from now ... Dick Morris just might have some credence


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

:lol: I am sorry!!! I just cant see GWB and brilliance in the same sentence!!! Maybe it is just me......... :lol:


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Yaaah the value of hindsight! What a tool that is!

Hitler..........freely elected
Slavery......once an accepted practice
Salem Witch Trials......accepted belief of witches
Brown......in charge of FEMA
Clinton......Liar
Saddam.....once an alie who we funded
The belief that the world is flat.....Proven wrong but I would like to ask Bush to be sure he knows.

I agree.... History will tell how brilliant bush is. :lol:

TC


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Hindsight............. another word meaning History. One of the most valuable tools man possesses. As George Santayana said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" or better yet as Pearl S. Buck said "One faces the future with one's past". Yes.....hindsight, we all need a little more. And, just like those that screamed and wrung their hands in fear while declaring that Abraham Lincoln was weak minded and a traitor to the nation, History will prove the same fearful people wrong and prove George Walker Bush to have been one of the great Presidents this nation has produced.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> History will prove the same fearful people wrong and prove George Walker Bush to have been one of the great Presidents this nation has produced.


Man, I have to go home and change shirts since I coughed up my morning coffee when I read the statement above! George Walker Bush is an arrogant punk who has left this nation in far worse shape than it was in before he assumed office.

To be completely serious here, I geniunely believe that history will be kind to William Jefferson Clinton. He presided over one of the most prosperous times in our history, reduced a huge deficit inherited by Reagan and Bush, and encouraged people to be socially conscious. For the first time in a long time, young people felt empowered. All of this changed when the Shrub took office.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

BigDaddy,

Do I sense a little animosity towards George Bush, here? :wink:

May your coffee stain come out better than the stain President Clinton deposited on Monica's dress. 

Sorry.... couldn't resist.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Never ceases to amaze me those that still want to give credit to Clinton for what Newt Gingrich and a Republican congress accomplished with the Contract with America. Within 4 years the Republican congress was able to turn around 40 years of screwing everything and apparently everyone by the Democrats. I'll give Clinton credit for one thing and that is having the sense to sigh 9 of 10 items from the Contract with America into law. He was even accomplished at fooling a lot of Americans into thinking those were his ideas and got elected for a second time. Fortunately for American, they finally woke up in 2000 and put the right guy in office. Hope you got a closet full of shirts there BidDaddy, you're gonna need then in 2006................


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

Jama now thats funny!!!! I would rather have a coffe stain any day!

TC


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Let's see....40 years of screwing by Democrats....that would be since 1965.I didn't know that Nixon,Ford,Reaqan and the elder Bush were Democrats.40 years....Last I counted....25 of the past 40 years have had Republican Presidents.....
Nixon/Ford......8 years
Reagan......8 years
Bush Sr......4 years
Bush Jr.......5 years
So I guess Democrats haven't been the ONLY problem the past 40 years.Blameing Democrats for all problems the past 40 years is a little one sided.

Newt and his contract were a joke.He went nowhere.

Can't say much about GWB for a few years yet....but he will have to go a long ways to get to one of the best presidents.The only thing that really matters for him is terrorism and Iraq.If it works out....he will get deserved credit.I have a suspicion it won't and americans will force a pull out.

Did Republican presidents do any good?

Yes.....Nixon's foreign policy was super....to bad he was a paranoid crook.

Ford also did a good job....to bad he didn't beat Carter....Jimmy was out of his element.

Reagan....?????

Bush Sr.....was pretty good also.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

the democrats in congress did screw us for 40 years as the majority with their vote buying programs unfortunately the republicans are now the majority and since that happened they are doing the same thing where is the smaller govt. Newt promised? There is no difference between them, they consider themselves an elite political class and we are the ignorant people they want to keep dependent on them because they understand that dependence is the core of their power. Unfortunately for us they understand this and most citizens do not, which is why they get away with it.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Ken, the Presidents control on the events in this country is marginal compared to the control the congress has. But you already knew that didn't you. The Democrats controlled the congress for 40 years until they were swept from control in 1994. But you knew that also didn't you.

Bobm it is sad to say but what you said about the Republicans at the present is true. Presently I see no one from either side with the guts or power to put the brakes on what is now happening except one person and he has been so demonized it would be impossible in my opinion for him to get elected.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

How about back to the supreme court nominee :eyeroll:

The dems are really dragging their feet. :******:

The guy is sqeakie clean :beer:

What can they do now??????? :lol:

Oh and we will get one more oke:

I love these little faces :thumb:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I love these little faces


Now thats a funny post! Good to see we can have some humor, thanks.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Doesn't is surprise you a little that a new member of the court is being nominated to be the chief justice? I should admit I don't know the role of the chief vs. the rest but it just seems that someone with more tenure should hold the spot if it's indeed reflective of the "elevated" name. Can anyone fill me in on this?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the best man/woman should be appointed as chief justice. What is tenure really worth? It gives the incompetent hope for sure, and disrupts the competition that promotes excellence. Tenure has it's place, but it shouldn't replace performance based promotion. I see it's place as protection against spiteful management.


----------



## Shu (Oct 21, 2003)

Look at it from a business point of view. A newly appointed VP is not elevated to CEO before he's even moved into the office. I'm not against Roberts appointment, I just think it seems odd that he's elevated to chief before he's even warmed the chair. I absolutely agree that if he's the best person for the job he should get the position.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I didn't think he would be chief :withstupid:

I thought he would come up thru the ranks like the rest of the bozos :-?


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

> I absolutely agree that if he's the best person for the job he should get the position.


 I agree I only wish Bush would have been thinking that way when looking for someone to head up FEMA. I don't think that was the case?

I don't have the typical liberal problems with Roberts I will think he will get the nod. If Roberts truely believes in overturning R vs W then I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with and would love to ask him the Question....

"If you think its proper to outlaw abortion of anykind along with stemcell research will you allow fertalization of anykind outside the womb that is destined to be destryoyed?"

If he deems invotro fertalization ok and stemcell research not, he is a hypocrit if not he beleives what he believes. And remember a case has to become before the court. Well maybe not... The Supremme court does have the ability to reach out to a case that has not become before the court and they feel it should. Im not sure on the details.But in a nutshell If they think its that important they can demand to hear it! This would be virtually impossible if the Cheif Justice did not want to hear a particular case. This is why I belive he wants Roberts for the position. This is just a hunch on my part history will tell. The chief acts somewaht as a chair/comitee and assignments of who is to write on a particular descision.

Bobm I've always thought by reading your posts, your one heck of a smart dog guy one of the best I've ever found on the net.



> the democrats in congress did screw us for 40 years as the majority with their vote buying programs unfortunately the republicans are now the majority and since that happened they are doing the same thing where is the smaller govt. Newt promised?


I think your one smart guy all around!

Gohon:


> Bobm it is sad to say but what you said about the Republicans at the present is true. Presently I see no one from either side with the guts or power to put the brakes on what is now happening except one person and he has been so demonized it would be impossible in my opinion for him to get elected.


Gohon we have had some good gorounds but I'm not to big to say when your right your right. :beer: Dang you do tease me with the whole demonizing thing? I promise I will not even respond if you tell me who it is? You're killing me, please tell me....................

TC


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I believe of the 17 total Chief Justices only three have been promoted from within ... Renquist being one of the three

Most are appointed to the court as such ... as I understand it

If we don't get one appointed ... Justice Stevens ... will be acting Cheif ... I'd rather avoid that for sure


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> You're killing me, please tell me


I would but that would set off a hail of bullets like you've never seen on here before. But, keep your ears open as he is positioning himself for the possibility to go head to head with Hillary.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Bush has the right to appoint whomever he wants to.That's part of his job.But the congress also has the right to not go along with it.If they can find something they don't like they have the right to vote no.It would be exactly the same if we had a liberal president who appointed a liberal judge.Conservative Republicans would have the right to vote no and they would.

Which brings up the question....should the president appoint someone way to one side and try to ram it through,or should he appoint someone who is a moderate and can get support from both sides.I really don't know where Roberts is....we will find out when the hearings start.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Wow..........."the Republicans would have the right to vote no and they *would*". Guess someone forgot to tell them that when the vote was something like 97 to 3 for Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was so far left she was lead counsel for the ACLU.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

KEN W said:


> Bush has the right to appoint whomever he wants to.
> 
> Which brings up the question....


The answer to the Question is: GWB should appoint someone the likes of whom he said he would appoint ...

GWB was elected President based on what he said he intended to do ... When the time comes (and it has) there is no question, he told us ahead of time ...

He ran for President on a platform and was elected President on that platform

Or so it seems to me


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> the vote was something like 97 to 3 for Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was so far left she was lead counsel for the ACLU.


How quickly they forget :eyeroll: :******: uke:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

As Nominee Roberts says ...

"Just call Balls and Strikes" ... "Don't try to Pitch or Bat."

Gotta-Love-That


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Things have been bad as of late the economy is not so good we are at war and natural disastors are around. BUT today I rememberd why I voted for G Bush http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story ... D=10345516 . He may not be the brightest bulb in the box but I trust him and think he is of strong charactor unlike Clinton , Gore.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Heard an audio clip of the gov. of Louisiana today, it took place Wednesday after the storm, she didn't realize she was being taped at all. It was right after she had finished a public announcement on TV, she turns to her aid and whispers, (I really should contact the military, and I should do it this afternoon). For God sakes, didn't Bush declare Louisiana a disaster area 2 days before the storm even made land fall. The local and state govt.'s dropped the ball so bad on this one it isn't even funny. IMO, Bush has nothing to apologize for.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

It almost seems Rush may have been correct ...

"John Roberts has a higher IQ than the Entire Senate combined."

Obviousy, said in Jest, but isn't in fun watching these Senators on the left try to take writings and statemnts then present them in a way intended to "trip" Roberts up ...

These Senators just seem to me to be floundering and made to look silly in their effort.


----------

