Well, I guess this seals the deal. It will be a fundamentalist taliban style judge. We know it won't be Gonzalez for sure.
Posted by Ga6thDem at July 19, 2005 02:21 PMI don't think anything ABC says "seals the deal" in my book...
Posted by Tex at July 19, 2005 02:28 PMApparently ABC's source is associated with Clement, not the administration. Leads me to give more credence to the story.
Posted by muckcat at July 19, 2005 02:30 PMAs I understand, Luttig is the only one whose wife and kids were all dressed up in court today while he was sitting on the bench. So....it's probably him if it's not Clement. God, let's hope they aren't wearing flip-flops. As if putting another souless, heartless, mindless neo-con on the court wouldn't be indignity enough.
Posted by PretzelsOne at July 19, 2005 02:32 PMLuttig!
Not another white male!
How boring.
Posted by muckcat at July 19, 2005 02:37 PMI'm gonna go with my gut and say it's Gonzales.
It's just how Bush operates.
Promote from within.
Posted by muckcat at July 19, 2005 02:43 PMSay hello to Mr. Torture.
Posted by theologicus at July 19, 2005 02:47 PMThink about it, Muckcat. These people think that rich white males ought to be in charge of everything. It's how Jesus would want it. Luttig fits quite well into Bush's world. There would still have one woman on the court, and that's more than enough in the neo-con mind.
Posted by PretzelsOne at July 19, 2005 02:48 PMThink about it, Muckcat. These people think that rich white males ought to be in charge of everything. It's how Jesus would want it. Luttig fits quite well into Bush World. Besides, there would still be one woman on the court, and that's more than enough in the neo-con mind.
Posted by PretzelsOne at July 19, 2005 02:49 PMIt's how Jesus would want it.
Jesus was black.
Posted by muckcat at July 19, 2005 02:49 PMBlasphemy!!! At most he was a suntanned Jew.
Posted by PretzelsOne at July 19, 2005 02:51 PMSorry.
It's a running joke I have with my wife.
Posted by muckcat at July 19, 2005 02:54 PMA running joke about Jesus? Well, I guess we can scratch you off the SCOTUS list of possibilities.
Posted by PretzelsOne at July 19, 2005 02:58 PMJesus' complexion has as little to do with this decision as his words or actions have any influnce over any of these megalomaniacal neo-cons.
Posted by at July 19, 2005 03:00 PMJesus' complexion has as little to do with this decision as his words or actions have any influnce over any of these megalomaniacal neo-cons.
Someone's a little cranky.
Posted by muckcat at July 19, 2005 03:02 PMYou are right, of course, "posted," but this is how these neo-cons think. As far as they are concerned, Jesus looked like Pat Robertson and was as mean spirited as Tom DeLay....because that's the way they want him to have been.
Posted by PretzelsOne at July 19, 2005 03:04 PMI just can't agree with you PretzelsOne. I see no basis for presuming that Bush and other neo-cons are interested only in having white males take charge of everything. They may be interested in spreading power to like-minded conservatives, but racism and sexism are not hallmarks of this administration.
And I also agree with Muckcat. Gonzales makes sense for many reasons, but mostly because he is likely to get easily confirmed. That saves the real fight for the next opening.
Posted by Andy at July 19, 2005 03:07 PMNice straw man pretzels...
muckcat,
Where does the whole Jesus was a black man theory come from? Was he not really a Jew? Are blacks the real Jewish race? Or is this Issa you are talking about instead of Jesus? Just curious...
Jesus could very well have been black. Although it is known that his mother was Hebrew, he was immaculately conceived and, of course, God is a black male.
Posted by obelus at July 19, 2005 03:17 PMIt makes no difference whatsoever if Jesus was black, white, yellow, red, brown, or green. What matters is his message, and the neocons are about as far away from that as they can get. But, somehow they have managed to use Jesus to achieve their goals of absolute political domination by "praying" upon the collective stupidity of the American people. Just my opinion, of course. In their hands, Jesusis just a means to an end.
Posted by PretzelsOne at July 19, 2005 03:18 PMSorry, cranky as charged. I should never post from work at the end of the day.
I still stand by my statement -- just imagine that I restated it here after a nice glass of vino.
Posted by caroline at July 19, 2005 03:44 PMSteve, there is a new Pew Poll out more bad news for chimpy. You might want to create a post with the results.
Posted by Jesusland Joe at July 19, 2005 04:35 PMGallup has bad news for Chimpy too.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000981193
Posted by Jesusland Joe at July 19, 2005 04:48 PMI've been reading a lot about Jesus lately, and there's a pretty good theory that he never existed at all. His entire life story is taken from ancient religions. Fascinating stuff. Anyway...
As much as I had hope when Bush said it would be someone who reflects mainstream America, I think it's going to be someone very far right. That will cause a huge fight and keep Rove out of the news. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, but I don't think I've ever have been by pleasantly surprised by Bush.
On the other hand, I'm starting to think that Laura, who is much less conservative, is starting to get sick of her own husband and maybe she's trying to keep him in line. Who knows.
Posted by CG at July 19, 2005 04:51 PMBush will nominate someone who can take the pressure off him and the Plame case. A fight is coming, and it will divert attention.
Posted by Judith at July 19, 2005 05:04 PMIt's John C. Roberts Jr., appellate judg eon the DC Circuit.
It's John C. Roberts Jr., appellate judge on the DC Circuit.
I found this about John Roberts at
In the unanimous ruling last October in Hedgepeth v. WMATA, Roberts upheld the arrest, handcuffing and detention of a 12-year-old girl for eating a single french fry inside a D.C. Metrorail station. "No one is very happy about the events that led to this litigation," Roberts acknowledged in the decision, but he ruled that nothing the police did violated the girl's Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment rights.
Roberts also displayed what some viewed as insouciance toward arroyo toads in a 2003 case, Rancho Viejo v. Norton. Roberts wanted the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider a panel's decision that upheld a Fish and Wildlife Service regulation protecting the toads under the Endangered Species Act. Roberts said there could be no interstate commerce rationale for protecting the toad, which, he said, "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California."
Little girls, french fries, toad living in Cali . . . hmmmmm.
Posted by caroline at July 19, 2005 05:05 PM[T]here could be no interstate commerce rationale for protecting the toad, which, he said, "for reasons of its own lives its entire life in California."
Now, I really like CA. Can't wait until I graduate, and can return. But that, folks, is funny. Especially in a judicial opinion.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 19, 2005 05:10 PMWhere does the whole Jesus was a black man theory come from?
As I said it's a running joke between my wife and I. She being black. I being white. Both being Catholic.
But seriously Jesus wasn't a white man by any stretch of the imagination.
Posted by muckcat at July 19, 2005 06:58 PMSorry muckcat I missed you post about the joke. I was curious. I think Jesus was a Hebrew of the house of David. That is an important point in my view of the Bible. He message could have come from any race creed or color, but in my view, it is important that he comes from the line of David to fulfill the words of the prophets... But some of the pictures of Jesus make him look pretty anglo saxon which is silly. just my 2 cents.
Posted by Tex at July 19, 2005 08:24 PMI though Jesus looked like Jim Caviezel
Posted by the professor at July 20, 2005 06:47 AM