The Importance of These SCOTUS Appointments

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MikeIsaj

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
878
Location
North of the City of Brotherly Love, West of The P
Does anyone else see the potential in SCOTUS rulings in the near future? Any day now the lawsuits will start in the aftermath of Katrina. No doubt, there is fertile grounds for civil rights and 2d and 4th amendment complaints. It is not hard to imagine the Supreme Court hearing cases of 2A an 4A violations. This could easily be an opportunity for the court to officially clarify exactly what the framers of the constitution meant for better or worse. Kinda puts the current vacencies, and the importance of who fills them in a whole new light.

Add to that yesterdays decision re; The Pledge of Allecience, and a recent decision in Michigan on that topic we don't discuss here (and please don't on this thread), and the nominees of Roberts and an as yet unannounced name have the potential to change the direction of this country for many years to come.

What's everyone think?
 
The Roberts nomination is important because with Rehnquist gone we need a strict constitutionalist just to keep the 5-3 + 1 swing vote disadvantage.

If Roberts ends up backstabbing us it will be at best a 6-2 + 1 swing vote against us and you can expect more of the rubbish the SCOTUS has been handing out in recent times. More things added to 'interstate commerce', more power of government to seize property and fewer explicitly mentioned rights in the BOR and more 'rights' pulled out of the ether.

God help us if Shrub's other appointment is a closet liberal. Can you say 7-2 leftwing majority? Scalia and Thomas will be the only ones that adhere to the US Constitution and civil war can't be too far behind.
 
boofus: This country's never had a civil war, no matter how bad things got. Why would you forsee such for the future?
 
Umm, wasn't there a wee bit of a tussel around the 1860's that cost 700,000 American lives?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the way, the 17th is the anniversary of the Battle of Antietam.

Wikipedia
The battle was over by 5:30 p.m. Losses for the day were heavy on both sides. The Union had 12,410 casualties with about 2,100 dead. Confederate casualties were 10,700 with about 2,700 dead. On the evening of September 18, after a truce for both sides to recover their wounded, Lee's forces began withdrawing across the Potomac to return to Virginia.
Click to expand...

That is 23,100 casualties with 4,800 dead IN ONE DAY.
 
Back then with their crude hospitals and unsterilized equipment, being wounded was pretty much a death sentence too. May as well move most of the casualties over to the dead column.

Alot of lives lost in a civil war that people don't remember. :scrutiny:
 
It wasn't a civil war. It was an invasion of a sovereign nation that happened to previously be a part of the Union.
 
This country's never had a civil war, no matter how bad things got. Why would you forsee such for the future?
Click to expand...


:what:


Wow, I hope you actually dont believe this.
 
It wasn't a civil war. It was an invasion of a sovereign nation that happened to previously be a part of the Union.
Click to expand...

+ 1/2

Remember Missouri and the other border states. My Great Grandfathers were both in St. Louis. One was pro Union :barf: , the other was a proud patriot of the Confederacy. :p (the Confederate one got run out of town.) :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top