Who was the President who appointed Clarence Thomas again?

[still_one]

[unblock]

1. Aw sh*t, don't tell me someone appointed that f*cker a *second* time!!?

[still_one]

4. noooooo, but I believe the President who appoint Thomas had a son who appointed some real choice

Supreme Court nominees also

[bdamomma]

2. George HW Bush

nt

[still_one]

5. I know

[Proud liberal 80]

3. He did give us Souter though

[diva77]

6. yah, but I think Souter backfired on his intent

[still_one]

8. Exactly, and his son insured that wouldn't happen again.

[gratuitous]

7. The same one who pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five others

In the middle of the night on Christmas Eve 1992 after he'd lost re-election and stopped the Iran/contra prosecution dead in its tracks, cutting off a trial that would have put the lie to his assertion that he was "out of the loop."

[still_one]

9. It is easy to forget a lot of things, and his invsion of Iraq was motivated by April Glaspie giving

Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait, by telling Hussein the U.S. would not interfere if Iraq invaded Kuwait for oil disputes between the two countries, saying it only concerned those two countries

[UTUSN]

10. Yip, this was the strategy still going on: Very cynical

Pick somebody from one of the opponent's (us) constituent groups, puts the opponent (us) in a corner (having to attack a constituent).


The answer (Dem BigWigs, are you *listening*? ) - forGET the ethnicity, just attack because they are WINGNUT!1

[Polybius]

11. The same one who gave us a very solid liberal in David Souter

That's more than we can say for W and Trump, who each gave us two right-wingers.

[still_one]

12. They didn't appoint Souter because he was a liberal. He appointed him at Sununu's suggestion

because they thought he was just the opposite, and made up for it with Bork, which failed, and then Thomas

[Polybius]

13. It's the end result that really matters though

I'm sure they didn't know Thomas would be as rabid a right-winger either. Neither one had a long record. In the end we got a liberal and right-wing nut job.

[still_one]

14. They did. They tried Bork first and that failed. They knew exactly what they were doing with Thomas

The eulogies going on that George W. Bush was such a great president, he really wasn't.

The invasion of Iraq was motivated because bush's ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie gave Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait, saying the U.S. would not involve itself in the oil dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, and would not do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

That war was sold to the American public as a pack of lies:

https://billmoyers.com/2014/06/27/the-first-iraq-war-was-also-sold-to-the-public-based-on-a-pack-of-lies/


not unlike the lies his son's administration pulled on the second invasion. The only difference was the first invasion did not involve an occupation, nor did it change the whole balance of power in the middle east, which is a big difference

[Polybius]

16. Well Reagan tried Bork in 1987, not Bush

His record was long and impossible to hide. Bush picked Souter in what he was assured would be a "steal conservative", but Sununu had no solid proof.

In the end, intent or not, Roe vs. Wade was spared only because Souter was picked.

[still_one]

18. Thank you for the correction. Roe V Wade is law, and has been ruled Constitutional by the SC. It

is highly unlikely by the principle of stare decisis that the SC would over turn it. Even with Conservative justices. It is also highly unlikely that and amendment to the Constitution would be passed to over turn it also.

However, if that were to happen it would leave abortion up to states, where it would be allowed in blue states, but illegal in most red and purple states. Not a good thing for women living in those states where it would be deemed illegal, and most likely cause women who needed an abortion to travel to states where it was legal

Then again, what did those who voted third party or not vote think would happen in 2016 by their actions?

[Polybius]

19. Well, in 1992 we came one vote away from overturning it

In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the vote was just 5-4 to reaffirm Roe. Souter (not to mention Kennedy and Oconner) voted to save it. They had the votes, but they voted with the liberal Justices. Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and White voted to strike it down. It was about to be gone until Kennedy allegedly switched his vote at the last minute.

Edit: Wow. In 1992 Republicans has 7 Supreme Court Justices and one conservative Democrat (White)! Thank goodness that got a few picks wrong!

[still_one]

20. We are just damn lucky. They did not expect Kennedy and O'Conner to honor precedent

Roe V Wade theoretically should have been overturned decades ago as you pointed out.

The Democrats, especially women have been too damn complacent for too long, and we have had more than enough wake up calls

Perhaps, though I am not convinced, after losing 2 SC justice nominations, maybe people are finally waking up thanks to the midterms

There is no doubt you and I are going to most likely be aligned on most issues, and whether my personal opinion of George H. Bush has merit or not means very little. I will say he recognized the danger of trump, and voted for Hillary which speaks very highly of him

[dflprincess]

15. But for every David Souter or Earl Warren

who doesn't do what he was expected to do, there's several dozen Roberts and Kavanaughs.

[Polybius]

17. We get our picks right though

Our last wrong Supreme Court pick? Byron White, who Kennedy picked in 1962. It's Republican Presidents who sometimes pick the wrong one (or right one to us), and their track record since Nixon has been at best 60-40.

As for Kavanaugh, I still have hope that maybe, just maybe, he won't be as conservative as we thought. I know I'm dreaming.

[still_one]

21. I have more faith that Roberts has the potential to keep the court from going to far to the right