9a5e15de   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.usa.constitution   
   From: user@nowhere.com   
      
   On 7/1/2012 10:54 PM, Charles Bell wrote:   
   > On Jul 1, 10:36 pm, Josh  wrote:   
   >> On 7/1/2012 9:53 PM, Charles Bell wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> On Jul 1, 9:34 pm, Josh  wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/1/2012 9:02 PM, Charles Bell wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> By the way, did you silently predict Justice Roberts would side with   
   >>>>> the socialists and thus you can announce prescient victory?   
   >>   
   >>>>> Josh Rosenbluth Dec 13 2010, 9:29 pm   
   >>   
   >>>>> I predict no Appeals court will issue its final ruling that the   
   >>>>> mandate is unconstitutional, and SCOTUS will never hear the case.   
   >>   
   >>>>> If I am wrong about the above, SCOTUS will uphold the law by somewhere   
   >>>>> between and 8-1 and 6-3 margin.   
   >>   
   >>>>> Remember, you heard it here first.   
   >>   
   >>>> My prediction was way off.  What I thought was an easy decision under   
   >>>> precedent turned into a partisan battle.   
   >>   
   >>> And as I predict, there is never a constitutional issue before SCOTUS   
   >>> which is not a partisan battle between nationalist/socialists and   
   >>> federalist/democrats. (with Kennedy being ideologically not fixed and   
   >>> Scalia fixed in precedent) What made this hard to predict (except by   
   >>> Ann Coulter, as it turns out) was the influence of Prof.Tribe/Harvard   
   >>> Law on Roberts.   
   >>   
   >> Coulter predicted this outcome ahead of time?   
   >>   
   >>> And my point was to conservatives, unless you want   
   >>> another 30 years of this nonsense under Roberts, consider a   
   >>> Constitutional Amendment to either alter the Senate or create a   
   >>> Constitutional Committee because it is getting very hard to find   
   >>> within the federal judiciary any judge who is not a nationalist/   
   >>> socialist. President Bush's first choice over Roberts in Harriet Miers   
   >>> is looking pretty wise (and prescient), but the conservatives scolded   
   >>> him over that and look what they got.   
   >>   
   >> Miers was the first choice over Alito (Roberts had already been   
   nominated).- Hide   
   >   
   > Yes, you are correct: my confusion was over who was first nominated to   
   > replace O'connor, and Miers was nominated to replace O'Connor only   
   > after Roberts was switched to being named to replace Renquist who   
   > suddenly died.   
   >   
   > Be that as it may, whether in the first instance or later, Bush's   
   > choice to look outside of Harvard and Yale, Jew or Black or Catholic   
   > was the right affirmative action choice to make. I hope that Pres.   
   > Romney may follow, but for the fact, of course, that he has a Harvard   
   > (MBA) degree.   
      
   Apart from ideology, you don't think Miers was simply unqualified?   
   Remember the answers to the questionnaire and the fear about what she   
   would have said during the hearings.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)