http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=us_congress Even the U.S. congress is becoming litigous. Well atleast there aren't any fists fights on the Senate floor...yet.
When we hold up appointments it's fine, but when the Democrats do it to us let's sue them to get our judges in.
1. There's no way a judge would intervene in such a purely political question as this. 2. I've read that filibusters haven't been used until this congress for stopping judges. If that is in fact an historical truth, then I think the Dems are wrong on this. I think the Senate has too many ways for one senator or a large minority to stop business from proceeding. I wouldn't like it if the Dems are creating yet another way to gum up the works. Sometimes it seems like the people in power never think they'll be out of power, nor the people out of power think they'll ever be in power.
Fist fights would be preferable. But a lawsuit worked to secure the Presidency, so perhaps this is a good strategy
What will happen if the democrats keep filibustering candidates, and then the republicans do the same when a democrat is in the White House? Is the USA going to run out of judges? American politics are getting very interesting right about now.
Re: Re: GOP to sue Dems Which lawsuit are you referring to, the one where Gore and the Democrats tried to throw out the ballots of military men and women serving overseas?
asf...the Dems aren't filibustering all judges, just the ones they think are too conservative, or don't truthfully answer questions at confirmation. Now, remember, the Dems have to keep almost every Dem on board to carry a filibuster. They need 41 of the ?48? Dems. So it's not an easy task, it's something that will only be used in unusual circumstances. The thing is, the precedent has been set. It'll be very, very easy for "too" conservative to become just plain ol' liberal when the next Dem president gets in office. And then for the next Republican president after that? I think the Dems would answer criticism by saying that Bush is changing the unwritten rules by nominating extreme right wingers. And I understand Dems' concern about giving these people lifetime appointments. I still think they shouldn't change the unwritten rules. I'd put Estrada in a different category. The objection to him is that he plainly lied to the confirmation committee...he said he didn't have a position on a variety of issues on which it is literally unbelievable that he has no position. As for Owens...vote for her or vote against her. If you can't win the vote, that just gives you more incentive to work hard for your presidential nominee in 2004.
I agree w/ SD. It is a despicable political ploy that is beginning to have seriously ill effects on the administration of justice in this country. I agree that Estrada's nomination needs to be held up -- he was a pompus ass in his hearings and is not deserving of the respect of the Senate. However, fillibustering judicial nominees by both parties is becoming the rule rather than the exception and that is a bad thing.
"A President should be given a great deal of latitude on who he nominates to the Federal court. If we disagree with a nomination, then we can vote against it. But, frankly, Mr. President, not only does it damage the integrity and the independence of the Federal judiciary by just holding judicial nominations hostage where nobody ever even votes on them, but I think it damages the integrity of the U.S. Senate." -- Senator Patrick Leahy June 16, 1997 Umm, let's see...who's holding up nominations now? This is a seriously bad cycle.
Calm down ladies. Nominating more moderate judges would do the trick. The more partisan you want them, the harder it is to get them through. Nope, you may not get the most interesting or intellectually couragious judges, but there is an easy solution. Since GWB will get lots of partisan brownie points for nominating people like Owen, this is going to happen.
Damn straight. I wish everybody's life was as good as mine. Obviously you have had some bitter disappointments which have put your into a perpetually angry state. Good luck. By the way, liberal judges would and do have just as much trouble. As much trouble as you seem to have in reading and processing information in that jar that is your head.
Define your terms and then provide the numbers. Not sure how you are going to divide "liberal", "moderate" and "right wing", but good luck. I guess deep down you are arguing with my proposition that if Bush nominated more moderate judges, they wouldn't be confirmed. Most people who follow this can see that judges on the extreme of either spectrum don't have easy passage. Sorry you don't. Kind of sad.
A President should be able to nominate whoever he desires. And, barring a past pedophilia charge against said judge, he/she should be confirmed without delay.
Here's my terms: Just 55 percent of Bush judges have won Senate confirmation, compared to 90 percent of former President Clinton's picks in his first Congress. Democrats Hold Judicial Nominations for 406 Days and Counting
I know its a hard -- desperately hard concept for you to grasp, IM, but we were talking about picking moderates as judges. Just because GWB picks *********************s, doesn't say anything about whether or not the type of judge has an easier chance of passing.
Political? Yes. But, if we look at the logic behind the "checks and balances" created for various reasons, one could be to stop this type of political influence which in turn is hurting the process of government. The key factor would be to see if the Congress is abusing their given powers, which should and can be used (said powers). Be it political by nature but by default it does make one branch more powerful than another. Either shit (vote) or get off the pot. A reasonable move could be to have the judicial branch to break the deadlock. That is, if there is a real deadlock. I think this is healthy. If they do so (take such a case), it could take the US to new lows. Justice is blind and balanced, but when we knowingly stack the various benches, we tilt that balance. Even at that, and I am not a lawyer so I may maintain some ideals about the law, couldn't we all agree that judges will base things on logic and not political influences or personal ideals? OK, I really don't believe what I just wrote.
And Congress (Dems and Repubs) has the right to try to block whoever they desire. If Dubya wants to continue to nominate right wing extremists, let him knock himself out. If he actually wants to get something done and do something good for the country (rather that serve himself and his rich doners), then he would make a concerted effort to nominate someone more towards the center. Clinton had an equally difficult time getting nominations passed, if not more difficult. The fact that both Clinton and Bush (and every president before and hopefully every president in the future) have had some difficult times getting judges accepted, is a very good thing. The checks and balances are what the founding fathers intended. This way, we have a good shot of keeping out the extremist whackos.
With all due respect, no way. See, the filibuster is part of Senate rules. At one time, a motion of closure took 2/3; now it's 3/5. So the Senate can change its own rules if it chooses. It ain't in the Constitution. Unless I'm missing something, there's as much chance as the judges intervening as the judges getting rid of "holds," (a method by which ONE senator could block nominations; Helms used it all of the time) or the seniority system. Which is zero.
I think if congress continues playing politics then all potential judges will have to say that they have no position on anything, in order to pass the democrat or republican litmus tests. What do you think about Charles Pickering? He is accused by maneuvering politicians of being a racist, but several minorities who know him personally have vouched for him. Even Jorge Rangel, whose nomination was rejected by the Republicans and so could have been bitter, went out of his way to support Pickering.
I don't care how brilliant a guy is, extremists shouldn't get lifetime appointments. Pickering is an extremist. I'd never vote for him if I were a Senator. I wish presidents would realize that one of their key historical legacies will be their judicial appointments. Bush obviously doesn't care about that.