everything but the girl

Back | Front

Yeah, but...

Nov. 9th, 2004 at 8:12 PM

What if Ashcroft resigned to be a contender for the Supreme Court?

Comments

( Ooh )

mattador wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:13 pm (UTC)

shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

Link | Reply | Thread

pinkfinity wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:16 pm (UTC)

You know, if he makes it to the court you won't be able to say that online anymore.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

mattador wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:21 pm (UTC)

All the more reason to say it now.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

shezan wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:18 pm (UTC)

You just love to feel terrible, right? ;-)

Link | Reply | Thread

pinkfinity wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:21 pm (UTC)

It's not so much that, as it is begging for 4-4 decisions as he's be expected to recuse himself from anything the justice department worked on in his tenure. Then again, that's one way to keep roe v wade on ther books for 4 more years or so.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

no_remorse wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:18 pm (UTC)

What if he is replaced by someone even worse? I know hard to imagine, but, hey, Murphy's Law, you know. Anyone knows some higher ups in the music industry that give Ashcroft a record deal and lure him from politics with sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll? Come on, it's a small price to pay.

Link | Reply | Thread

evil_erato wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:20 pm (UTC)

Well, that is a frightening thought indeed. Like I wasn't paranoid enough already...

Link | Reply | Thread

sternel wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:22 pm (UTC)

::watches bubble burst, with a little wisp of smoke::

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

lizardlaugh wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:24 pm (UTC)

I don't think he'd get confirmed.

Link | Reply | Thread

missmarypotter wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:24 pm (UTC)

me neither

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

melodylemming wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:32 pm (UTC)

Ouch. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better just not to think at all, but Bush & co. would like that, wouldn't they?

Link | Reply | Thread

piperx wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:41 pm (UTC)

Then I really would move to Canada.

Here I was thinking that the worst case scenario is replacing him with someone worse than Ashcroft. Thanks a lot.

Link | Reply | Thread

spiritedrinoa wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:47 pm (UTC)

You are the SECOND person on my flist to suggest this. It's a scary thought though. Would it surprise me? Probably not.

Link | Reply | Thread

virginia_bell wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:50 pm (UTC)

Oh. No. The Senate wouldn't let that happen.

Right?

Link | Reply | Thread

psychic_serpent wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 08:30 pm (UTC)

Well actually, that's one reason (not Ashcroft specifically, just anyone like him) that James Dobson doesn't want Specter to head up the judiciary committee. So the fact that a recommendation of Ashcroft probably wouldn't get out of committee and even if it did the GOP probably couldn't muster 60 votes to override a Democratic filibuster means that--well, probably no one the Republicans want will be approved unless they're very middle-of-the-road. We should probably prepare ourselves for four more years of empty federal benches and backlogged court dockets... And we have to remember, Bork was blocked from confirmation. I just wish they'd actually focussed on Thomas not being qualified, rather than on the whole stupid Anita Hill thing. He was in the wrong but there was no real evidence. It was a he said/she said thing. He's been a total waste of space on the Supreme Court and will do whatever Scalia tells him to do. Luckily, despite being essentially conservative at heart, Kennedy is actually able to discern what the Constitution says, and so is O'Connor, for the most part.

Ashcroft wouldn't know the Constitution (esp. the Bill of Rights) if it danced naked before him in a tea cozy. ;)

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

datta wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 05:55 pm (UTC)

That's sort of terrifying.

Link | Reply | Thread

obopolsk wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 06:10 pm (UTC)

Ugh. No. Don't even suggest it.

Link | Reply | Thread

acusa_dora wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 06:57 pm (UTC)

Well, at least now I have indigestion for a GOOD reason!

Link | Reply | Thread

abigail89 wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 07:07 pm (UTC)

Oh. Shite. I hadn't considered that.

Link | Reply | Thread

plaidphoenix wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 07:11 pm (UTC)

Please, do not screw with my head like that please. Kthxbye.

Link | Reply | Thread

verstehen wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 07:16 pm (UTC)

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH.

Not that I think he'd have a snowball's chance in hell. Unless he's been making deals with the devil or something.

Link | Reply | Thread

jackoweskla wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 07:37 pm (UTC)

I've been thinking that all week. Why did you have to put my fears in writing?

I still don't think it would be as scary as Scalia as Chief Justice, however...

Link | Reply | Thread

ashkitty wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 07:57 pm (UTC)

Perhaps lightning would strike him? It could happen.

*crosses fingers*

Link | Reply | Thread

shelaghc wrote:

Nov. 9th, 2004 08:21 pm (UTC)

Moderate Republican Arlen Specter is next in line as head of the House Judiciary Committee. He's vowed to oppose any Supreme Court justice that is in opposition to Roe v. Wade.

But the Conservatives are fighting to stop his appointment.

Know anyone who wants to help make sure Specter gets in?

Link | Reply | Thread