HOLY CRAP!!! Rehnquist Dead

[JPhillips]

Just saw this on another site. Going to CNN to confirm.

Yep, its the top banner on CNN, but no link to a story.

[Cringer]

Wow, yup they are showing it on CNN right now.

[JPhillips]

Have there been two vacancies at once since the court was formed?

[JeffNights]

Rest in Peace and thanks for his service to the nation for these many years.

[JPhillips]

I know it just happened but could they at least have taken a few seconds to proff this awful AP article?

Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies

* Sign In to E-Mail This
* Printer-Friendly
* Reprints

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 3, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died Saturday evening at his home in suburban Virginia, said Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg.

A statement from the spokeswoman said he was surrounded by his three children when he died in Arlington.

"The Chief Justice battled thyroid cancer since being diagnosed last October and continued to perform his dues on the court until a precipitous decline in his health the last couple of days," she said.

Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court as an associate justice in 1971 by President Nixon and took his seat on Jan. 7, 1982. He was elevated to chief justice by President Reagan in 1986.

His death ends a remarkable 33-year Supreme Court career during which Rehnquist oversaw the court's conservative shift, presided over an impeachment trial and helped decide a presidential election.

The death President Bush his second court opening within pour months and sets up what's expected to be an even more bruising Senate confirmation battle than that of John Roberts.

Rehnquist, 80 and ill with cancer, presided over President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999, helped settle the 2000 presidential election in Bush's favor, and fashioned decisions over the years that diluted the powers of the federal government while strengthening those of the states

[mhass]

RIP

Mr. Bush has a bit of a full plate about now. Times like these make or break a presidency.

[DaddyTorgo]

fuck fuck fuck. i don't want to politicize this thread, so i'll keep my opinions to myself, but let me just say that i am not happy about this one bit.

[Galaxy]

A sad week for the country right now with Katrina and this.

[Izulde]

fuck fuck fuck. i don't want to politicize this thread, so i'll keep my opinions to myself, but let me just say that i am not happy about this one bit.

".

[DaddyTorgo]

".
???

[Izulde]

???

Common forum convention indicating agreement. :)

[ISiddiqui]

HOLY SHIT!

Well there comes the 2nd open spot on the SCOTUS.

RIP :(

[DaddyTorgo]

Common forum convention indicating agreement. :)
well that's what i assumed the period meant. didn't understand the quotation mark, that's all.

[Mustang]

fuck fuck fuck. i don't want to politicize this thread, so i'll keep my opinions to myself, but let me just say that i am not happy about this one bit.

I'm sure Rehnquist isn't too happy about this either. . .

[Huckleberry]

" = ditto

[Young Drachma]

Wow, this is shocking..but only because we hadn't quite swallowed the whole Roberts deal yet to be thrown this curveball.

[Galaxy]

Wow, this is shocking..but only because we hadn't quite swallowed the whole Roberts deal yet to be thrown this curveball.


Yeap, and the hurricane took our minds off the Supreme Court and Rehnquist.

[Young Drachma]

Yeap, and the hurricane took our minds off the Supreme Court and Rehnquist.

Exactly. I suspected it would happen this way, when folks least expected it. But damn.

I say Gonzales gets the nod. Or a woman, but I say Gonzales.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Wow.

[ISiddiqui]

Exactly. I suspected it would happen this way, when folks least expected it. But damn.

I say Gonzales gets the nod. Or a woman, but I say Gonzales.
I'd say Gonzales is a good bet. Bush probably thinks that the fight over Roberts will allow him to sneak Gonzo in (who has critics on right and left).

[Buccaneer]

fuck fuck fuck. i don't want to politicize this thread, so i'll keep my opinions to myself, but let me just say that i am not happy about this one bit.
Without opening a can of worms but I just don't get your reaction. 1) Rehnquist was long rumored to be stepping down. 2) He will be replaced with another conservative which will not alter the balance of the SC. What in the world would you have thought otherwise?

[JPhillips]

No way the Right lets Bush go with Gonzales. They will be frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to genuinely change the course of US government over the next two decades. I expect a fairly open strong conservative, but probably to the right of Rehnquist ala Scalia on the theory that Roberts is more a moderate to replace a moderate and this new nominee should be a conservative to replace a conservative.

Its interesting how in a two month period Bush will define his presidency. I always thought he would be judged on 9-11, but now with these two nominees, the Katrina mess and the upcoming Iraqi election(and hopefully not civil war) these upcoming weeks will define his legacy for good or bad.

[Galaxy]

Why do I think this thread is going to go the way of the New Orleans thread?

[ISiddiqui]

Without opening a can of worms but I just don't get your reaction. 1) Rehnquist was long rumored to be stepping down. 2) He will be replaced with another conservative which will not alter the balance of the SC. What in the world would you have thought otherwise?
Except for the fact that Roberts is definetly more to the right than O'Conner.

[ISiddiqui]

No way the Right lets Bush go with Gonzales. They will be frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to genuinely change the course of US government over the next two decades. I expect a fairly open strong conservative, but probably to the right of Rehnquist ala Scalia on the theory that Roberts is more a moderate to replace a moderate and this new nominee should be a conservative to replace a conservative.
Bush may argue that Roberts is more conservative that most people think (after Roberts has been confirmed, of course) and therefore Gonzales is the moderate.

[Buccaneer]

They will be frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to genuinely change the course of US government over the next two decades. I expect a fairly open strong conservative, but probably to the right of Rehnquist ala Scalia on the theory that Roberts is more a moderate to replace a moderate and this new nominee should be a conservative to replace a conservative.

Still, how does that change the course???

[ISiddiqui]

Still, how does that change the course???
Two very strong conservatives would overturn Roe and probably affirmative action as O'Conner was on the other side on those issues... and probably more than a few more.

[JPhillips]

Roberts is far to the right of O'Conner, but they have done a marvelous job of selling him as a moderate. He's every bit as conservative as Scalia, but he smiles and seems to be a genuinely nice guy so he doesn't come off like Scalia.

Mark my word, the second nominee will be to the right of Roberts and Rehnquist. Rehnquist was a reliable conservative, but he wasn't a blow up the commerce clause guy and I think that is what we'll get in his replacement. I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers-Brown rears her head again. No way both of the nominees get through without it turning very ugly.

[Buccaneer]

Two very strong conservatives would overturn Roe and probably affirmative action as O'Conner was on the other side on those issues... and probably more than a few more.
But Rehnquist was not. One can argue that O'Conner leaving might change things but Rehnquist would make no difference.

[Cringer]

I still don't get this whole mess about Roberts. I am FARRR from conservative (although somewhat libertarian in some areas) and I have no major problem with Roberts. Basing so much on cases he was part of as a lawyer just doesn't hold much water with me. Anyways, just babbling and don't want to thread jack.....

[ISiddiqui]

Roberts is far to the right of O'Conner, but they have done a marvelous job of selling him as a moderate. He's every bit as conservative as Scalia, but he smiles and seems to be a genuinely nice guy so he doesn't come off like Scalia.

Mark my word, the second nominee will be to the right of Roberts and Rehnquist. Rehnquist was a reliable conservative, but he wasn't a blow up the commerce clause guy and I think that is what we'll get in his replacement. I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers-Brown rears her head again. No way both of the nominees get through without it turning very ugly.
Eh? Rehnquist was the main man in blowing up the commerce clause. It's the defining cases of his Chief Justiceship.

Roberts, the question is how much does his respect for the institution go. He's genuinely respectful of the instution and precedent, but does it go as far as big time cases like abortion.

[Buccaneer]

JPhillips: If one is positioned on the left as you are, isn't everyone "far to the right"?

[ISiddiqui]

But Rehnquist was not. One can argue that O'Conner leaving might change things but Rehnquist would make no difference.
That's what we mean. If Rehnquist is replaced by a conservative as well it may lead to a shift if Roberts is more conservative than we think he is. If Roberts is more conservative than we think he is, and Rehnquist is replaced by a moderate (like Gonzales), it may not shift things.

It depends on Roberts.

[DaddyTorgo]

Without opening a can of worms but I just don't get your reaction. 1) Rehnquist was long rumored to be stepping down. 2) He will be replaced with another conservative which will not alter the balance of the SC. What in the world would you have thought otherwise?
it won't alter the balance. but it means that instead of an old-style conservative for a few more years we get 30+ years of some "new-age" conservative. And new-age versus old-style conservatism are two totally different things.

not that I wasn't expecting it to happen during this term, hell we all were. it's just not a situation i'm happy seeing.

clarification: i'm definately a liberal, but i don't "mind" old-style small-government and personal rights conservatives on my supreme court. what i do mind is new-age "extremist" conservatives who will try to legislate from the right-wing while on the bench. And for that matter I don't particularly enjoy left-wing liberals legislating from the bench either. At least when the left-wing legislates from the bench though they TEND to err on the side of being overly protective versus being discriminatory towards a minority.

[Buccaneer]

it won't alter the balance. but it means that instead of an old-style conservative for a few more years we get 30+ years of some "new-age" conservative. And new-age versus old-style conservatism are two totally different things.

not that I wasn't expecting it to happen during this term, hell we all were. it's just not a situation i'm happy seeing.

clarification: i'm definately a liberal, but i don't "mind" old-style small-government and personal rights conservatives on my supreme court. what i do mind is new-age "extremist" conservatives who will try to legislate from the right-wing while on the bench. And for that matter I don't particularly enjoy left-wing liberals legislating from the bench either. At least when the left-wing legislates from the bench though they TEND to err on the side of being overly protective versus being discriminatory towards a minority.
But hostile towards property rights. :mad:

[DaddyTorgo]

But hostile towards property rights. :mad:
i have socialist leanings Bucc, so I'm not too keen on property rights anyways. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Cringer]

I am socialist leaning on everyone else's property, but not my own. Stay away hosers. :D

[JPhillips]

Yes Bucc. I stand alone with everyone far to my right and my loneliness grates at me and makes me so sad I watch Ice Castles and Love Story every night to remember what beauty used to be. Its nice that you can add to the thread with such insightful commentary. I'm suprised you didn't mention that as a Bengals fan I couldn't possibly accept anyone outside of the Queen City.

ISiddiqui: I think there is a difference of degree. I truly think the Holy Grail of those running the far right(Norquist et al) is a complete dismantling of the commerce clause. Rehnquist, I don't think, would have ever gone that far. He was happy to poke around the edges, but I don't think he'd plunge the nation into the chaos that some on the far right would love to see if it means the return to nineteenth century style federal government.

[ISiddiqui]

ISiddiqui: I think there is a difference of degree. I truly think the Holy Grail of those running the far right(Norquist et al) is a complete dismantling of the commerce clause. Rehnquist, I don't think, would have ever gone that far. He was happy to poke around the edges, but I don't think he'd plunge the nation into the chaos that some on the far right would love to see if it means the return to nineteenth century style federal government.
Perhaps, but not even an uber-conservative like Bush will try to appoint a judge like that, even though some on the ridiculous right may.

[JPhillips]

ISid: I hope you're right. I fear a Rogers-Brown type that would love to use their court position to reshape the country and cement their place in American history.

I'm certain the Rehnquist replacement will be uglier than Roberts and will probably deserve to be.

[ThunderingHERD]

Fuck.

[Young Drachma]

I still don't get this whole mess about Roberts. I am FARRR from conservative (although somewhat libertarian in some areas) and I have no major problem with Roberts. Basing so much on cases he was part of as a lawyer just doesn't hold much water with me. Anyways, just babbling and don't want to thread jack.....

I'm with you. He's not a legal reactionary and while it's hard to really predict these things, I don't see him joining the court and going nuts.

I say that Roberts was Bush's play to the right, because he's gonna be far more conservative than folks think from the outset, given the lack of a paper trail on him.

Meanwhile, I think Bush is gonna give his boy - Gonzales - some love by putting him on the court. It just makes sense, because it's not like he's trying to get reelected again and no matter what anyone says, they all realize that there isn't a mandate from the majority of the country to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Gonzales is as sure a bet as any or expect the GOP to hurt for a long, long time to come. And no, I'm no liberal either.

[ISiddiqui]

ISid: I hope you're right. I fear a Rogers-Brown type that would love to use their court position to reshape the country and cement their place in American history.

I'm certain the Rehnquist replacement will be uglier than Roberts and will probably deserve to be.
Wasn't Rogers chastized by Gonzales when they were both on the court? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[clintl]

I wouldn't be surprised if Rogers-Brown rears her head again.

That better not happen. But if it does, I will be quite entertained if, during the confirmation process, someone brings up the fact that California Chief Justice Ronald George (a Republican who was appointed to the California Supreme Court by the same governor as Rogers-Brown) once basically called her a nut case while concurring with one of her opinions.

[Ryno]

Why do I think this thread is going to go the way of the New Orleans thread?

I got out of that one pretty quickly, but I can only imagine what was said.

Mr. Rehnquist just died and people are lining up to politicize it. Not stopping for even token sympathy. This kind of stuff really disgusts me.

I rarely post, but have lurked for years. I know no one will miss me, but I'm out of here. I'm not grandstanding or trying to garner attention. I just think that some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.

[ISiddiqui]

Um... the guy was a sitting Supreme Court justice... his death is ultimately of great significance politically (though I did say "RIP" in my first post). There is NOTHING wrong with talking about the political consequences of that death.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Um... the guy was a sitting Supreme Court justice... his death is ultimately of great significance politically (though I did say "RIP" in my first post). There is NOTHING wrong with talking about the political consequences of that death.

It doesn't happen all that often I don't believe, so it's probably worth noting that I'm in total agreement with your post.

[DaddyTorgo]

It doesn't happen all that often I don't believe, so it's probably worth noting that I'm in total agreement with your post.
i neglected to say RIP, which I shouldn't have. but i think that pretty much goes without saying, ya know? And honestly, WTF good does it do to say RIP? Unless he has family/friends reading this board I mean.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

No way the Right lets Bush go with Gonzales. They will be frothing at the mouth with the opportunity to genuinely change the course of US government over the next two decades. I expect a fairly open strong conservative, but probably to the right of Rehnquist ala Scalia on the theory that Roberts is more a moderate to replace a moderate and this new nominee should be a conservative to replace a conservative.

Its interesting how in a two month period Bush will define his presidency. I always thought he would be judged on 9-11, but now with these two nominees, the Katrina mess and the upcoming Iraqi election(and hopefully not civil war) these upcoming weeks will define his legacy for good or bad.
So true. Meaning: No 4 year vacation for him. :)

[ISiddiqui]

Didn't you know, Ryno was his son ;).

Anyway, it'd be very different if say it was O'Connor. She's already stepped down, so her death wouldn't have any political consequences. So in that situation, saying condolences and then, maybe a day later, start talking about her politics would work.

Then again, I'm not that much for offering respect for the dead on an internet forum, because as DaddyTorgo has said, I'm not really sure what good it really does. Because 5 years later, you can rip them to your heart's content and no one will say anything. Though I admit I do, personally, save my critcism for people who have died.

[TroyF]

I always wonder why people feel the need to worry about "respect" in a situation like this. You can give condolences and be upset about a death while having an understanding or curiousity about how that death will impact things.

If a superstar athlete dies tomorrow, mixed in with the shock and sadness will be the thoughts of how it will impact his team. (not only mentally, but who his replacement will be, how that will impact their schedule, etc.) Openly wondering those things doesn't mean you are a heartless fool.

In this case, especially, I see nothing wrong with people discussing the ramifications of this death. (although, like Buc, I see little reason for shock in this. We knew it was happening anyway. The timing and reasons are surprising, but we knew this was going to occur)

[Franklinnoble]

We all got it coming. And we knew Rehnquist had cancer, so there's no shock here.

I don't know why the liberals are crying about this. Clinton nominated two justices - what's the big deal? Personally, I don't really think anything is going to happen as a result of any of this. The courts will continue to litigate away our democratic processes and freedoms until we put a stop to it anyway. Bush could get the two most conservative justices he wants out there, and it won't make a lick of difference. You guys will still get to kill unborn babies, you'll still get to evict God from every imaginable facet of public life, and you'll probably still get to marry someone of your own gender at some point. Nothing the federal government does is going to bar your continued moral decay. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

[ISiddiqui]

You guys will still get to kill unborn babies, you'll still get to evict God from every imaginable facet of public life, and you'll probably still get to marry someone of your own gender at some point.
Ah, that's good. The sooner the conservatives come to this realization, the better :p. Then they just give up like good little boys.

[Franklinnoble]

Ah, that's good. The sooner the conservatives come to this realization, the better :p. Then they just give up like good little boys.
Perhaps I'm just trying to lull you into a false sense of security...

[NoMyths]

We all got it coming. And we knew Rehnquist had cancer, so there's no shock here.

I don't know why the liberals are crying about this. Clinton nominated two justices - what's the big deal? Personally, I don't really think anything is going to happen as a result of any of this. The courts will continue to litigate away our democratic processes and freedoms until we put a stop to it anyway. Bush could get the two most conservative justices he wants out there, and it won't make a lick of difference. You guys will still get to kill unborn babies, you'll still get to evict God from every imaginable facet of public life, and you'll probably still get to marry someone of your own gender at some point. Nothing the federal government does is going to bar your continued moral decay. Carry on. Nothing to see here.Have you been completely oblivious to the wrong that has been done while conservatives have been in power? There's little that can be done to prevent y'all from ending us. The "moral decay," as you put it, is prevalent on both sides. At least we're honest about ours. Y'all will pretend to be surprised by yours until the endgame, when everyone loses.

[ISiddiqui]

Perhaps I'm just trying to lull you into a false sense of security...
The march of progress always continues :p.

[NoMyths]

Besides: your side wants Power more than ours does. Which is why you'll get it. And be heirs to the ruin that it eventually, and inevitably, brings.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah I've gotta bow out of this thread now. i had forgotten why i avoided the political threads particularly on this board. I don't want to have my opinions on what people post in other threads colored by what they post in political threads, because I can't simply isolate the one from the other. If I see someone posting something in here that's offensive to me it'll immediately devalue everything else they have to say in other threads, even if it's threads about say FOF tactical advice, or relationship advice. And that may be silly, but that's just me. So yeah.

*bows out*

[JonInMiddleGA]

And that may be silly, but that's just me. So yeah.


IMO, not silly, and it's not just you.

Of course, we probably devalue different people, but that doesn't invalidate the principle ;)

[DaddyTorgo]

IMO, not silly, and it's not just you.

Of course, we probably devalue different people, but that doesn't invalidate the principle ;)
good to see that there's at least some agreement across the aisle Jon. Course I should have figured you'd feel that way.

[Franklinnoble]

Have you been completely oblivious to the wrong that has been done while conservatives have been in power? There's little that can be done to prevent y'all from ending us. The "moral decay," as you put it, is prevalent on both sides. At least we're honest about ours. Y'all will pretend to be surprised by yours until the endgame, when everyone loses.
I won't dispute that point - moral decay is everywhere. But I think it's the duty of Christian conservatives to "fight the good fight" (2Ti 4:7), even while we understand that the whole world is wicked, and will continue to be so until Christ's return. (1Jo 5:18).

I would rejoice if Roe V. Wade were overturned, and I would love to see liberal organizations like the ACLU put as much value on innocent unborn life as they do on convicted death row inmates. I just don't realistically expect it to happen in my lifetime.

[NoMyths]

Christian conservatives. That's pretty funny.

Like I said, at least the best of us are honest with ourselves.

[NoMyths]

I should also probably point out that by "us," I'm pretty specifically referring to me. Can't seem to find much in the way of commonality with any of the organized groups 'n such.

[Franklinnoble]

Christian conservatives. That's pretty funny.

Like I said, at least the best of us are honest with ourselves.
Right. Bill Clinton was so honest about his extramarital affair, his pot smoking, and his draft-dodging.

You're honest about what you can get away with. The rest of your dirt you try to cover up. There's no shame in that - it's human nature.

I am really not trying to come across "holier than thou." I am saved by the grace of God, nothing else. My nature is as wretched and sinful as anyone, and I struggle mightily on a daily basis to be obedient to God.

I think, at best, a pair of conservative judges on the Supreme Court could only slow things down a bit. But it won't stop. The world is bound to come to an end sooner or later. Our mandate is to save as many souls before that happens.

If I die today, I am 100% certain of my salvation. Would you like to have that kind of security?

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Didn't Pat Robertson pray for this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/15/politics/main563247.shtml

Two down, one to go...

[NoMyths]

Right. Bill Clinton was so honest about his extramarital affair, his pot smoking, and his draft-dodging.

You're honest about what you can get away with. The rest of your dirt you try to cover up. There's no shame in that - it's human nature.

I am really not trying to come across "holier than thou." I am saved by the grace of God, nothing else. My nature is as wretched and sinful as anyone, and I struggle mightily on a daily basis to be obedient to God.

I think, at best, a pair of conservative judges on the Supreme Court could only slow things down a bit. But it won't stop. The world is bound to come to an end sooner or later. Our mandate is to save as many souls before that happens.

If I die today, I am 100% certain of my salvation. Would you like to have that kind of security?Why in God's name are you bringing up Clinton's blowjob again? Is this going to be the kneejerk thing for the next fifty years? Hell, I supported the impeachment, as well as the result.

I'm honest about not trying to get away with anything. I'd kill myself before faking it, and it'd be nice if I could count on the rest of you to do the same.

Saved by the grace of God? You need to revisit the scripture, and forget your pride. And perhaps I even say this as an entity that's meant to help you towards that salvation of which you seem sure.

If you died today, your salvation wouldn't be assured. Nor would mine. It's a lifetime thing, Frank. The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that life is pain, and that there has to be a reason for it. So I continue to try to force people towards the best of their natures, rather than the worst. Including myself.

[Franklinnoble]

Saved by the grace of God? You need to revisit the scripture, and forget your pride. And perhaps I even say this as an entity that's meant to help you towards that salvation of which you seem sure.

If you died today, your salvation wouldn't be assured. Nor would mine. It's a lifetime thing, Frank. The only thing I'm 100% sure of is that life is pain, and that there has to be a reason for it. So I continue to try to force people towards the best of their natures, rather than the worst. Including myself.
I read the Bible daily. I can assure you that it is quite clear on the issue of salvation by grace. I'm really not sure where you're coming from, but if you really want me to, I would be happy to quote a page or two worth of verses for you to read on the subject.

You might also want to do some research on your own. There's free Bible software at http://www.e-sword.net/ Download it, and do a search on the word "grace" in the new testament.

[NoMyths]

I am very familiar with the Bible. I am trying to reach you entirely in friendship. Don't trust in infallibility.

It's all I'll say about this. But remember: it's a lifetime thing. You're not supposed to have it figured out yet, in part for your family.

[Chubby]

unborn life? what a great oxymoron...

[Ben E Lou]

If you died today, your salvation wouldn't be assured. Nor would mine. It's a lifetime thing, FrankI'd rather not get drawn into debate, but I must point out that nothing could be further from the truth.

[Flasch186]

i loved the Pat Robertson comment that got brushed under the rug....SHHHHH, no one saw it, continue on without addressing one of the pillars of the radical right's obvious immoral backbone.

I guess you could say I call your Clinton and raise you a Robertson and DeLay (who whined and whined about Schiavo while playing the other side of that coin with his own family member). Ive still got chips left so I'll play if you want.

[SFL Cat]

it won't alter the balance. but it means that instead of an old-style conservative for a few more years we get 30+ years of some "new-age" conservative. And new-age versus old-style conservatism are two totally different things.

not that I wasn't expecting it to happen during this term, hell we all were. it's just not a situation i'm happy seeing.

clarification: i'm definately a liberal, but i don't "mind" old-style small-government and personal rights conservatives on my supreme court. what i do mind is new-age "extremist" conservatives who will try to legislate from the right-wing while on the bench. And for that matter I don't particularly enjoy left-wing liberals legislating from the bench either. At least when the left-wing legislates from the bench though they TEND to err on the side of being overly protective versus being discriminatory towards a minority.

Interesting how liberals who have always pooh-poohed conservatives complaining about judges and justices who legislate from the bench as kooks and conspiracy theorists are suddenly very worried about a possible right-leaning court legislating from the bench.

To me, its just another piece of evidence that our judiciary is totally out of control and doing things it was never intended to do.

[Glengoyne]

Sorry to hear about Rehnquist, although I think most figured that this was coming. I believe he did much for his country, and much for the Supreme Court. As others have said RIP.

[Glengoyne]

Wasn't Rogers chastized by Gonzales when they were both on the court? Or am I thinking of someone else? Hey Keep your Moveon.org propoganda straight. That was Priscilla Owen. Well in truth it wasn't, but that was what the story was. In truth he was criticizing another judge on the panel who had written a separate dissent.


http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Edit: had to come back and add the smiley, cause I thought I may have been a bit harsh. The Smiley fixes all.

[SFL Cat]

i loved the Pat Robertson comment that got brushed under the rug....SHHHHH, no one saw it, continue on without addressing one of the pillars of the radical right's obvious immoral backbone.

immoral by what standard? If Machiavelli were around today, he would probably be pumping his fist saying, "yes, it's about time you religious people starting saying things that are practical."

I find it amusing for groups that routinely bitch about "others forcing their morality (read - religion) down my throat," can suddenly turn and complain about ANYTHING based on a perception of morality.

Regarding Robertson's comment: as a Christian, I found the statement completely off the wall and unjustified. Perhaps it's time for Pat to reread the Bible he claims to represent.

[CamEdwards]

You know, Rehnquist died because George W. Bush doesn't care about old people.

BTW, I'd be shocked if Gonzalez were the nominee to replace Rehnquist. I look for Gonzalez to be a replacement for Ginsburg if/when she steps down.

[Glengoyne]

Christian conservatives

I really wish that term hadn't been coined. For me, it is the poisoned punch of the Republican party. No offense to you Franklin. I'm a fellow believer, and I'm not trying to disparage you or anyone else. I'm just not a big fan of religion dictating politics.

unborn life? what a great oxymoron...
You should try and have more intellectual integrity. It really should be obvious to both sides of that debate. Life begins neither at conception, nor at birth. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. It is one of those darned grey areas.

My prediction is that this will lead to a mild threadjacking, and then someone will remind everyone to get back to honoring or at least debating Rehnquist.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Didn't Pat Robertson pray for this?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/15/politics/main563247.shtml

Two down, one to go...
Yes, he did. So god gives O'Connor's husband cancer and kills Rehnquist. Uh, yay god? http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

[CamEdwards]

ok, if we're going to start trotting out Pat Robertson as someone indicative of the thinking of all conservatives, can we do the same with Randi Rhodes of Air America for the liberals? I think they have the same size audience these days.

[Honolulu_Blue]

You should try and have more intellectual integrity. It really should be obvious to both sides of that debate. Life begins neither at conception, nor at birth. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. It is one of those darned grey areas.
May I implore you to read the following piece by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan on this "darned grey area" subject. It's rather long, but very thoughtful, based on sound science, and has 100x's more "intellectual integrity" than one normally finds when discussing this debate.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

[Honolulu_Blue]

ok, if we're going to start trotting out Pat Robertson as someone indicative of the thinking of all conservatives, can we do the same with Randi Rhodes of Air America for the liberals? I think they have the same size audience these days.
Not trotting Robertson as anyone other than someone indicative of the thinking of Pat Robertson.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I would love to see liberal organizations like the ACLU put as much value on innocent unborn life as they do on convicted death row inmates.
And would love to see conservative organizations put as much value on all other human life as they do on zygotes and brain dead people.

[Flasch186]

immoral by what standard? If Machiavelli were around today, he would probably be pumping his fist saying, "yes, it's about time you religious people starting saying things that are practical."

I find it amusing for groups that routinely bitch about "others forcing their morality (read - religion) down my throat," can suddenly turn and complain about ANYTHING based on a perception of morality.

Regarding Robertson's comment: as a Christian, I found the statement completely off the wall and unjustified. Perhaps it's time for Pat to reread the Bible he claims to represent.


I am simply an enemy of hypcorisy and will pound it into the ground no matter where it comes from. Ill take a KKK guy in white anyday over the KKK guy in a suit and tie....at least the guy in white I can keep an eye on and when he acts up I can take care of it appropriately since I know his backbone....The David Duke type can slither about without me knowing and strike when Im not paying attention.

[Buccaneer]

It is my fundamental belief that the federal govt has gathered too much power, not only in itself but in their hold over the states as well. The SC, unfortunately, went along with much of it. In my simplistic opinion, much of what Congress have done the 40 years should be stricken down by the Court. I look for judges that are strict Constitutionalists, not liberal or conservative in their rulings.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

unborn life? what a great oxymoron...
Um yeah. You might want to rethink that. I can assure you the child I'm carrying is very much alive.;)

[Franklinnoble]

May I implore you to read the following piece by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan on this "darned grey area" subject. It's rather long, but very thoughtful, based on sound science, and has 100x's more "intellectual integrity" than one normally finds when discussing this debate.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
I believe life does indeed begin at conception. As for the late Mr. Sagan, I've read a great many of his books. Ironically, it was his book Cosmos that convinced me of the existence of God. To me, he is a tragic figure. A brilliant atheist who couldn't see the forest for the trees.

[capsicum]

Um yeah. You might want to rethink that. I can assure you the child I'm carrying is very much alive.;)



I very much agree!

All 3 of my babies were alive and growing from the moment of conception....dont know of to many lifeless things that "grow."

[terpkristin]

The title of this thread is exactly what I thought when I heard. I only heard at around 1230 p.m. today (Sunday) because I'd just gotten up.

My second thought was the four-letter expletive starting with the letter f that was so neatly already typed out here.

/tk

[ISiddiqui]

Not to totally get involved in the debate, but for those who think life begins at conception, if the mother engages in some physical activity that results in a miscarrage, should the mother be charged with manslaughter?

If not, why not?

[Airhog]

Its one thing to knowingly end life. Its another thing to accidently, or unknowningly end life. How many miscarriages result from a mother that doesnt even know she is pregnant? Any how many miscarriages are the result of definate negligence after the mother knows she is pregnant.

If a mother knowinly attempts to end the life of her child through negligence, or other such means, then yes, she should be punished by the law...

[capsicum]

Not to totally get involved in the debate, but for those who think life begins at conception, if the mother engages in some physical activity that results in a miscarrage, should the mother be charged with manslaughter?

If not, why not?
If the women is purposefully & knowingly engaging in an act that ends the life of the baby then yes...she should face charges.

I havent heard of to many ACCIDENTAL abortions out there.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Not to totally get involved in the debate, but for those who think life begins at conception, if the mother engages in some physical activity that results in a miscarrage, should the mother be charged with manslaughter?

If not, why not?
I don't believe life begins at conception, but that's an excellent question.

[ISiddiqui]

If the women is purposefully & knowingly engaging in an act that ends the life of the baby then yes...she should face charges.

I havent heard of to many ACCIDENTAL abortions out there.
That wasn't the question, but nice try. There is this thing called involuntary manslaughter. What if the potential mother was a little bit reckless (perhaps engage in some physical activity, like playing sports at a cookout) and did someting that ended up in a miscarriage. Should she be charged with a crime?

If the zygote is life, with the rights to life, liberty, and property, etc, etc, then doing such a thing should be a involuntary manslaughter, no?

[sterlingice]

I don't know why the media would irresponsibly and report to us nonstop about how these confirmation battles are almost solely about abortion.

*shakes head and walks away* "Idiots. There's more to life than one decision, especially Roe v Wade..."

SI

[Glengoyne]

May I implore you to read the following piece by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan on this "darned grey area" subject. It's rather long, but very thoughtful, based on sound science, and has 100x's more "intellectual integrity" than one normally finds when discussing this debate.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
I'll give it a read. I doubt it will have much impact though. This is something I've done some fairly decent thinking on. I'm not saying I've applied the accumen of Sagan or Druyan, but I've run the issue through my mental wringer a time or two.


That said. I think the chances of Roe v Wade being overturned in my lifetime are about the same as me reaching low earth orbit. Furthermore I don't think that is a bad thing.

[st.cronin]

A question for pro-choicers to consider: If a woman on death row turned out to be pregnant, should her execution be postponed til her child is born?

[Cringer]

A question for pro-choicers to consider: If a woman on death row turned out to be pregnant, should her execution be postponed til her child is born?

actually, first order of business should be to find out who knocked her up, since she would have been in custody for some time to reach death row.
:)

[JonInMiddleGA]

If the zygote is life, with the rights to life, liberty, and property, etc, etc, then doing such a thing should be a involuntary manslaughter, no?

What you're talking about (I think) would be akin to the charges that exist in some states to cover vehicular homicide charges for unborn babies killed in car crashes & such - different circumstances but same basic principle. And I think charges like you're talking about do exist in some states, although I believe they're usually prosecuted against 3rd parties moreso than against the (prospective) mother.

But I'm staunchly & adamantly in favor of legal abortion, so I'm probably the wrong guy to even get involved in this thread. Basically just adding there I believe there is at least some statutes like you're talking about on the books in some states already (same kind of laws that allow crack mothers to be charged for using while pregnant).

[Crapshoot]

We all got it coming. And we knew Rehnquist had cancer, so there's no shock here.

I don't know why the liberals are crying about this. Clinton nominated two justices - what's the big deal? Personally, I don't really think anything is going to happen as a result of any of this. The courts will continue to litigate away our democratic processes and freedoms until we put a stop to it anyway. Bush could get the two most conservative justices he wants out there, and it won't make a lick of difference. You guys will still get to kill unborn babies, you'll still get to evict God from every imaginable facet of public life, and you'll probably still get to marry someone of your own gender at some point. Nothing the federal government does is going to bar your continued moral decay. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

If what we've seen from you and capsicum is moral righteousness, I for one hope fervently for decay. I think religous nuts who consign science to the dustbin are a great sign of righteousness, or nuts who think their religous beliefs should become the barometer of all policy.

In essence, I'm going to echo Glengoyle here- Christian Conservatives have ruined the individualist, libertarian leaning Rockefeller Republican party - and its a shame. One may well point that this is where the Republican party had to go to be electable, which raises another debate in itself.

[Swaggs]

From a historical standpoint, a potentially interesting event may happen.

Judge Roberts may get nominated to become the Chief Justice, as well as "just" a Supreme Court justice, so that there will only need to be two confirmations made, rather than the two replacements and a new Chief. Anyone know if that has ever happened before?

I wonder how the sitting Justices would react to that. It makes sense, but most judges have fairly sizeable egos and it could be a tough pill to swallow for some of them (in private).

[Franklinnoble]

If what we've seen from you and capsicum is moral righteousness, I for one hope fervently for decay. I think religous nuts who consign science to the dustbin are a great sign of righteousness, or nuts who think their religous beliefs should become the barometer of all policy.

In essence, I'm going to echo Glengoyle here- Christian Conservatives have ruined the individualist, libertarian leaning Rockefeller Republican party - and its a shame. One may well point that this is where the Republican party had to go to be electable, which raises another debate in itself.
And yet we hold a majority in Congress and were able to get W. elected to another term...

[SirFozzie]

yeah, this thread is going to go to hell quickly.

RIP, Judge Rehnquist. :(

[bronconick]

It is my fundamental belief that the federal govt has gathered too much power, not only in itself but in their hold over the states as well. The SC, unfortunately, went along with much of it. In my simplistic opinion, much of what Congress have done the 40 years should be stricken down by the Court. I look for judges that are strict Constitutionalists, not liberal or conservative in their rulings.
Bingo. Of course, the entire debate will be Roe v. Wade. Not like I'd rather know their opinion on property rights, for instance, among other things.

[SFL Cat]

In essence, I'm going to echo Glengoyle here- Christian Conservatives have ruined the individualist, libertarian leaning Rockefeller Republican party - and its a shame. One may well point that this is where the Republican party had to go to be electable, which raises another debate in itself.

The Rockerfeller Republicans never won shit. In fact, today's Democratic Party is fast becomming what the Rockerfeller Republicans were (at least in terms of winning elections).

[Young Drachma]

From a historical standpoint, a potentially interesting event may happen.

Judge Roberts may get nominated to become the Chief Justice, as well as "just" a Supreme Court justice, so that there will only need to be two confirmations made, rather than the two replacements and a new Chief. Anyone know if that has ever happened before?

I wonder how the sitting Justices would react to that. It makes sense, but most judges have fairly sizeable egos and it could be a tough pill to swallow for some of them (in private).

That's an interesting prospect.

I don't see it happening. But indeed it's interesting. Scalia seems the bet for CJ.

[Swaggs]

That's an interesting prospect.

I don't see it happening. But indeed it's interesting. Scalia seems the bet for CJ.

Here is the article: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050905/D8CDONCO0.html

In all honesty, it makes some sense. Rather than having three confirmation hearings beforing fielding a full set of Justices, this would only require two hearings.

[capsicum]

But I'm staunchly & adamantly in favor of legal abortion, so I'm probably the wrong guy to even get involved in this thread.



Whoa Dude

Glad im not your FOFC wife anymore or we'd be having an FOFC divorce about now :D

[Galaxy]

yeah, this thread is going to go to hell quickly.

RIP, Judge Rehnquist. :(


I called it on page one...I never quite understood discussing politics with people who you don't agree with. Politics is one of those things you are set in, and aren't chaning regardless.

[Galaxy]

Um... the guy was a sitting Supreme Court justice... his death is ultimately of great significance politically (though I did say "RIP" in my first post). There is NOTHING wrong with talking about the political consequences of that death.


I agree with you...But this is FOFC. :)

[NoMyths]

Scalia will be Chief Justice. Roberts will be confirmed with little conflict.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Whoa Dude

Glad im not your FOFC wife anymore or we'd be having an FOFC divorce about now :D
I thought you were Bubba Wheels' FOFC wife?

[Mr. Wednesday]

MSN says that Roberts is now up for Chief.

[amdaily]

MSN says that Roberts is now up for Chief.
Add this to the list of Bush's fuck ups. Now we could potentially have a Souter sitting in the Chief Justices chair, and have to appoint another moderate to fill O'Conners seat. We assumed when Rehnquist retired/died that a real conservative would be picked and that a fight would be put up for him. So much for that, this is just Bush looking to avoid another battle.

[flere-imsaho]

Roberts to be CJ nominee has been confirmed by all the major media outlets.

[Crapshoot]

The Rockerfeller Republicans never won shit. In fact, today's Democratic Party is fast becomming what the Rockerfeller Republicans were (at least in terms of winning elections).

A point I conceded, SFL - it may well be that the plank I like is unelectable by itself, which is a shame.

[Crapshoot]

Interesting choice - I was sure Scalia was going to be CJ - he's probably the most intelligent (albeit hypocritical at times) member of the court, and it was thought to be his for the taking. Isn't it gutsy putting a guy on straight as the CJ ?

[CamEdwards]

Interesting choice - I was sure Scalia was going to be CJ - he's probably the most intelligent (albeit hypocritical at times) member of the court, and it was thought to be his for the taking. Isn't it gutsy putting a guy on straight as the CJ ?

Historically, it's not all that uncommon. I confess, I would love to see Scalia as Chief Justice, but a friend of mine who's more in the know than I am made this point: Roberts is a guy who's known as a great persuader. Scalia's not. By that standard, it makes a lot of sense to have a Chief Justice who's good at convincing others to go along with him.

[John Galt]

Interesting choice - I was sure Scalia was going to be CJ - he's probably the most intelligent (albeit hypocritical at times) member of the court, and it was thought to be his for the taking. Isn't it gutsy putting a guy on straight as the CJ ?

Not really. It is not uncommon. And Scalia was never really the best choice for CJ. What made Rehnquist one of the best CJ's in history was his organizational skills, his small ego, and his effectiveness in getting things done. Scalia has never been known for those qualities. A CJ isn't anymore important than the other judges except in organizational ways. His or her vote counts the same and there really isn't any extra control from being CJ. By the accounts I have heard, Roberts is much more in the Rehnquist mold than Scalia would have been.

[HomerJSimpson]

Historically, it's not all that uncommon. I confess, I would love to see Scalia as Chief Justice, but a friend of mine who's more in the know than I am made this point: Roberts is a guy who's known as a great persuader. Scalia's not. By that standard, it makes a lot of sense to have a Chief Justice who's good at convincing others to go along with him.


Don't you think that has to hurt Scalia, though? I bet he was already sizing up the robe with special stripes.

[clintl]

I think one of two possible things is going on here:

1) The timing of Rehnquist's death is awkward for a lot of reasons. There's not much chance of getting through three confirmation hearings this fall, and the new session is due to start soon. O'Connor has apparently agreed to stay on the Court until her successor is confirmed, so with Roberts as CJ, there's still a chance the Court can start its session with a full set of justices.

2) Roberts impressed Bush in his interview even more than the Bush folks have let on, and moved ahead of Scalia as Bush's favored CJ candidate.

[CamEdwards]

I really think all the talk of a Chief Justice Scalia is overblown. I'm sure it was discussed and debated, but no one I know in DC political circles ever thought it was a realistic suggestion.

[Crapshoot]

Historically, it's not all that uncommon. I confess, I would love to see Scalia as Chief Justice, but a friend of mine who's more in the know than I am made this point: Roberts is a guy who's known as a great persuader. Scalia's not. By that standard, it makes a lot of sense to have a Chief Justice who's good at convincing others to go along with him.

That is a good point - Scalia's not one to seek compromise. I understand its been a role filled by newcomers in the past, but it seems strange to me that you would nominate a "noob" to the highest role.

[Crapshoot]

Question - is Gonzales done as far as SCOTUS is concerned ? Does Bush go wide right (I mean stupid right, like Janice Brown) or go unconventational with an Orrin Hatch or something ?

[Arles]

Arizona senator John Kyl is a darkhorse. He's very conservative, but extremely well-respected in the senate. I could see Bush go that way if he doesn't have the fortitude to nominate someone like Janice Rogers Brown. Still, I think an unquestionable conservative will be nominated for Rehnquist's spot. I can't see that being Gonzalez.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Assuming the media reports are right about the CJ choice (which is probably a dangerous assumption on my part), I'm disappointed. Roberts was passable as a moderate choice for a "regular" seat, but has too many unknowns for me to be comfortable with giving him the Chief chair.

I suspect now I'll get the double whammy on the other seat -- a far right pick for the remaining vacancy ... but one that's only far right on abortion (where I part ways with the majority on the right) and provides little else for me to be happy about.

That possibility brings up something that's interesting (at least to me) --
here in Georgia, Sonny Perdue has already managed to send my support to a (D) (barring the unlikely emergence of an R challenger for the nomination). I have a tough time seeing how anything on the Federal level could do the same, but the simple fact that I even wondered about the prospect may say something about how easy it might be to royally screw up the future.

[Crapshoot]

Assuming the media reports are right about the CJ choice (which is probably a dangerous assumption on my part), I'm disappointed. Roberts was passable as a moderate choice for a "regular" seat, but has too many unknowns for me to be comfortable with giving him the Chief chair.

I suspect now I'll get the double whammy on the other seat -- a far right pick for the remaining vacancy ... but one that's only far right on abortion (where I part ways with the majority on the right) and provides little else for me to be happy about.

That possibility brings up something that's interesting (at least to me) --
here in Georgia, Sonny Perdue has already managed to send my support to a (D) (barring the unlikely emergence of an R challenger for the nomination). I have a tough time seeing how anything on the Federal level could do the same, but the simple fact that I even wondered about the prospect may say something about how easy it might be to royally screw up the future.


Okay, who got JIMGA's password ? :D

[Young Drachma]

Here is the article: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050905/D8CDONCO0.html

In all honesty, it makes some sense. Rather than having three confirmation hearings beforing fielding a full set of Justices, this would only require two hearings.

He sure did call it. :)

[Young Drachma]

Add this to the list of Bush's fuck ups. Now we could potentially have a Souter sitting in the Chief Justices chair, and have to appoint another moderate to fill O'Conners seat. We assumed when Rehnquist retired/died that a real conservative would be picked and that a fight would be put up for him. So much for that, this is just Bush looking to avoid another battle.

Roberts is no Souter. No way.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Okay, who got JIMGA's password ? :D

LOL, like I said, a quick pass through the notion makes it seem pretty unlikely ... but I'm a little concerned that such a review was even neccessary.

It's politics, where anything is possible (however unlikely it might be). After all, who could have possibly imagined that a Governor that I had such high hopes for could so utterly destroy my interest in the state GOP by the midpoint of his term?

[Crapshoot]

LOL, like I said, a quick pass through the notion makes it seem pretty unlikely ... but I'm a little concerned that such a review was even neccessary.

It's politics, where anything is possible (however unlikely it might be). After all, who could have possibly imagined that a Governor that I had such high hopes for could so utterly destroy my interest in the state GOP by the midpoint of his term?

What has Perdue done ? I admit not hearing much about him on a national scale - wasn't he supposedly one of the new Turks - the up and coming Republican governers ?

[JonInMiddleGA]

What has Perdue done ? I admit not hearing much about him on a national scale - wasn't he supposedly one of the new Turks - the up and coming Republican governers ?

He didn't exactly get off to a sparkling start when he chose to make his very first offical action ... a tax increase. From there, it's been a series of failures & disappointments for his supporters, from mishandling the flag issue to falling short of his education promises to signing the smoking ban bill (ftr, he had lost me before that).

The problem in Georgia seems to have been this -- after 100+ years out of power, when the GOP finally got that power ... they had virtually no one who actually knew how to lead anything. There seems to be a small handful, mostly younger from more rural areas, who at least have a clue but they're badly outnumbered by those who spent too many years as the opposition party & really have proven themselves ill-prepared for their new role.

For Perdue to lose me isn't neccessarily that big a surprise in some ways -- you have to remember that I have no real history with the Rep. party here, I'm far more akin to Zell Miller, basically a Southern Democrat who was abandoned by his party over the years -- but the unrest is reaching into the lifelong GOP'ers as well. When I had a very good friend, who has never voted a Dem for any office in his life (he's in his 40's) show me the check he wrote to one of the Dem contenders ... that's why I don't believe Perdue has a chance in hell of being re-elected. He's lost the coalition that gave him a victory AND he's losing parts of the party core, which isn't a formula that gives him a snowball's chance of winning another term.

[HomerJSimpson]

He didn't exactly get off to a sparkling start when he chose to make his very first offical action ... a tax increase. From there, it's been a series of failures & disappointments for his supporters, from mishandling the flag issue to falling short of his education promises to signing the smoking ban bill (ftr, he had lost me before that, but that is enough in itself not only to refuse to vote for him but wish I could beat his tubby butt).



Fix it for ya. :)

[sterlingice]

Yeah, but, Jon- votes are always easier to give to the unnamed candidate than someone you don't like. As soon as the Dems put some sort of dope up against him, you'll be voting for him as the "lesser of two evils".

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, but, Jon- votes are always easier to give to the unnamed candidate than someone you don't like. As soon as the Dems put some sort of dope up against him, you'll be voting for him as the "lesser of two evils".

SI

No, I don't believe so. If the eventual nominee is Lt. Gov Mark Taylor, I can't see myself voting for either of them, a pair of worthless fat bastards. If it's current Sec. of State Cathy Cox, I'll vote for her (obviously, since I'm ready to send her a check to help beat that p.o.s. she's facing in the Dem primary).

[ISiddiqui]

What you're talking about (I think) would be akin to the charges that exist in some states to cover vehicular homicide charges for unborn babies killed in car crashes & such - different circumstances but same basic principle. And I think charges like you're talking about do exist in some states, although I believe they're usually prosecuted against 3rd parties moreso than against the (prospective) mother.

But I'm staunchly & adamantly in favor of legal abortion, so I'm probably the wrong guy to even get involved in this thread. Basically just adding there I believe there is at least some statutes like you're talking about on the books in some states already (same kind of laws that allow crack mothers to be charged for using while pregnant).
Yep, Jon, that is true. Those laws are on the books in some states, but I've never heard of one being used against the mother (I'm not sure they've even really been used against crack mothers.. though I could be wrong). Say a mother changed lanes without looking, hit a car and the stress caused a miscarriage. What then (not you personally, because I know your views are opposite of the type of person I'm asking this of)?

I'm not being an ass, just pointing out that there are consequences that may not have been fully thought through.

[MrBigglesworth]

I very much agree!

All 3 of my babies were alive and growing from the moment of conception....dont know of to many lifeless things that "grow."
...cancer, hair, fingernails...

[HomerJSimpson]

After a couple of threads on here today, I'm begining to envy him.