Skip to comments.
'tis the season for a Supreme Court retirement (vanity)
None ^
| 6/3/06
| Dan
Posted on 06/29/2006 8:54:45 PM PDT by dangus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
To: syriacus
Retirement speculation notwithstanding, I might concur with your first supposition.
"Nancy Boys" can be rather prissy....
21
posted on
06/30/2006 6:15:41 AM PDT
by
TeleStraightShooter
(The Right To Take Life is NOT a Constitutional "Liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment)
To: dangus
Scalia's having too much fun to retire. You can tell he loves his job. And he looks extremely healthy. We need his brilliance a while longer.
22
posted on
06/30/2006 6:22:48 AM PDT
by
blitzgig
To: syriacus
It would be mind-jarringly stupid to train a guy who's going to outlast them by more than twenty years and who is slavishly dedicated to stare decisis for the integrity of the court to regard their opinions as infantile, personal, petit issues.
23
posted on
06/30/2006 7:52:58 AM PDT
by
dangus
To: dangus
This post has been republished at the confirmthem blog site.
24
posted on
06/30/2006 8:15:12 AM PDT
by
dangus
To: dangus
t would be mind-jarringly stupid to train a guy who's going to outlast them by more than twenty years and who is slavishly dedicated to stare decisis for the integrity of the court to regard their opinions as infantile, personal, petit issues.I'm sorry. I don't catch your drift....Could you explain what you mean, for a slower person like me?
25
posted on
06/30/2006 8:18:48 AM PDT
by
syriacus
(Are "anti-tribunal" justices exhibiting "Chiefness" envy of Chief Justice John Roberts?)
To: syriacus
Well, checks and balances are about balancing opposing forces. If they see themselves as some kind of a check against Roberts, then they see themselves as opposing Roberts, and doing so on completely illegitimate grounds. Roberts, by nature, likes to govern by consensus and, as a matter of legal philosophy, hates to overturn an earlier decision by the Supreme Court. Waging a petit war against Roberts could help him become a more strident conservative. And since he will inevitably outlast the three justice-bandits, turning him more conservative could only be devestatingly counter-productive.
26
posted on
06/30/2006 8:25:38 AM PDT
by
dangus
To: syriacus
Emotions ran high at the court
As Stevens wrote out his retort
With ***
shotgun** precision
To Roberts' decision.
Lasers are not Stevens forte.
**heh-heh**
27
posted on
06/30/2006 8:35:00 AM PDT
by
syriacus
(Are "anti-tribunal" justices exhibiting "Chiefness" envy of Chief Justice John Roberts?)
To: dangus
I appreciate your explanation. What you say makes sense. Thank you.
28
posted on
06/30/2006 8:36:32 AM PDT
by
syriacus
(Are "anti-tribunal" justices exhibiting "Chiefness" envy of Chief Justice John Roberts?)
To: syriacus
You're very welcomed. It's almost disarming that someone simply ask for an explanation on FR. =^D
29
posted on
06/30/2006 11:54:15 AM PDT
by
dangus
To: dangus
It's almost disarming that someone simply ask for an explanation on FR. =^DWhen we were newlyweds, my mother-in-law repeatedly told my husband and me that, in many situations, it's better to ask questions, than pretend to understand something.
It's nice to know that people like you are willing to take the time to explain your ideas.
30
posted on
06/30/2006 1:22:41 PM PDT
by
syriacus
(Are "anti-tribunal" justices exhibiting "Chiefness" envy of John Roberts?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson