Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Judicial Nominations

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Darnoc, May 18, 2005.

  1. Darnoc

    Darnoc IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Judicial Nominations

    There seems to be a bit of fueding going on in the senate over judicial nominations. Seven judges are are threatened to be filibustered by democratic senators to keep a vote from happening to appoint them or turn them down. Two of these judges were successfully filibustered during Bush's first presidential term. The Republican senators are considering banning judicial nomination filibusters because of this.

    What do you think should happen here? Should senators be allowed to filibuster any judicial nomination they want? Do these judges deserve a confirmation vote?
     
  2. DrunkCajun

    DrunkCajun Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2004
    Messages:
    5,249
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Considering that Bush has already gotten more judges confirmed than Clinton or Reagan, proportionally, I don't think the Repubs. have much to complain about.

    That said, I wouldn't mind if they did do away with the filibuster. It would put the Dems in full control when we take back Congress.
     
  3. FreezerBurn

    FreezerBurn Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Filibusters are essential to protect the rights of the minority. Republican's blocked some of Clinton's nominations when the dems were still in control of congress. For some reason, Bush think he should get everything he wants regardless of the law. Besides, he has a history of nominating ultra right wing nut jobs. We need to do anything we can to stop him from setting our country back 100 years socially.
     
  4. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Yeah, maybe 7 out of 210. When will the madness stop? That's a little over 3%!! Won't someone think of the children?
     
  5. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    The Republicans will be the minority eventually. It may be next election cycle, 25 or 50 years from now. But they're going to want the power of the fillibuster when they are. No sense in getting rid of it if you ask me.
     
  6. llad12

    llad12 IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,189
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    466
    It's a foolish power grab by the GOP. If the "nuclear option" is enacted, Bush may get a floor vote on his judicial candidates, but the consequences will not be pretty. The Democrats are threatening to slow down any subsequent legislation to a crawl by enforcing Senate rules and regulations that are summarily dismissed today for sake of brevity.

    Our democracy is founded on the principle of compromise. It would be a sad day for all of us if this foundation is circumvented and aborted for such matters. :(
     
  7. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Can't a filibuster be ended by a 67-34 majority vote anyway? So only something pretty controversial is going to be held up by a filibuster, and it probably warrants a second look anyway.
     
  8. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    I think it's 60-40, Jonesy.
     
  9. Darnoc

    Darnoc IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    I can't remember for sure, but I believe a few of the blocked judges during the Clinton administration wanted to start using laws made in other countries as a basis for making judicial decisions here (imagine using laws made in the Netherlands or Rwanda as a basis for decisions here, lol). I think our laws are ours for a reason; I don't want any "nut job" judge in power whether they be right or left; judges aren't supposed to be political, they're supposed to fairly judge cases here in the US.

    One of the two judges that had been filibustered during Bush's first term up for confirmation now is against abortion; would you consider that judge a "nut job" because of that? I'd say there's about an equal number of people for and against abortion in this country, so wouldn't she then represent the views of a major part of the country?

    Also, I think I read the 7 judges that might be filibustered on were out of a total of 12 nominations, not 210. Does anyone know for sure?

    If possible, I'd like to keep this discussion as objective as possible; i.e. calling a person of a party other than what you support crazy just because you don't agree with them. I would like some kind of a reason as to why they are crazy, not just labeling them that way because you feel like it.

    Lastly, I believe the republicans are only considering eliminating judicial confirmation filibusters, not all filibusters collectively. How does everyone feel about just this type of filibuster being eliminated? Do you think it should be all or none, or is selective elimination okay?

    I personally don't have a reaction either way which is why I am interested in all of your views on this. Judges are "supposed" to remain politically objective and not insert there own feelings on issues since they are being appointed for life; of course there are judges who don't do this and it gets very messy on the federal level with the schiavo and abortion cases; should filibusters be allowed for their nominations because of this, or should the voting on them take care of this?

    In case anyone wondered, I disagree with many stances republicans take on issues and many stances democrats take on issues. When elections come around I look to who might be the lesser of two evils. Since I am a religious person by nature, I felt republicans at current are the lesser (I don't want to turn this into a religious discussion right now though, it will just complicate this thread; we can make another thread if you want to discuss this). But the whole two party system in the US is the main problem I feel. If there was a party more representative of my beliefs and views I would vote for them. The US is the only 2 party democracy in the world; all others have at least 4 or 5 parties, usually alot more.

    Sorry if I went off in a tangent there, I don't feel like editing it right now though..
     
  10. Darnoc

    Darnoc IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Ya, it is 60-40 Jonesy; but you know how parties vote together..
     
  11. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Time to tell the truth.

    Pres. Bush's nominations have gone through EXCEPT for the Court of Appeals. Those are the people that future Supreme Court justices are drawn from. The other judges aren't politically "sexy" to oppose. The judges being filibustered are nominees to said courts. Coincidence?

    llad, it's not a power grab by the Republicans. The power grab has been by the Democrats. For 214 years there has NEVER been a filibuster of a judicial nominee on the floor of the Senate. They have been blocked in committee by all sides from the beginning. That's not the problem.

    The problem is that the founding fathers gave only 7 instances where a supermajority would be required. Judicial nominees wasn't one of them. For the Democrats to use a parlimentary maneuver to make it so is asinine and goes against the intent of the founders.

    You say it'll be ugly. Go ahead, obstruct the hell out of everything. Obstructionism was the reason Tom Dashole was defeated. In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats have been losing power for 10 years now. To throw a temper tantrum over this is going to have a backlash that I can only have wet dreams over.

    Look at what's happening. Liberal newspapers are losing circulation. FOX News is growing while the liberal networks are slipping. Newsweek, Dan Blather, the NT Times. All making up stories and subsequently watching their viewership/readership plummet.

    Where is this leading? A Democrat tantrum in the Senate is only going to add to the meltdown the left is having.

    But there is an answer. You know of Toby Kieth. Did you know he's a lifelong Democrat? Hard core pro-american, pro-military, pro-little man. He's a huge success. Now look at the Dixie Chicks. Rabid anti-american, anti-military. They're gone. There's a lesson to be learned there if you're smart enough to take it.
     
  12. Garbad_the_Weak

    Garbad_the_Weak IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    BUSH LIED
    PEOPLE DIED!!!!111


    When will you learn my shibboleth is better than yours?

    Garbad
     
  13. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Newsweek lied, people died
    NY Times lied, people died

    UN lied, people died.
     
  14. AeroJonesy

    AeroJonesy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    12,940
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    467
    Well 60-40 just reinforces my point. Not that 67-34 added up to 100 anyway.

    *Whistles*
     
  15. Darnoc

    Darnoc IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Garbad, if you do not have something to contribute, please do not post. If you have a point to make it can be made with reasons supporting it and in the same size font as everyone else. I thought you of anyone around here could remain in control of themselves.
     
  16. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    We've been using foreign laws to guide us when there have been no precedence. This have been going on since the Supreme Court was enacted by both conservative and liberal justices. It's not new. Just blown out of proportions by politicians.

    The California contestant has stated on record that the 1st Amendment is not applicable to the states. Translation - states can opt out of the 1st Amendment. Nice move, that would create precedence for states to unilaterally opt out of the Constitution. It's a little more than abortion.

    No, it was 210 not 12. 12 was the original number of judges being blocked for extreme views. They got it down to 7 after alot of haggling.

    Here's the lastest development. Republican senator Frist has created a monster he can't control. He wants to make a deal with the democrats - no fillabuster in exchange for only 2 blocked judges. But... he can't because the religious right won't let him threatening withholding their vote in future elections. They insist on the nuclear option. Now Frist may have to go through with his threats, and face an angry democrat majority when they one day take over. This of course pisses off the Republican's other strong armed lobbyists - business. All of their interest have been put on hold. And they may have to face green peace without a fillibuster in the future.

    As to the remain objective - good luck. The far right have also put on the table an innitiative allowing the public to recall justices. Looks like the Supreme Court is about to get politicalized real quick.
     
  17. Garbad_the_Weak

    Garbad_the_Weak IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    4,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    466
    -_-

    Sorry, I thought the 'shibboleth' would make it obvious I was aiming for sarcasm. But just so you know Freemason, not only do more people identify themselves as Democrats, but the lead is increasing. And has been for for years, with the exception of the weeks after 9/11.

    Republicans, on the other hand, are headed down and losing some of the old core to libertarians.

    http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

    Garbad
     
  18. Darnoc

    Darnoc IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    lol, maybe everything should just be decided by a popular vote; that is of course if more than 50% of the US ever voted at any given election.

    Sorry, garbad; wasn't quite sure what you meant.

    jimmy- by cali contestant are you referring to one of the judicial nominations? Do you what they are proposing as reasons to remove the justices by chance? That would be crazy if that happened- undermine the whole us in a sense.. what are the chances of this happening? Can supreme court justices be impeached if they do something wrong all, wouldnt that be enough?
     
  19. jimmyboy

    jimmyboy IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2003
    Messages:
    2,551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    165
    I doubt if Americans are leaning one way or another in actuality. People are loyal to their own interest. It's the party that moves by adding or lessening issues they officially stand for.

    The right seems to be offering more (safety) because we're at war. But if the war gets sour, the left is going to offer more. And people's allegiance will change. Frankly, I think most people are moderates. But there's no moderates in the opinion polls to check.

    Who is Toby Keith?
     
  20. Freemason

    Freemason Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,156
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Explain the last 10 years of elections. Republicans keep winning more and more congressional, governatorial and presidential offices. Your statistics don't jive with reality.
     

Share This Page