Slashdot Mirror
Justice O'Connor Retiring
rlbond86 writes "The New York Times reports that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be retiring. Justice O'Connor, the first woman to become a Supreme Court justice, is considered by many the crucial 'swing vote' on many issues. How will this affect Supreme Court decisions in the future?" From the article: "Her departure, which had been the subject of rumors for weeks but was still a surprise, will give President Bush his first opportunity to name a justice to the Supreme Court. It is still not clear whether Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer and had been widely expected to resign, will step down this summer, giving Mr. Bush another seat to fill."
Why is this relevant to the /. community? It's not like the departing Supreme Court Justice is being replaced with a computer.
I'm really not looking forward to Bush filling one "for life" seat. Filling two is 2x shitty.
I think her replacement is being outsourced to India like any other American job. The Indians can judge better than Americans for lower pay. Gotta love the free market economy. :P
She just voted in favor of removing people's property rights (that was last week). That is a very highly publicized news item recently.
/. community would be wise to support a replacement that respects the constitution and will vote against any decisions to take your rights away (be it property rights, patent reform, privacy rights, etc.)
The
.
It was a good run anyway.
****SMACK****
Adios ya libreral fruitcakes! Lets get those commandments back in our Courthouses so we'll have a reminder of what's right and what's wrong.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
In the 3 recent bad SCOTUS decisions (including the medical marijuana and eminent domain decisions) it seems to me the "conservatives" wrote the disents. That being said, we may very well be heading towards a fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. In general, I find the recent trend towards "govenments can do anything they damn well please" to be extremely disturbing. Remember that governments are made up of human beings that are quite capable of being short sighted, corrupt, even mean spirited. Hence the need to limit the power of governments to keep people like Richard Nixon and George Bush from doing whatever they want just because the beleive they have some divine right to do so.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You can express yourself all you want. But when you endorse treason against the democracy, you should be prepared for the consequences.
"Fundamentalist", in general usage, refers to Christian Fundamentalists---the largest and most visible group that self-labels that way. Don't be difficult.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I can hardly wait for People for the American Way and other so-called non-partisan groups to start predicting the end of civilized life on the planet if another judicial conservative is appointed to the court. It's a great way for them to raise money.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
"The majority of this country chose him..."
not the first time around.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream
Go put on your tin-foil hat before Bush's secret police come and use their mind control device!
Oh noes! Companies do things to make money! Unborn babies will no longer have the Constitutional right to be murdered! What is this world coming to?
If she were a Democrat, she'd be touted as the next coming of Martin Luther King, Jr. That's all I'm saying.
Most of the criticism I hear of her, like yours, is highly partisan.
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Will Bush be a uniter or a divider? Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Isn't it interesting how people always insist the Founding Fathers were just likey they?
It's generally religious evangelicals who want to claim the Founding Fathers established a government that was supposed to favor their religion. That they were Christians and that they were founding a Christian nation with a Christian government.
The founding fathers were not Christians, nor were they like me. The Founding Fathers were generally Desists. I am not a Deist.
A Deist is one who believes in some form of God, but rejects ALL scripture of ALL religions. Unlike me. Deists beleive in God, but reject claims of divinely revealed scripture. Unlike me. Thomas Jefferson in particular called the Bible a "dung-hill" and dismissed apostle writings of miracles as the ravings of a lunatic. Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral teacher - in exactly the same way one would admire Mahatma Ghandi as a moral teacher. One or more other Founding Fathers explicitly dismissed the Bible as a fable. I think it was Madison who said that any contact between government and religion could only be a currupting influence on both.
The Founding Fathers did not establish a "Chistian government", they established a government required to remain neutral between religions and religious beliefs so that the population could best persue and learn and advance religion free of government contact and curruption in either direction.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Since the US has taken the lead in asserting extraterritorial judgement in human rights matters you are dead wrong on this.
The US is bound by treaty obligations it has accepted, in fact the Constitution explicitly states that treaties signed by the US are part of US law.
That is why sooner or later there is going to be an accounting for the crimes being committed at Guantanamo. Regardless of whether Guantanamo is under US sovereignty US law clains extraterritorial jurisdiction in cases of torture.
This is not a bad thing, it would be a bad thing if the US ended up extraditing US troops to Cuba for trial for war crimes committed on their territory. On the other hand it means that Bush cannot block prosecutions by granting pardons.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/