|
| Thread: See Congress Implode |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted April 15, 2005 08:48 PM |
|
|
See Congress Implode
(This thread is an offshoot of the April, 2005 conversation in the Other Side thread, "The American Roman Connection," created by Wolfman (see pp. 5 (bottom) & 6, at: http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?FID=10&TID=10425&pagenumber=5).
In response to a dialogue about current congressional affairs and the Democratic-Republican standoff over President Bush's judicial nominations, Peacemaker wrote:Quote:
The problem is this. Appointing judges to the higher courts who fit any criteria other than objectively applying the letter and spirit of the law leaves the entire country stuck with that agenda for the life of the judges, whether or not the agenda represents the essence of the Constitution.
Supreme Court appointments are FOR LIFE, or until the judge retires. We are likely to have several Supreme Court bench vacancies in the next four years. If each appointment openly suits the President's agenda, then the purpose of the Court will not be served and the separation of powers will be indefinitely disrupted.
Of course, many say that's already happened with the sitting judges, whom many decry as excessively "Liberal." The fundamentalist agenda claims any interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court is "judicial activism."
However, others would describe this characterization as fundamentalist spin. Applying the letter of the Constitution is frequently nearly impossible in modern situations, which simply aren't addressed directly in the document. It's much easier said than done when a case gives rise to constitutional issues for which there are no clear-cut answers. Virtually every case requires some degree of interpretation. There's just no avoiding it.
The best Judge is one who can apply the letter of the language whenever possible, but who interprets the Constitution to the most minimal, objective extent possible in the gray-area situations, WITHOUT letting their personal or religious agendas enter the judgement process.
Most of the populace does not understand that the danger of "judicial activism" lies just as much with the extreme right as it does with the extreme left. Either side which applies some sort of litmus test in furtherance of their agenda (i.e. Democrats requiring a statement that the candidate supports abortion versus Republicans requiring a statement that the candidate condemns it) is encouraging judicial activism, not to mention judicially unethical activity. It is absolutely verboten to prejudge any case, and a judge who does so is automatically required to recuse themselves from the case.
So, theoretically, any of the candidates who answer those questions either way during Senate Confirmation Hearings, would have to exclude themselves from the panels when cases on those issues are put before them.
The moral here is to beware the spin that is currently going on on BOTH sides, my friends.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 15, 2005 09:17 PM |
|
|
Consis' Response
Consis wrote in response:
Quote:
~Peacemaker,
You've taken quite a liberal stance. I really quite enjoy your company here but I also feel obligated to point out your fervent idealism. We are all human. We are none of us at all infallible, much to the contrary of current papal law. If moving forward in this context, we can better understand the balance of judiciary proceedings. But who am I to lecture you, a judge, on law? I am nothing more than a compatriot. I feel very strongly that the use of the description "litmus test" is after-the-fact. I really don't give a rat's arse what they(the judges in question) say at injunction; it's their judicial history that matters to me. If a judge gets sworn in saying he/she is "against/for abortion" but his/her judicial ruling history clearly contradicts then I'm more inclined to believe the history over a flighty transparent sporatic phrase obviously used to gain the favor of supposition.
On the Supreme court we have both conservative and liberal judges. This is supposed to be our highest court representing ultimate objectivity. And yet here we have "conservative" and "liberal" judges. That isn't objective! Why? I think it is the balance that we must keep. If I discover the balance is going to be offset then I feel greatly compelled to act, but if the prior seat was held by a political equivalent then I sit back in my garage and continue reading through the paper feeling a sense of all's-well that ends well.
I really don't care when people shout LITMUS TEST! It means nothing. It's political and rhetorical. Let them have drama on the senate floor. I want to know their history of ruling and then move forward from there.
Now personally, I really do feel strong about marriage, right-to-life, pro-choice, and conservative rulings. As of late, I've been feeling greatly overwhelmed with liberal extremes ranging from Michael/Janet Jackson to Fahrenheit 9/11. So I say if Bush wants to pack it in a bit before he leaves office then let him. This country could use a good conservative flogging at the moment. But please don't take me for one of those kinds of people who is so drastic as to vote on favor of prohibition(the ultimate conservative extreme). I have many liberal views which I believe helps balance my political stance to within healthy moderation.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 15, 2005 09:19 PM |
|
|
See Congress Implode -- Chapter One
Consis --
Your comment suggests that my thinking is extremely liberal. Let me clarify my views and understanding of the Constitution and judicial processes, and my feelings about what is happening.
The courts should NOT be a place for judges to “represent” liberals or conservatives. The federal court system exists merely to interpret the laws. Those are passed by representatives. It is those representatives who represent the interests of the political parties. Judges are to remain disinterested in the political aspects of laws, to apply those laws based on their language and according to standing prior precedents (prior court rulings). To attempt some “representation” of politics on the bench, in any way or in either direction, is to blur the line of separation of those two powers under Articles I-III of the Constitution.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALISM AND JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
Again, I want to underscore the distinction between “political activism” and “liberalism.” The modern liberal agenda has a set of interests it intends to defend and actively promote, just as does the modern conservative agenda. Let’s just take the issue of abortion – both parties have this issue in their agenda, and both are extremely activist in promoting their respective positions on this issue.
The difference between “judicial activism” and “liberalism” is that a judicially “activist” judge can subjectively, actively promote the interests of either party’s agenda.. The conservative extremists are now accusing the federal courts of “judicial activism” favoring the liberal agenda for the past several decades, beginning primarily with the Warren court (the Supreme Court Chief Justice prior to Rehnquist) and the Civil Rights movement. However, many of the nominees that are being held up by the Democratic filibuster are either known for prior acts of “judicial activism” in favor of the conservative agenda, or have acted in such a way as to indicate they would do so if successfully appointed.
THE CONSERVATIVE BACKLASH
In essence, the conservatives are accusing the Federal Bench of being judicially activist by considering the Constitution a “living document” in continuing to apply its terms and language, written over two hundred years ago, to the evolving and progressing society confronted with modern situations. The conservative extremists driving this situation allege that the country’s entire moral fabric has been unraveled over the past fifty years by liberal judicial activists who have taken over the country, and now the conservatives are going to “take it back.”
I’m not going to claim that there haven’t been many cases of judicial activism with a liberal slant in the past forty years. For example, while I for one agree with the conclusion in Roe v. Wade, I nonetheless think the decision was poorly reasoned and relied on an overly vague interpretation of the Constitution. But I think it’s critical to point out that of the nine sitting Supreme Court Judges, seven of them were appointees of Republican presidents. And several of them voted in favor of Roe v.Wade.
But the conservatives appear to be trying to fix the problem by promoting judicial activism in the other direction. And make no mistake, it is clear that more fundamentalist religious issues drive the agenda they seek to activate with their appointees. This would IMHO create a backlash mentality in the country, and would probably lead to the unraveling of current laws that MOST OF THE COUNTRY finds acceptable and has come to rely on. (Again, read the book “Culture War?” and the statistics will clearly show you that most of the country is moderate on practically every issue driving the two extremist agendas allegedly dividing the country of late.)
WHOSE LITMUS TEST?
Now I’m no expert on the history of judicial nominations for the last two hundred years in this country, but I think what’s being alleged is that Bush is nominating more individuals who are not considered “qualified “ to hold high bench for various reasons. This is the Dem’s the stated cause of the unusually frequent use of the filibuster regarding their nominations. Their primary reason for asserting lack of qualification is the alleged tendency of these nominees to be judicially activist in favor of a conservative agenda.
So while the conservatives are screaming about how the filibuster has never been used in such a manner before, the liberals are screaming that the nominees have never been so biased before. However, the extreme liberals are in fact responding to the nominations of activist judges (which represent a kind of “litmus test” being used by Bush to decide upon his nominees) with the “litmus test” of whether those judges will specifically state they support Roe v. Wade.
USE OF THE FILIBUSTER
Equally disturbing, however, is the Democrats’ use of the filibuster in the manner they currently are. First is liberal spin on the filibuster as though the entire foundation of democracy itself rests on this device.
There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides – that it is unconstitutional because of its inconsistencies with other portions of the Constitution, and alternatively that this question is a matter exclusively for the Senate because the Senate enjoys exclusive control over its own rules under the Constitution. And for Senate to change the rules regarding cloture (the number of votes it takes to end a filibuster) in order to avoid its use regarding judicial nominations, does suggest a “ slippery slope” that would lead to some kind of retribution by the Democrats down the line in response. I personally think the Senate should revert to its old strategy of negotiation between the parties, but they’ve become so entrenched over this stuff I’m not holding out much hope for it.
Second, the repeated claim that the current use of the filibuster “has long-standing precedent” simply isn’t true as far as I can find. While it is true that the Republicans led a filibuster against Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas’ nomination by LBJ for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, that is the ONLY example I can find of its use in the past. Further, I’ve heard a rumor it turned out in the end that Abe did not have the necessary underlying majority support (unlike the currently filibustered candidates).
While it is important to recall that approximately only 10 of Bush’s approximately 215 nominations have been held up by the Dem filibuster, never has a party shanghaied a series of nominations for ideological interests in the manner the Democrats currently are. (For a link to a listing of all 200 some of Bush’s appointments and the current filibustered 7, see http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/index-108th-congress-court-nominees.htm. ) On the other hand, it is possible that the reason prior filibusters aren’t turning up in the statistics is because cloture was successfully invoked in those cases and the nominees went to a vote, whereas the Pubs don’t currently have a sufficient majority to do so presently. (If any of you knows otherwise please enlighten us.)
Worst of all, the Dems are using the filibuster against nominees who refuse to answer inappropriate questions or produce documents that are clearly privileged. For example, Miguel Estrada’s refusal to produce confidential memoranda he wrote as Assistant Solicitor General, and his lack of judicial experience, are two of the main reasons the Dems gave for filibustering him. Yet nominees without prior judicial experience are quite common on the federal bench. (Knowledge of the Constitution and laws can and does come in a variety of ways.)
Then of course, there is the Roe v. Wade litmus test. On this point I must respectfully but completely disagree with your stance, Consis. Using inappropriate questions to ascertain preconceived notions about cases which may come before these judges is absolutely verboten. As I said before, to answer such questions would in essence indicate bias and disqualify these judges from hearing the issues.
To sum up my opinion, given my statement of understanding of the system, maybe you can now see why I would say I am angry at both sides, for the obvious reasons of the abuses they are both undertaking IMHO.
If any of you wants to make an objective, even-handed study of the currently filibustered nominees and the Dems’ objections to them I’d be more than happy to defer. I think this would be important and useful to the discussion though.
More to follow...
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 15, 2005 11:22 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 15 Apr 2005
|
Okay....
Quote:
never has a party shanghaied a series of nominations for ideological interests in the manner the Democrats currently are
Check the use of the filibuster by the Republicans during the Clinton term of office. We Democrats are only blocking 10 nominations by Bush currently. When Clinton held office and Republicans were the minority they blocked over 60 of his nominations. So as you can see it isn't "unprecedented". This is nothing more than fanatic Republican conservatives(who conspired against Clinton) going berzerk over how they see this country's decreasing moral standards. That's the real underlying issue. But to top it off, Bush is flexing his "Political Capital" that he supposedly gained during the last election to raise the roof. That's why I will never vote for another Bush so long as I live. He is exactly what Kerry said he is, a divider not a uniter.
The Chinese have a strong belief in something called universal balance. It is their Yin and Yang. You know what I think will happen if these morally conservative Republican senators get their way and abolish the filibuster? Chaos. And according to the laws of Yin and Yang, Chaos will be followed by Order. I think the Order will be another 60's sexual revolution so to speak. The Yin of overly order conservativism will be balanced by the chaos Yang of a new sexual revolution. And frankly that's quite frightening to me what with HIV having no cure as of yet. I'm not saying folk songs will return but I am afraid of underground sex clubs popping up in the wake of morally constrictive laws. Laws such as:
1. Over-turning Roe v. Wade.
2. Banning contraception.
3. Criminalizing abortion.
If these laws come about then my kids are doomed to repeat the sexual revolution(using modern music) with the new AIDS virus waiting in the wings. It'll be the black plague of the north American continent. That's what I'm worried about; not the 'implosion' of congress.
Oh and don't forget what I had also said:
Supreme Court Appointments
Our Constitution grants the authority for appointing federal judges to the President, but also gives the Senate the duty to “advise and consent” to the appointment, as a check on the President’s power. First, the President nominates a qualified person for a judicial opening. Next, the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings on each nominee and then, if approved by a majority vote of the committee, the nomination goes to the full Senate.
Sometimes, as in the case of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, the nominations end up going to the full Senate even though the committee voted down the nomination. If and when a nomination gets sent to the full Senate, the Senate will then debate the nomination and, by majority vote (sometimes called an “up or down vote”), either approves or rejects the nomination. If approved, the nominee is then sworn in and takes his/her position on the court to which he/she was nominated.
Filibuster
The idea is that a minority can prevent a vote on a motion by prolonging debate indefinitely. Unless the non-filibustering majority can invoke cloture, proceedings on a given nomination will cease.
Filibusters of judicial nominees have never (before 2003) been used to prevent a vote on a candidate who had majority support in the Senate. Filibustering judicial nominees prevents an up or down majority vote, and effectively raises the confirmation vote requirement to 60 votes, which is the amount needed to end the filibuster. Bush appointees that otherwise would have been confirmed by a majority of the Senate, have instead been blocked by the use of the filibuster by Democrats. The Democrats have threatened to continue using the filibuster against any Bush appointees who express antipathy toward Roe v. Wade or other judicially legislated “rights” that activist courts have created over the last few decades.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 16, 2005 08:58 AM |
|
|
Oh And Peacemaker?
I am certain that I would never bring my opinions to bare over you. I respect you too much. Even if we disagree politically; I know you have a heart of gold. I may not have already, or will in the future, ever meet you but some things in life I just know. This is one of those things.
From one American to another,
~You're Good Company 
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 06:14 PM |
|
|
Wow... long post that I'll read another time. Until then let me just repeat that I'd certainly pay to see Congress literally Implode... and the Houses of Parliment here...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 16, 2005 09:38 PM |
|
|
Thank you for your kind comments, Consis. 
My other half needs the computer today so I will post a longer response again soon.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 17, 2005 08:37 PM |
|
|
Consis wrote:
Quote:
Check the use of the filibuster by the Republicans during the Clinton term of office. We Democrats are only blocking 10 nominations by Bush currently. When Clinton held office and Republicans were the minority they blocked over 60 of his nominations. So as you can see it isn't "unprecedented". This is nothing more than fanatic Republican conservatives(who conspired against Clinton) going berzerk over how they see this country's decreasing moral standards. That's the real underlying issue. But to top it off, Bush is flexing his "Political Capital" that he supposedly gained during the last election to raise the roof. That's why I will never vote for another Bush so long as I live. He is exactly what Kerry said he is, a divider not a uniter.
Consis -- I have tried to check the use of filibusters by the Pubs and Dems both in the past and so far, I can only find the one case involving Abe Fortas. Have you found any substantiation otherwise? Please post a link if you have.
I have heard one rumor that Orin Hatch (I think it was) successfully blocked several of Clinton's nominees from ever making it to the Senate floor, but I will have to look further into this allegation. I do not think filibuster was used in those cases, but then if they never made it to the floor then maybe the filibuster was not needed to achieve the same purpose.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 18, 2005 01:48 AM |
|
|
See Congress Implode Part Deux
See Congress Implode Part Deux
Okay, this is what I have so far.
A December 11, 2002 CRS Report for Congress states:
Quote:
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Richard S. Beth
Specialist in the Legislative Process
Government and Finance Division
Summary
Cloture is the only means by which the Senate can vote to limit debate on a matter,
and thereby overcome a possible filibuster. Until 1949, cloture could not be invoked on
nominations, and before 1980 this action was attempted only twice. From 1949 through
2002, cloture was sought on 35 nominations, and invoked on 21. Only three of the 35
nominees were not confirmed; all three were among those on whom the Senate rejected
cloture. Except in the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), most of the nominations involved
have been judicial. The 103rd and 107th Congress are the only ones in which cloture was
sought on more than three nominations.
This report is to be updated at the end of each Congress in which additional
nominations are subjected to cloture attempts. Filibusters and cloture are discussed
more generally in CRS Report RL30360, Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate.
See, http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20801.pdf
The Dems are resorting to the use of the filibuster after a series of rules changes removed all incentive for the two sides of the senate Isle to work together in the traditional convention of bipartisan compromise.
The reports suggest that the judicial nomination process has historically been a more cooperative effort than it has in the last few administrations. In recognition of, and respect for, the balance of powers of the branches of governments, the data suggests that Dems and Pubs worked together in consultation over any given nominee. If either side had extreme objections to a given candidate, either it was agreed that the candidate would be rejected or returned to the president, or, if the president recognized polarization over the candidate, the president would withdraw the candidate on his own volition. See, http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983.
This process began to become increasingly partisan during and after the Reagan Administration. A chart from that website illustrates this is the case:
President Confirmation Percentage
Truman 81.8%
Eisenhower 90.2%
Kennedy/Johnson 89.7%
Nixon/Ford 89.1%
Carter 91.8%
Reagan 81.3%
G.H.W. Bush 77.8%
Clinton 61.3%
G.W. Bush 51.5%
Most significantly, a series of rule changes under Republican control have removed every other option for the minority party to participate in the process of “consenting” to a given judicial nominee. Here’s a brief history of what has led the Dems to claim the filibuster is their last option for blocking judicial activists who represent the politically extreme right rather than the interests of justice.
The standing rule under the Clinton Administration prior to 1994 was this: if both Senators from the nominee’s state gave the thumbs down on the candidate then the nomination was terminated. This was called the “blue slip” rule – the candidate needed at least one “blue slip” of approval from a Senator of his state to make the nomination effective (if both Senators from the home state objected, the nomination was dead). The Dems controlled the Senate at that time.
When the Pubs took control of the Senate in 1994, Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) became the Chair of the judicial committee. He changed the rule, allowing a single Senator from the nominee’s home state to veto the nomination. This gave the Pubs an edge over the previous rule, since the majority of states were now represented by Republicans. In other words, Clinton’s (a Dem) appointments could be more easily killed by the down vote of only one senator from that state (the majority of Senators now Pubs). Several Republican Senators used this rule to block judicial nominees in a pattern of blue-slip activities.
In addition to this selective, hypocritical use of rule change, the Republican Senate blocked 65 of Clinton’s nominations between 1995 and 2000 by the use of “secret holds”, a widely used but unpublicized and poorly known tactic in the Senate whereby a single senator can prevent a hearing on a candidate or piece of legislation. In this manner, they avoided challenging Clinton’s nominations on the floor altogether by preventing their consideration at the outset. Such “secret holds” are not required to be a part of the Congressional Record. Fully one third of Clinton’s nominees were prevented even from having a hearing on their nominations or delayed, a couple of them for a matter of years. A cloture vote on filibusters against Clinton’s nominations of 9th Circuit nominees Richard Paez (after four year) and Marsha Berzon (after two years) finally ended those filibusters. (For more on the “secret hold,” see http://www.brookings.edu/views/testimony/binder/20030617.pdf.)
Then once again, in 2000, Bush (a Pub) was elected President, but the Dems took control of the Senate. And once again, Hatch changed the blue slip rule back to its original form – both Senators had to veto the candidate (nominated by Bush) before the nomination could be killed. This placed the favor of the rule back in Republican hands.
Finally, in 2003 when the Pubs regained control over the Senate, Hatch again changed the rules, doing away with the blue-slip rule altogether, stating that senatorial blue-slipping was “merely advisory:” even if both Senators objected to an appointment the nomination would move forward. Again, this only benefited the Pubs who now controlled both the Executive and Congress.. See, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50120-2005Jan30.html;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/25/opinion/main683182.shtml
So the Democratic arguments in favor of use of the filibuster are these. First, the Republican claim that its use is unprecedented is incorrect. Second, the reason for its current, more comprehensive use is the Republicans’ removal of checks and balances which assured greater bipartisan cooperation in the choosing of federal judges.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 18, 2005 04:33 AM |
|
|
Excellent Research Peacemaker...
You've done your homework. Now let's talk consequences. I want to hear you talk more about what might happen if the filibuster is voted out.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 18, 2005 05:52 PM |
|
|
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
http://www.earnedmedia.org/msg0321.htm
I had the misfortune of being assaulted by this entire conference when it was aired a couple of weeks ago on C-Span. While some think this is just a bunch of hot air, I believe these people are dangerous. If they are as good at "spin" and garnering support through Karl Rove tactics as the Bush administration has been, they could seriously further drive an already festering wedge between the branches of government.
To answer your question as specifically as I can on short notice, Consis, I think voting the filibuster out of the judicial nomination process, while not likely because of the apparent lack of required votes, is only one piece of a larger strategy by the extremist fundamentalists who claim to represent the "majority". (Wise crack removed after I thought better of it). Some clues about their agenda can be found in their website.
http://www.stopactivistjudges.org/
In a nutshell, this group is going beyond the mere attempted "packing of the court" by fundamentalist activists the attack on the filibuster represents. They are activaly calling for judicial impeachments. Now while judicial impeachment in itself is not unheard of and is constitutionally provided for, it appears to me as though this group, in its screaming shrill hysteria, is calling for the impeachment of any judge that rules in a case supporting the separation of Church and State under the First Amendment. They are further saying such outrageous things as the judges in the Terri Shiavo case must not only be impeached, but tried for murder. If course I don't have to tell you what they think of abortion cases.
How much of this comes to fruition depends on whether the Moderate Republicans in Congress, such as McCain, continue to stand firm in their resistence against these moves (despite the right-wing threats about his presidential possibilities in 2008), and whether the Moderate majority of the country wakes up in time and counteracts this increasing polarization with a third party.
My husband (a moderate conservative) says let'em go. They'll so far marginalize themselves through this outrageous activity that a Dem or a third-party candidate will win for sure by 2008.
My husband has slightly more confidence in the intelligence of the constituency than I do.
(More complete analysis when I have time. I wish others would chime in at this point.)
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted April 18, 2005 07:44 PM |
|
|
HmmWell....
As you know this little chat forum is not exactly the best place to hear what the American people are thinking about.
Regardless of the lack of politically active american citizens here, I will indeed 'wake up' as you say. I'm very interested in the danger of overturning Roe v. Wade. This is my(and should be everyone else's) most important concern with internal American politics.
This nonsense about Shiavo and rights to die is trivial in my opinion. It was simply a political backlash for all the promises Bush made to get re-elected. He is his own person. The real problem was that this poor woman suffered an unpreventable stroke that insidiously progressed. I won't lose sight of the cause. I don't think other Americans will either.
And a note about trying to impeach justices/judges: F.D.R. tried it too and lost horribly. It's nothing new. "Legislating from the bench" is simply the modern Republican rhetoric. I'm not worried about that at all. In reality, those justices in Massachusetts couldn't do what they did without real community support. The fact that they successfully leaned in favor of gay-marriage simply tells me that there was enough local support. It's definitely not a national concern.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 04:56 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As you know this little chat forum is not exactly the best place to hear what the American people are thinking about.
Well, I'm following.
Have no new comments so far. I'll repeat the one from the other thread.
How is it possible for a major (biggest) political party in a ripe democracy such as US to speak publicly that they will "take the courts back in the name of the majority"?
Is this only one single extrimists hallucinations, or official stance of the Republicans?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 06:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Appointing judges to the higher courts who fit any criteria other than objectively applying the letter and spirit of the law leaves the entire country stuck with that agenda for the life of the judges…
To me, objectivity is a fairly relative term. People seem to throw that word around way too much.
Quote:
…lies just as much with the extreme right as it does with the extreme left...
No. The extreme left and extreme right are not active in U.S. politics. The extreme right is the KKK, Timothy McVeigh, and the Aryan Nation. The extreme left is the ELF, the current ACLU (as we’ve talked about before). They have no say in current politics, except the ACLU, because no one takes groups like the KKK seriously anymore. The current politician, with maybe the one exception being Ted Kennedy, is extreme. They wouldn’t get elected if they were extremists. I read through all that was posted in this thread and Peacemaker, you used “extreme right” and “extreme left” quite a bit.
And is it really judicial activism? I really don’t see a way to not have an opinion in issues like the abortion issue. You’re either leaning one way or the other, and if your decision happens to coincide with your opinion, the other side of the argument will raise hell and cry judicial activism.
It’s like a joke, welcome to politics I guess. 
Consis –
Quote:
On the Supreme court we have both conservative and liberal judges. This is supposed to be our highest court representing ultimate objectivity. And yet here we have "conservative" and "liberal" judges. That isn't objective!
It is as objective as you are going to get. By the age of fourteen, anyone with an IQ higher than that of a toaster has leanings either liberal or conservative. No one person is objective on every issue, judges are human, too.
Quote:
I want to know their history of ruling and then move forward from there.
Then maybe we should be picking these judges, Consis. We seem to agree.
The Filibuster
The filibuster is nothing more than a waste of important time that Congress could be using to actually create some laws. I understand that the filibuster is designed to help the minority party, but it is a gigantic time waster. Is it really so hard to look at a judge and see that he’s qualified? It’s not like these nominees are just some guy off the street. They are qualified, because they wouldn’t have been nominated if they weren’t.
PM pointed out that the Democrats are using the filibuster on nominees that refuse to answer inappropriate questions. In a job interview, inappropriate questions can get the employer in big trouble. Why should it be any different for Senators?
I like the “blue slip” rule that PM pointed out. But what I don’t really understand is how it was bad for the Republicans to change the rule, but then it was also wrong for them to change it back to how it was before.
Consis -
Quote:
This is nothing more than fanatic Republican conservatives (who conspired against Clinton) going berzerk over how they see this country's decreasing moral standards. That's the real underlying issue.
Clinton committed perjury all by himself, no conspiracy was needed. Moral standards have been decreasing, but I think they’re on they are on the upswing now.
Abolishing the filibuster would not lead to chaos, it would just make Congress get things done. Less babble equals more voting.
And I highly doubt order would be any sexual revolution. Order and revolution don’t usually go together.
PM –
Quote:
To answer your question as specifically as I can on short notice, Consis, I think voting the filibuster out of the judicial nomination process, while not likely because of the apparent lack of required votes, is only one piece of a larger strategy by the extremist fundamentalists who claim to represent the "majority".
There are no extremist fundamentalists in power in the US. An extremist fundamentalist regime was the Taliban, or the government in Iran.
Conservatives do represent the majority in the US right now. The current Congress and President is proof of that.
All this talk of fundamentalists and extremists makes you look a lot more liberal than I had thought you were, Peacemaker. I think you’ve turned into one of those crazy conspiracy theorists like Lealth. I hope I’m wrong.
Quote:
In a nutshell, this group is going beyond the mere attempted "packing of the court" by fundamentalist activists the attack on the filibuster represents. They are activaly calling for judicial impeachments. Now while judicial impeachment in itself is not unheard of and is constitutionally provided for, it appears to me as though this group, in its screaming shrill hysteria, is calling for the impeachment of any judge that rules in a case supporting the separation of Church and State under the First Amendment.
The establishment clause in the First Amendment is a very controversial issue. A lot of the “separation of Church and State” cases don’t actually violate any establishment clause at all. Like when the ACLU had the Boy Scouts kicked out of San Diego and a camp they had been using within the city limits for 100 years or a similar case in Oregon.
Quote:
They are further saying such outrageous things as the judges in the Terri Shiavo case must not only be impeached, but tried for murder. If course I don't have to tell you what they think of abortion cases
The judges in the Schiavo case will not be impeached because they followed the law perfectly. The husband had all legal rights to her, and the court recognized that.
Quote:
Regardless of the lack of politically active american citizens here, I will indeed 'wake up' as you say. I'm very interested in the danger of overturning Roe v. Wade. This is my(and should be everyone else's) most important concern with internal American politics.
Roe vs. Wade isn’t the most important concern in American politics. The ACLU is a much more destructive force in America, Roe vs. Wade is in the history books, done and finished…for now. While currently the ACLU is trying to take the freedom of religion out of the constitution.
Well, Peacemaker this isn’t gold just like I said, but may
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 07:22 PM |
|
|
Hey Consis –
I just had an observation about your following comment that has turned into a multi-headed monster. Anyway, here it is, and I’m really sorry my posts and replies are so long in this matter. It’s just that I am very invested in the issue.Quote:
those justices in Massachusetts couldn't do what they did without real community support. The fact that they successfully leaned in favor of gay-marriage simply tells me that there was enough local support. It's definitely not a national concern.
I believe you are speaking of GOODRIDGE v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 440 Mass. 309, SJC-08860 (2003). (The entire text of the decision can be found at http://www.masslaw.com/signup/opinion.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm&oldpage=/archives/ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm&jj=.) The entire decision is dozens and dozens of pages. Here are some observations and excerpts to give you an idea of the reasoning behind the decision. In essence, my intent here is to illustrate that the decision is grounded in constitutional issues and analysis rather than public opinion. But it is still one of the highest held examples of “judicial activism” being kicked around by the right-wing fundamental movement I described above. Judges make vastly unpopular decisions all the time, though, despite local support.
The Plaintiffs were seven couples who had lived together in exclusive committed relationships ranging from four to thirty years. Most of them had children. Defendant Department of Health denied the Plaintiffs’ applications for marriage licenses, giving rise to Plaintiffs’ consolidated suits’ The Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the Department stating that the marriage statutes should be construed to limit “marriage” to people of the same sex. He concluded that “prohibiting same-sex marriage rationally furthers the Legislature's legitimate interest in safeguarding the ‘primary purpose’ of marriage, ‘procreation.’ The Legislature may rationally limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, he concluded, because those couples are ‘theoretically . . . capable of procreation…’"
Plaintiff appealed to the Mass. Court of Appeals. That Court basically held that deprivation of the rights and privileges ordinarily afforded to married couples of the opposite sex was a violation of the equal protection doctrine and due process, both found in the Massachusetts and U.S. Constitutions.Quote:
“The plaintiffs challenge the marriage statute on both equal protection and due process grounds. With respect to each such claim, we must first determine the appropriate standard of review. Where a statute implicates a fundamental right or uses a suspect classification, we employ "strict judicial scrutiny." Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 666 (1980). For all other statutes, we employ the "'rational basis' test." English v. New England Med. Ctr., 405 Mass. 423, 428 (1989)…
“…For the reasons we explain below, we conclude that the marriage ban does not meet the rational basis test for either due process or equal protection…
“…General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married…it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.
“…The department's first stated rationale, equating marriage with unassisted heterosexual procreation, shades imperceptibly into its second: that confining marriage to opposite-sex couples ensures that children are raised in the "optimal" setting. Protecting the welfare of children is a paramount State policy. Restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, however, cannot plausibly further this policy.
“The department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage to people of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children… ([F]our of the plaintiff couples) have children for the reasons others do -- to love them, to care for them, to nurture them. But the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws. While establishing the parentage of children as soon as possible is crucial to the safety and welfare of children, see Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconness Med. Ctr., 435 Mass. 285, 292 (2001), same-sex couples must undergo the sometimes lengthy and intrusive process of second-parent adoption to establish their joint parentage. While the enhanced income provided by marital benefits is an important source of security and stability for married couples and their children, those benefits are denied to families headed by same-sex couples. See, e.g., note 6, supra. While the laws of divorce provide clear and reasonably predictable guidelines for child support, child custody, and property division on dissolution of a marriage, same-sex couples who dissolve their relationships find themselves and their children in the highly unpredictable terrain of equity jurisdiction… Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of ‘a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized…’
“In this case, we are confronted with an entire, sizeable class of parents raising children who have absolutely no access to civil marriage and its protections because they are forbidden from procuring a marriage license. It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation...
“…To label the court's role as usurping that of the Legislature, see, e.g., post at (Cordy, J., dissenting), is to misunderstand the nature and purpose of judicial review. We owe great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues, but it is the traditional and settled role of courts to decide constitutional issues…
“We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deep-seated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that marriage should be limited to the union of one man and one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral. Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be married, and that homosexual persons should be treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors. Neither view answers the question before us. Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2480 (2003) (Lawrence), quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992)...
“Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law…”
There are several dissenting opinions that are even lengthier than the main body of the decision. I find most of the arguments in them less comprehensible than the ones in the main body of the text. Here are some samples:
Quote:
SPINA, J. (dissenting, with whom Sosman and Cordy, JJ., join)... "1. Equal protection . Although the court did not address the plaintiffs' gender discrimination claim, G. L. c. 207 does not unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of gender. A claim of gender discrimination will lie where it is shown that differential treatment disadvantages one sex over the other. See Attorney Gen . v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n , 378 Mass. 342, 349-352 (1979). See also United States v. Virginia , 518 U.S. 515 (1996). General Laws c. 207 enumerates certain qualifications for obtaining a marriage license. It creates no distinction between the sexes, but applies to men and women in precisely the same way. It does not create any disadvantage identified with gender, as both men and women are similarly limited to marrying a person of the opposite sex…
"Similarly, the marriage statutes do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. As the court correctly recognizes, constitutional protections are extended to individuals, not couples. Ante n.15. The marriage statutes do not disqualify individuals on the basis of sexual orientation from entering into marriage. All individuals, with certain exceptions not relevant here, are free to marry. Whether an individual chooses not to marry because of sexual orientation or any other reason should be of no concern to the court…
"To qualify as “fundamental” the asserted right must be “objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition...’
"Same-sex marriage, or the “right to marry the person of one's choice” as the court today defines that right, does not fall within the fundamental right to marry. Same-sex marriage is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history,” and the court does not suggest that it is. "
(This one kinda misses the point, doesn’t it? Marriage is a long-standing social institution, isn’t it? This whole argument puts the cart of discrimination before the horse of equal rights in my opinion. It kinda reminds me of someone saying, “There is no long-standing social institution (translate fundamental right) of freedom for blacks or equality for women, so therefore slavery and wife-beating are constitutional.” If what has happened here is “judicial activism,” then thank god for judicial activism. Quote:
SOSMAN, J. (dissenting, with whom Spina and Cordy, JJ., join). “ …Reduced to its essence, the court's opinion concludes that, because same-sex couples are now raising children, and withholding the benefits of civil marriage from their union makes it harder for them to raise those children, the State must therefore provide the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples just as it does to opposite-sex couples. Of course, many people are raising children outside the confines of traditional marriage, and, by definition, those children are being deprived of the various benefits that would flow if they were being raised in a household with married parents. That does not mean that the Legislature must accord the full benefits of marital status on every household raising children…
“…the attempts at scientific study of the ramifications of raising children in same-sex couple households are themselves in their infancy and have so far produced inconclusive and conflicting results. Notwithstanding our belief that gender and sexual orientation of parents should not matter to the success of the child rearing venture, studies to date reveal that there are still some observable differences between children raised by opposite-sex couples and children raised by same-sex couples...”
Now this argument makes some sense (assuming the data are as they say) but the problem of equal protection is not alleviated by any difference between children raised in same-sex marriages and those of opposite-sex marriages. Same-sex couples will still raise children, whether or not their parents are married. Those children will still suffer the consequences of their parents being denied the right to marry.
Anyway, the decision goes on and on. My point here is this: The justices decided based on a constitutional analysis, which I find well-reasoned and defensible. They did not decide based on public opinion, and in fact were later proven not to “represent the majority” when the people voted down the same-sex marriage initiative on the referendum. If they had decided based on public opinion then they would not have been doing their jobs. On the other hand I find many of the arguments in the dissent to be based on public opinion when they fall back on social norms to defend their dissents. Such dissents ignore the unconstitutionality of denying equal protection to gay partners and their children based on their sexual orientation.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 07:44 PM |
|
|
Hey Wolf! We must have been posting at the same time!
Glad to see someone else chiming in here with another perspective. Glad you don't see a big judicial activism crisis here either. I really can't post a complete reply right now due to time constraints, but just wanted to say one thing.
I think we may be using the term "extremist" a little differently. And not to worry -- my posts may be making me look more liberal than usual just because I haven't gotten around to my gripes about the Dems yet. And those I definitely have.
My main point is that the lunatic fringe on both sides of the spectrum have pretty much hijacked both the political parties or are at least attempting to do so. They have become polarized against one another, further forcing themselves into extremist corners and, I would submit, neither any longer represents the majority of constituents in their respective parties.
By the way, you might find it interesting to note that the JCCCR is headed up by none other than our beloved House Majority Leader Mr. Tom DeLay. And if you don't think that movement is extremist, then we are in fact and indeed using the term differently.
MORE SOON --
[EDIT] Oops -- Svarog -- I overlooked your post the first time! Hey man! Sup?
ON this point:Quote:
Is this only one single extrimists hallucinations, or official stance of the Republicans?
Actually, probably neither is the case, especially if you are referring to the entire Republican Party rather than just its elected officials. I know many conservatives who find this whole debacle rather embarassing and they are some of the many that are starting to grumble (along with me) about how it's high time we formed a third party in this country.
However, there were several Republican heavy hitters at the JCCCR conference. As I just noted, Tom DeLay is one of their big wigs. While Bush himself takes the stance that the courts have become too judically activist, I have not heard direct rhetoric of this extreme kind come directly from him, and I don't know what his stance is on the JCCCR. So I can't speak to that issue just now.
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted April 22, 2005 10:38 PM |
|
|
Comment on use of term
Hey Wolf -- I'm back for a while now.
On your comment about there being no extremists in the American political system currently, I decided to further look into my rather "liberal" use of the term. Personally from where I'm sitting (somewhere near the middle) I do see extremes in both directions. I have found the following helpful.
(From "Wikipedia" -- emphasis added by me)Quote:
far-right
The term far-right refers to the relative position a group or person occupies within a political spectrum. Since, by definition, most people are not far from the center, the terms "far-right" and "far-left" are used to say that someone is an extremist, not in tune with the majority. "Far-right" is thus usually a pejorative term.
Usage
The term "far-right" is often used to describe persons or groups who hold nationalist, racist, religious extremist, or reactionary views. This can include ideologies that range from absolute monarchism to neo-nazism and fascism. The term has also been used for certain populist or authoritarian regimes.
In other contexts -- particularly in the United States -- the term "far-right" may also be used to denote supporters of extreme conservatism, such as those who favor isolationism, such as paleoconservatives, or extreme laissez-faire capitalism such as the libertarians. However, libertarians themselves reject this classification since they prefer a radically smaller and decentralized government, which is antithetical to the strong, centralized governments favored by most other groups labeled "far-right"...
In other contexts, I have frequently seen "far" right/left and "extreme" right/left used interchangeably. So I guess this pretty much applies.
So, I guess you are thinking in terms of the first definition under the "usage" section, and I am thinking in terms of the second definition. However, I do see much of the rhetoric coming from the JCCCR elements in Congress -- especially the stuff about judges -- as "religious extremist" and "reactionary." I also hold they are "not in tune with the majority." You are a good example. As a conservative, you nonetheless find no constitutional crisis arising from "judicial activism" and thus are not extremist or reactionary, but instead are more in tune with the majority on this issue.
By the way, here's the other one (from Dictionary.laborlaw.com, emphasis added)Quote:
Far left is an extremely ill-defined term, used to refer to people or ideas falling into the general category of left wing which the speaker considers to be far into that spectrum.
The term must be understood as relative to either the speaker or the context in which they are speaking. So a US conservative may consider any member of a Communist party to be part of the 'far left', while in a communist state there may be 'moderate' communists and 'far left' communists.
In general, it is used to describe persons or groups who hold radical egalitarian views and who seek to achieve radical social and political change by taking over or overthrowing the existing order in society. Depending on a group's militancy and the given political circumstances, revolutionary change may be achieved through democratic or undemocratic, violent or nonviolent means.
Groups that advocate some form of revolution, but without being egalitarian, are generally not part of the far left.
Typically, far-left groups are communist or anarchist, and they strongly oppose capitalist governments and institutions. Sometimes the term "far left" is used pejoratively by those on the right wing to describe any view they perceive as hostile to capitalism.
Okay, so maybe my use of the term "extreme left" is not quite as legitimate as that of "extreme right," but who I am talking about is the people at the far end of the spectrum. (I still don't think it makes me a right-winger.)
As far as my gripes with what I perceive as the extreme left in Congress, well it's hard to pin down. The exteme liberal Dems and leftist liberalist thinking are kind-of omni-present but ill-defined, disorganized, merely reactionary against the extreme right and therefore hard to describe.
Let's just put it this way. Certain Dems embarass me and make my blood boil nearly every time they open their mouths. Kennedy is a good example, but sometimes when I'm listening to floor debates and hear nothing but liberal rhetoric and spin in response to the conservative rhetoric and spin coming from the other side of the isle I get angry, depressed, and have an overwhelming sense of futility. I repeatedly hear myself saying "That's not true!" or "Can't you do any better than that???" or "That's totally misleading."
Other than the Dems using alleged ideologies to justify filibusters of several completely legitimate judicial nominees, there's one gripe I can articulate about the Dems: the Tom DeLay probe.
I will say that while I understand the Dems' objections to the Pubs unilaterally changing the rules to favor themselves in this situation, I still think the Dems are using this as a platform to antagonize the majority leader and leave him twisting in the wind indefinitely. (Not that the Pubs are blameless. They did unilaterally change the rules and refuse to go back to the chalkboard on a bipartisan basis. That's not the way the ethics committee works, nor has it ever, nor could it ever work that way. All they have offered is a "gentleman's agreement" to waive the new automatic jurisdictional fatality rule of 45 days.)
Once again, the two sides have polarized themselves into a near complete stalemate in both situations. I think they are ALL being irresponsible, juvenile, unprofessional and are harming the legitimacy of Congress in these activities.
WOLF AND CONSIS:
On your thinking about judicial objectivity: let me just point out that while there is no absolutely objective human being, it's both a skill and a job requirement that must be as highly developed as possible in a judge. In fact, this is the most important single skill a judge must possess. For instance, I really disliked many of my decisions when I was a judge. But I ruled the way I did because the rule of law dictated the outcome, not my personal feelings.
Sure, everbody has an opinion. But some are less objective than others, and some more. Some people are more skilled at setting their opinions aside and looking directly at the written laws and Constitution for the right answers. When a candidate has a clearly expressed ideological agenda in either direction, and no record indicating an ability or inclination to set the agenda aside in favor of the law, the candidate should be overlooked in favor of one better qualified.
I would have to render a case-by-case analysis of the Dems' reasons for filibustering each of the ten judges they have in order to demonstrate that several of the filibusters appear justified and several others do not appear justified IMHO. But I think people are getting tired of me talking on and on.
I think I need some help in this regard. Any takers???
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 07:54 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 2 May 2005
|
Peacemaker,
I'm not getting tired of hearing you do the talking here. I'm reading every word. I'm simply finding it difficult to take an argumentative stance to some of your thoughts. You're talking about a breakdown of a possible political agenda case by case? I don't know if have I'm willing to commit that much time to formulating an opinion. I'm heavily focused on Roe v. Wade. That is what I believe is the main concern. I believe the Republican majority is after the title of this judgment. They want it overturned plain and simple. But how they are going about trying to accomplish this is by and large not simple at all. And I believe we democrats are seeing through the ruse. The republican majority guise is quite well devised but hardly unforeseeable. If you're 'in the know' and you realise(as many democrats do) that it is the political prize to be won then you might find more light shed on why seemingly unimportant steps are being taken by the Republicans. The 'seemingly unimportant' steps I'm referring to are the current appellate court appointment nominees from President Bush.
~And if people read nothing else that I've written try to remember one thing: It's all about Roe v. Wade.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 11:00 PM |
|
|
I really wish it were that simple... but --
I believe it is much larger than that. Roe v. Wade is a symbol for a larger fundamentalist agenda.
This is a good article on the problem:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050502&s=sullivan050205
By the by, what I was talking about looking at case-by-case are the filibustered nominees for federal bench. Pick one and google him or her, and see if you can come up with a concise statement of why the Dems are filibstering that individual.
For a list of the filibustered candidates, see:
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/confirmation_watch/index-108th-congress-court-nominees.htm
WOLFMAN --
Upon reviewing one of my posts above, I realize you may have misconstrued something I said:
Quote:
I do see much of the rhetoric coming from the JCCCR elements in Congress -- especially the stuff about judges -- as "religious extremist" and "reactionary." I also hold they are "not in tune with the majority." You are a good example...
The post had been edited as follows for clarity:Quote:
As a conservative, you nonetheless find no constitutional crisis arising from "judicial activism" and thus are not extremist or reactionary, but instead are more in tune with the majority on this issue.
On your statement above on the blue-slip topic:Quote:
I like the “blue slip” rule that PM pointed out. But what I don’t really understand is how it was bad for the Republicans to change the rule, but then it was also wrong for them to change it back to how it was before.
Changing the rule in itself wasn't bad. It was the timing of all three changes.
The standing rule before Hatch became the chair of the Senate Judicial Committee was this:
If one of the senators from the nominee's state gave the thumbs up then the nominee would be set for hearing. It took both senators from that state giving the thumbs down to kill the nomination -- essentially to veto it.
At that time the Democrats were the Senate majority. All it took for one of Clinton's (or other prior) nominees was for one senator to give the thumbs up for there to be a hearing on the nominee.
The the Pubs took control over Congress in 1994. Enter Hatch with his rule change: Now BOTH senators from the nominee's state must give thumbs UP before a nominee got a hearing. If either one gives thumbs down, the nomination is vetoed. Advantage: Republicans (since this makes it harder to get a hearing for one of Clinton's nominees, especially with the Pubs in senate majority.)
Then Bush is nominated in 2000, but the Dems take Congress majority. Hatch returns the rule to only one senator's approval from the nominee's state. Advantage: Bush (since it is now once again easier to get a hearing for a Bush nominee).
Then in 2004 the Pubs take control of Congress. So both the presidency and Congress are Republican-controlled. Another rule-change: the blue-slip rule becomes "merely advisory." Now nobody has veto power, at least under the rule. Advantage: Bush.
Get it? See the shell game going on here? Doesn't the unfairness of that tick you off in the slightest even though it works to your party's benefit?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 04:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As a conservative, you nonetheless find no constitutional crisis arising from "judicial activism" and thus are not extremist or reactionary, but instead are more in tune with the majority on this issue.
Conservative or not, I think you are all blowing this way out of proportion. Democrats in general, too.
Judicial activism, in my opinion, pertains to the Florida judge who let a child molester/murderer off with a slap on the wrist. Or the judge that ordered the Boy Scouts off city property in Oregon and Califirnia.
I know what you ment with the blue-slip thing too, I was just spinning it. 
New York Gov. Cuomo was talking about the 'tyranny of the majority' today. He also said:
Quote:
"The Republican senators should instead start working with the Democrats to address all the serious problems of this country in the proper forums -- in the Congress and in the presidency -- leaving the judges to be judges instead of a third political branch controlled by the whim of the politicians in power," Cuomo said.
But, how are Republicans supposed to "address all the serious problems of this country in the proper forums" when the Democrats don't want anything to do with it? Filibustering is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
____________
|
| |
|
|
