|
|
|
This topic is archived. |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
|
| thereismore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:53 AM Original message |
| Why did not Scalia attend the new Chief coronation? Can he be |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| |
| Zen Democrat
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:55 AM Response to Original message |
| 1. Scalia is soooo in a snit. Being chief justice was his wet dream. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| TallahasseeGrannie
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:55 AM Response to Original message |
| 2. What was his official excuse? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Zen Democrat
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:57 AM Response to Reply #2 |
| 4. He had a previous "speaking engagement." |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| jobycom
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:57 AM Response to Original message |
| 3. I hadn't heard. What's the rumor? He's angry he's not Chief Justice? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| wanpete
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:01 PM Response to Reply #3 |
| 5. that's the one shining star in this whole scotus thing. Scalia made |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| napi21
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:01 PM Response to Reply #3 |
| 6. As soon as I heard Shrub named Roberts, I knew Scalia would |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| librechik
|
Fri Sep-30-05 04:31 PM Response to Reply #6 |
| 19. nah-too afraid his erection would be noticeable under the robe n/t |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| leesa
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:05 PM Response to Reply #3 |
| 8. He also hid Cheney's Energy Papers. Another huge 'favor'..he's GOT to be |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| jobycom
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:07 PM Response to Reply #8 |
| 10. Hey, maybe Delay's case or Fitzgerald's investigation will make it |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| dhinojosa
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:01 PM Response to Original message |
| 7. Would it be cool, that he votes liberal in every issue from now on just... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| NV Whino
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:05 PM Response to Reply #7 |
| 9. Dream on. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| ms liberty
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:19 PM Response to Original message |
| 11. I hope he's so pissed he never gets over it... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| rocktivity
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:28 PM Response to Original message |
| 12. On what grounds did the other justices get bypassed anyway? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| tinfoilinfor2005
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:34 PM Response to Reply #12 |
| 13. I was wondering that too. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| eleny
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:40 PM Response to Reply #12 |
| 15. There's no strong history of Chief Justices being chosen from the SC |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| thereismore
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:40 PM Response to Reply #12 |
| 16. The Chief gets to pick the agenda in many ways. His clerks prepare |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| AntiCoup2K4
|
Fri Sep-30-05 12:40 PM Response to Original message |
| 14. Could you blame Fat Tony for being pissed? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| no_hypocrisy
|
Fri Sep-30-05 02:00 PM Response to Original message |
| 17. I predict some really nasty concurring decisions wherein |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| category5
|
Fri Sep-30-05 03:20 PM Response to Original message |
| 18. If Bush nominates Scalia for CJ, then there would be THREE |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Silverhair
|
Fri Sep-30-05 10:31 PM Response to Reply #18 |
| 20. Exactly, plus it was faster. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| category5
|
Fri Sep-30-05 11:14 PM Response to Reply #20 |
| 21. personally I am glad Scalia is NOT the CJ....Roberts seems less extreme |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Silverhair
|
Sat Oct-01-05 06:33 AM Response to Reply #21 |
| 22. I don't think Jr, made the mistake that Sr. did. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| ReadTomPaine
|
Sat Oct-01-05 07:21 AM Response to Reply #22 |
| 23. Bingo. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Poiuyt
|
Sat Oct-01-05 09:38 AM Response to Original message |
| 24. Were all the other Justices there? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Neshanic
|
Sat Oct-01-05 09:50 AM Response to Original message |
| 25. He was having fuzzy-headed monkey sex. He's in a snit too. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Little-Jen
|
Sun Oct-02-05 01:35 AM Response to Original message |
| 26. Wouldn't it be funny if Scalia is so pissed |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 22nd 2013, 04:52 PM Response to Original message |
| Advertisements [?] |
| Top |
| Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
|
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC