The Judge issue

[Bustem' Down]

So, now to the world of reality where our representitive don't have much contact with the people they represent. What are citizens supposed to do about all this? I vote republican 90% of the time because most of thier idea's (I know they're not really listening to me) agree with mine. I'm pro-choice, will always be. I don't want to see pro-choice judges in place no matter is they're republican, democrat or facist. I could really care less about party affiliation really in anything, I look at issues, and if the person I like happens to be democrat so be it. We have no control of judges because they're bound up in being nominated solely based on who has control. whether or not this is "always the way it's been done" it just seems wrong. I think the things that should be simple are being complicated too much.

I think that one need not look any further than the Bork Supreme Court nomination to see why the nuclear option should have been used. Bork was 100% qualified to be a justice, aside from one thing. He had said that the courts should interpret and evaluate laws made by Congress, and not be making laws themselves. He felt that if abortion is to be legal, fine. Pass a bill that makes it legal and don't leave the legality of it hanging in the courts. That was all it took for the Democrats to scream for his defeat.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

I think that one need not look any further than the Bork Supreme Court nomination to see why the nuclear option should have been used. Bork was 100% qualified to be a justice, aside from one thing. He had said that the courts should interpret and evaluate laws made by Congress, and not be making laws themselves. He felt that if abortion is to be legal, fine. Pass a bill that makes it legal and don't leave the legality of it hanging in the courts. That was all it took for the Democrats to scream for his defeat.

...of the Democratic Party as the majority party in both Houses and thus the nation when we look at the Thomas confirmation.

We are all worse off for not having Judge Bork on the bench. We are all better off for having Judge Thomas on the bench. We would not have Thomas without first losing Bork.

We are all better off with the Democratic party revealed for what it is; the home of vicious, radical special interests.

This was hidden in the Bork fight as Republicans lost their stomach for the fight. It was exposed in the Thomas fight and it is re-affirmed in this curent fight.

Thomas was a win for the nation.

This recent silliness ends is a win for the nation; W's getting the ones he really wanted.

Bork did not die in vain. That's what matters.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

So, now to the world of reality where our representitive don't have much contact with the people they represent.

That's not entirely true. Our representatives know we exist and know what we think. But they do what will get them votes, or what they think they can get away with.

Steny Hoyer is a great example. St. Mary's would toss him out on his ear if he weren't a power player in Washington and if it weren't for Pax River. His Congressional votes don't really reflect the will of his constituents but he doesn't care because he knows he'll be re-elected no matter HOW he votes.

But make no mistake, he has continual contact with the people in his district and hears their opinions and complaints. He just doesn't give a crap because there's no reason for him to.

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...they don't get whomever they want. Their choice MUST be passed out of the Senate Judicial commitee and then recieve a majority vote on the floor.

If you know anything at all about the Supreme Court then you know that there has been surprises as to how a judge nominated by either a GOP or a Dem actually turned out. It stands to reason that among the 100's and 100's of lower court federal judges we have that many end up perhaps doing not quite what was expected.

A Clinton without his party majority in the Senate has a tough time getting what he wants. A GOP without GOP majority faces the same problem.

It stands to reason if we have a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in the Senate that their nominees are not going to be to far out of the middle of the political road because, by definition, the middle IS Democratic. It works both ways.

Add to that the spectre of federal judges running about operating election campaigns.

Have you really given this much thought?

And the simple fact of the matter is ALL elections are important right down to the 2nd congressional district of Wherever.

When the people have spoken and the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives are majority Republican it can only say 1 thing; It SCREAMS "Your party is out of touch and we do not want your values and ideas governing" Ant to all those who want to play the "Well your party only won 52% of the pop vote so that does not mean you have a mandate:neener" that tired dog don't hunt and nobody cares about your rationalization. NASCAR has a saying aobut 2nd place; "It is the first loser" Rationalizing only losing by 4 percentage points may make you feel better but you still LOST. So sell that load of dung elseware this is a NDZ (No Dung Zone)

This is the basic idea the Democrats are not coming to grips with. They lost in BOTH elected branches of government therefore they have LOST the ability to shape the appointed one.

Our form of government doe snot leave the minority party defenseless, which is good, but the Democrats MUST reform themselves or they will never gain back the right to govern in a majority. By electing Dean to lead the DNC they took a HUGE header into the shallow end of the pool.

Fools, every damn one of them. the only thing that is keeping the Democratic party from oblivion, breaking up and forming into seperate radical groups is the ineptness or reluctance of the Republicans to crush them.