Chief Justice Rehnquist dies.

[FlaSoxxJim]

FWIW, nominating Roberts for the top spot was in all likelihood the plan all along. O'Connor asked Rehnquist if he was stepping down this year and he said he thought he could make another year, so she announced her retirement this year in an attempt to avoid two simultaneous appointment needs. With Rehnquist's passing it didn't work out that way.

 

O'Connor has commited to staying on until her replacement is appointed, but pointed out how problematic that would be if she heard a lot of cases and then stepped down before decisions were handed down, since her replacement would not have been seated for any of the cases but her opinion would no longer be able to be considered.

[Reddy]

George Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice this morning. Eliminating the need for a third round of Supreme Court hearings this year.

 

As I predicted.

 

my generation is f***ed... wow... i'm kind of depressed about this. lets see they'll stop all abortions, take away whatever rights gay people still have, and toss all poor people over the edge of a cliff. *sigh* i'm with Juggs and the whole end of the world thing.

[G&T]

my generation is f***ed... wow... i'm kind of depressed about this.  lets see they'll stop all abortions, take away whatever rights gay people still have, and toss all poor people over the edge of a cliff.  *sigh*  i'm with Juggs and the whole end of the world thing.

 

Ugh. If you read my post I said that Roberts is a "true conservative" which means that most likely he won't bother policy making but only uphold laws set in place. You know, the way the Constitution says the Supreme Court is supposed to do things. Though Roberts does not agree with abortion, he has also said that it is the courts decision and now has to be upheld.

It was this straying from the Constitution that lead to abortion being "legal," which, by the way, is stated no where. Oh, and if you read the opinions of the court about abortion you would realize that the decision is ludicrous. Something about abortion being ok because of the penumbra between 4 different amendments. I'm not saying abortion should be allowed or not but make sure you know what the debate is. Plus, over turning decisions is highly unlikely and extraordinarily rare.

 

As for the end of the world, remember, there are plenty of people who think the end of the world will be caused by allowing gays to marry and letting women have abortions. Doom and gloom no matter which way you turn.

Believe me, Roberts is the best democrats could hope for and he will do a good job.

[Balta1701]

Roberts said abortion is "Settled law" while he was not in a position to do anything about it. The fact that he was willing to enforce that ruling while he was working for a lower court says absolutely nothing about how he would vote were he given the opportunity to restrict or overturn it. His lower court rulings on that issue are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

[The Ginger Kid]

Roberts said abortion is "Settled law" while he was not in a position to do anything about it.  The fact that he was willing to enforce that ruling while he was working for a lower court says absolutely nothing about how he would vote were he given the opportunity to restrict or overturn it.  His lower court rulings on that issue are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

 

I say give the fundamentalists (aka, republicans) what they want and do away with Roe v. Wade and turn it back over to the states. We'll see how those good ole boys like it when their 16 year-old daughter turns up pregnant.

 

And while we're at it let's make the USA a religious state as well. Hmm..how about...Christian? Muslim would probably be a hard sell, and Jewish, well, they've already got Israel. Pagan would be interesting. Hindu? Way too many beef eaters here in America. Our founding father's must've been drunk when they came up with that whole separation of church and state thingamujig.

[southsider2k5]

Roberts said abortion is "Settled law" while he was not in a position to do anything about it.  The fact that he was willing to enforce that ruling while he was working for a lower court says absolutely nothing about how he would vote were he given the opportunity to restrict or overturn it.  His lower court rulings on that issue are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

 

Then why is everyone so worried about digging up every piece of work he has ever done if his previos rulings are totally irrelevant?

[Balta1701]

Then why is everyone so worried about digging up every piece of work he has ever done if his previos rulings are totally irrelevant?

There is a major difference between one's rulings...given out publically when the weight of precedent and higher courts constrains you, and one's personal writings...which will illustrate vastly better how he felt during his past about issues he'd be deciding on.

 

His past statement on Roe v. Wade as settled law illustrates only that as a judge he was not willing to try to find mysterious ways to circumvent the rulings of higher courts. His previous writings, however, show his personal views as they pertain to a huge number of issues. And while a person's views certainly may change over time, it is those views which will help him frame his decisions in whatever cases are brought before him.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The thing about Roberts is that he's like an ace of spades. His credentials as measured by the institutions that the legal world respects are higher than any present member of the USSC. So it's hard to argue against nominating him as Chief Justice.

 

As for abortion, it's a near certainty that the 2 congressional acts:

Partial Birth Aborton Ban & Violence Against Mothers will appear before the court. Roberts is sure to guide the court in upholding them as constitutional. Both acts contain substantial regulation on abortion procedures & funding. They would become the law of the land. All prior decisions would have little meaning.

 

This creates an interesting scenario for pro-lifers. They have worked hard to lobby for these two acts just to curb the tide of abortion. Now they would have to lobby against them to curb it even further.

 

The end of the world is not upon us. The next technological leap to save the US will be coming in the form of nano-machines & robotics. That will shift manufacturing back to the states. Why? Because transportation & energy costs around the globe are going to experience hyper-inflation in the near future. That will lead companies to look further at automation in the markets they serve.

 

It should be a boon to construction in the USA, a new high-tech infrastructure, & more jobs in a supervisory role. Instead of supervising people they'll be supervising machines.

 

When manufacturing shifts back to the states China will be left to survive on the strength of it's own local markets. Communism has yet to prove it can sustain a thriving marketplace.

[Balta1701]

I think the most amazing thing about the previous post is that the writer actually seems 100% convinced that he knows for sure exactly where technological development will take us.

 

"By 1960, experts believe man will have established 12 colonies on the moon...ideal for human habitation."

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Follow the money. Nothing gets accomplished without significant investment. The money is pouring into nanotech & robotics. Over the next 25 yrs most of the US Air Force will transform from manned to unmanned flights. That's where the contracts are going.

[ilsox7]

Follow the money.  Nothing gets accomplished without significant investment.  The money is pouring into nanotech & robotics.  Over the next 25 yrs most of the US Air Force will transform from manned to unmanned flights.  That's where the contracts are going.

 

THis is 100% true. Look at the BILLIONS of dollars companies like GE are investing in nanotech. It is the next leap.

[Balta1701]

THis is 100% true.  Look at the BILLIONS of dollars companies like GE are investing in nanotech.  It is the next leap.

How we got from Rehnquists's death to this topic I'll never know...

 

Look, the fact of history is this...it's a complete and utter mistake to think that anyone, anywhere can predict the future of where technology is going, because it is a proven fact that technology goes places people can't imagine.

 

Go back 15 years...even to 1990...how many people out there could have conceived of the idea that linking computers together could turn into a trillion-dollar a year industry involving sales, pornography, and idiotic Pasadena liberals chattering on about the White Sox?

 

50 years ago...people thought we'd be living on Mars by now. IN 1985, they thought we'd have flying cars by now. The reality is this...when people make predictions of the future, all they are able to do is imagine upgrades or changes to the systems we already have. It is basically impossible for humanity to predict what science can find outside of its current reference frame.

 

So what are you guys doing? You see the growing development of robotics and increasing miniaturization of computers, and you assume that those 2 will be the dominant forces of the next 50 years or however long you're talking, and you extrapolate. This is exactly what was done when people predicted the space program would lead us to have Martian colonies by now, or when people talked about flying cars, etc.

 

The reality is this...absolutely no one knows how technology will evolve. No one knows if "Moore's law" will continue to hold. No one knows if we'll suddenly hit a limit in materials science that will prevent us from being able to miniaturize things. No one knows what will happen when the age of oil ends (something that has already begun).

 

Technology has proven over and over and over that it's nearly impossible to predict the future. Even if you look where people are investing...the odds are you'll be wrong. The only rational bet is to not even try.

[JUGGERNAUT]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can site historical references of where if you follow the money technology has blossomed. I will agree that new technologies can arise outside of the money flow & change the world. But in order for that to happen someone with wealth must see a profit in order to invest in them. it must make good economic sense. That is the world we live in today.

 

As for the networking of computers there is a history of protocols that chart it's progression. All of them were driven by economic factors.

[ilsox7]

How we got from Rehnquists's death to this topic I'll never know...

 

Look, the fact of history is this...it's a complete and utter mistake to think that anyone, anywhere can predict the future of where technology is going, because it is a proven fact that technology goes places people can't imagine.

 

Go back 15 years...even to 1990...how many people out there could have conceived of the idea that linking computers together could turn into a trillion-dollar a year industry involving sales, pornography, and idiotic Pasadena liberals chattering on about the White Sox?

 

50 years ago...people thought we'd be living on Mars by now.  IN 1985, they thought we'd have flying cars by now.  The reality is this...when people make predictions of the future, all they are able to do is imagine upgrades or changes to the systems we already have.  It is basically impossible for humanity to predict what science can find outside of its current reference frame.

 

So what are you guys doing?  You see the growing development of robotics and increasing miniaturization of computers, and you assume that those 2 will be the dominant forces of the next 50 years or however long you're talking, and you extrapolate.  This is exactly what was done when people predicted the space program would lead us to have Martian colonies by now, or when people talked about flying cars, etc.

 

The reality is this...absolutely no one knows how technology will evolve.  No one knows if "Moore's law" will continue to hold.  No one knows if we'll suddenly hit a limit in materials science that will prevent us from being able to miniaturize things.  No one knows what will happen when the age of oil ends (something that has already begun).

 

Technology has proven over and over and over that it's nearly impossible to predict the future.  Even if you look where people are investing...the odds are you'll be wrong.  The only rational bet is to not even try.

 

 

To the general population, it is true that most cannot see where technology will lead us. But nanotech is not some far-fetched, unknown thing. It is being developed as we speak. It has been underdevelopment in one form or another for decades and received billions of dollars of government funding starting with the Clinton Administration.

 

Predictions such as colonies on the moon or Mars or whatnot were far-fetched, unfounded guesses about the future. As for going back to 1990 and seeing the future of the Internet? Well, it wasn't that absurd of a "prediction." The Internet had been around in mostly government/education circles for 20-30 years. So to see it brought to the public was by no means a surprise. Was it a given that it would explode like it has? Of course not. But it was certainly a foreseeable result given the premise of the technology. It also took the better part of a decade for most to catch on to the Internet and for the technology to catch up to the demand. And we probably still haven't seen 1/10 of what the Internet can do.

 

Again, it's not a given that nanotech will be the next leap. But just about every piece of evidence, from time already under development to money invested to results of using the technology, point to it being an instrumental componenet of future generations.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It is indeed amazing to see what the Dead Rehnquist thread has morphed into, but what the hell...

 

The near term future face of nanotech is going to have surprizingly little to do with miniaturizing machines as we typically think of them. It will be all about custom building organic "molecular machines." Nanotech is one of the emerging new faces of biotech.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It is indeed amazing to see what the Dead Rehnquist thread has morphed into, but what the hell...

 

The near term future face of nanotech is going to have surprizingly little to do with miniaturizing machines as we typically think of them.  It will be all about custom building organic "molecular machines."  Nanotech is one of the emerging new faces of biotech.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correct. That is why it is the precursor to cyborg-tech which in turn is a neccessity for long term exploration in space.

[Heads22]

Wow, from Rehnquist to cyborgs.

[kapkomet]

Wow, from Rehnquist to cyborgs.

Wasn't Rehnquist a cybord? So THAT's why he was "conservative".