![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
SCOTUS rant
You know, I really want Sandra Day O'Connor to appear on national television with Ashton Kutcher and say that Bush just got Punk'd. I really do. I want her to say it was all a big joke, and she's not going to retire until after Bush has left office.
But that's not going to happen.
I want Rehnquist, despite the cancer, to hang in there long enough so that walking puppet known as the current President of the United States doesn't get to nominate two Supreme Court Justices.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I want Justice Souter's house to be taken away from him, and a hotel, cafe, and museum to our shrinking liberties to be put up on the spot.
I really want that to happen. I don't think it's going to, though.
In fact, I want Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer to be inflicted with severe hemerroids that require a nearly caustic and incredibly smelly cream to cure. And I want the cure to take weeks.
God, you owe me that one.
Finally, I want a replacement for O'Connor that has a brain, a spine, and common sense. It remains to be seen if Roberts has any of those. It also remains to be seen if his nomination will be approved, but odds are good that the Republicans aren't going to erect any stumbling blocks, and will widely decry any Democrats who do try and block the nomination. It's possible that Roberts is not a walking extension of the bizarre brand of Christianity that has infected and infested President Bush. It's also (in the same mathematical sense) that singing llamas will jump out from under my bed and start singing O Solo Mio. Of course, the Democrats have blocked SCOTUS nominations before, with Robert Bork, and it's possible they could do it again. Mind you, with Bork, the spearhead against him was led by Edward Kennedy, and the sooner that fat fuck drives off another bridge (this time flying solo), the better.
Don't get me wrong. The concept of abortion makes me highly uncomfortable. I may not like babies and kids very much, but I've never much cottoned to the idea of killing them either before or after they're born. (Adults are different. They can at least defend themselves.) But having abortian as a legal option in this country is a hell of a lot better then having it be illegal. I don't trust most doctors as it stands right now, because of certain issues I have involving hospitals, but a clean and sterile area for medical procedures beats a back alley and a wire hanger any day of the week.
Another thing that bothers me about the Roberts nomination is that he's only been a federal appeals court judge for two years. Sure, he's been a lawyer for over two decades, but he's got just two years sitting on the bench. I don't think he's got anywhere near the experience at such things to be a Supreme Court Justice. Although, really, considering that Rehnquist was never a judge before getting to the Supreme Court, I really shouldn't count that against him. (Rehnquist was also appointed by Nixon. Scary...)
Wait and see. Wait and see. Ten bucks say the Democrats can't manage a unified front against him.
But that's not going to happen.
I want Rehnquist, despite the cancer, to hang in there long enough so that walking puppet known as the current President of the United States doesn't get to nominate two Supreme Court Justices.
I don't think that's going to happen.
I want Justice Souter's house to be taken away from him, and a hotel, cafe, and museum to our shrinking liberties to be put up on the spot.
I really want that to happen. I don't think it's going to, though.
In fact, I want Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer to be inflicted with severe hemerroids that require a nearly caustic and incredibly smelly cream to cure. And I want the cure to take weeks.
God, you owe me that one.
Finally, I want a replacement for O'Connor that has a brain, a spine, and common sense. It remains to be seen if Roberts has any of those. It also remains to be seen if his nomination will be approved, but odds are good that the Republicans aren't going to erect any stumbling blocks, and will widely decry any Democrats who do try and block the nomination. It's possible that Roberts is not a walking extension of the bizarre brand of Christianity that has infected and infested President Bush. It's also (in the same mathematical sense) that singing llamas will jump out from under my bed and start singing O Solo Mio. Of course, the Democrats have blocked SCOTUS nominations before, with Robert Bork, and it's possible they could do it again. Mind you, with Bork, the spearhead against him was led by Edward Kennedy, and the sooner that fat fuck drives off another bridge (this time flying solo), the better.
Don't get me wrong. The concept of abortion makes me highly uncomfortable. I may not like babies and kids very much, but I've never much cottoned to the idea of killing them either before or after they're born. (Adults are different. They can at least defend themselves.) But having abortian as a legal option in this country is a hell of a lot better then having it be illegal. I don't trust most doctors as it stands right now, because of certain issues I have involving hospitals, but a clean and sterile area for medical procedures beats a back alley and a wire hanger any day of the week.
Another thing that bothers me about the Roberts nomination is that he's only been a federal appeals court judge for two years. Sure, he's been a lawyer for over two decades, but he's got just two years sitting on the bench. I don't think he's got anywhere near the experience at such things to be a Supreme Court Justice. Although, really, considering that Rehnquist was never a judge before getting to the Supreme Court, I really shouldn't count that against him. (Rehnquist was also appointed by Nixon. Scary...)
Wait and see. Wait and see. Ten bucks say the Democrats can't manage a unified front against him.
no subject
Roe vs Wade is a terrible litmus test. Going strictly by the way the Supreme Court's power was delineated in the first place, it's not their place to make up constitutional rights ex nihilo. The constitution has nothing to say on abortion, or the right to privacy, ergo it's a matter for legislation, not litigation.
no subject
Abortion ISN'T a Litmus test, it's a ruse. It's not an issue right now. It's already been decided. There is next to no chance of it being reviewed, it won't be overturned no matter how many Michael Savage clones you put in the court. It is NOT an issue.
Look, -I- think abortion is a mortal (deadly) sin. But I think it should be legal. Why?? Because you can't legislate morality, and you shouldn't try. It's not the government's duty to protect stupid bitches from going to Hell. Abortion is something a VAST majority of american women WANT to have, but to never excersize. This is how a democracy works. And the males of this country generally don't have the balls to even FORM an opinion on something that does effect them, more than they know.
Besides, the real truth about abortion has been so well hidden and covered up, I don't really blame anyone for thinking the way they do. The truth is ugly, it's hard to deal with, and it is terrifyingly real.