The Judge issue

[Bustem' Down]

I've been thinking about this issue for a while, once you peal the petty arguments and political maneuvering away I have to agree that allowing the president to appoint whoever he wants to life long judicuary posisions is not a good idea. It just gives the president, whatever his party may be just too much power.

[Pete (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

I've been thinking about this issue for a while, once you peal the petty arguments and political maneuvering away I have to agree that allowing a Republican president to appoint whoever he wants to life long judicuary posisions is not a good idea. It just gives the Republican president, just too much power.

:fixed:

[Bustem' Down]

And here I just want to have a nice non-partisan conversation. I just can't trust you people!

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

It just gives the president, whatever his party may be just too much power.

One of the reasons I vote for a particular President is because I know he will be appointing the judges that will either uphold our laws or say, "Hey!! You can't do that!"

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

One of the reasons I vote for a particular President is because I know he will be appointing the judges that will either uphold our laws or say, "Hey!! You can't do that!"

But the judges are supposed to be outside the executive branch. Not part of it. You should elect a president because he will pass laws that you agrees with not because he will force laws to be accepted.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

You should elect a president because he will pass laws that you agrees with not because he will force laws to be accepted.

The President doesn't pass laws - Congress does. All the President can do is veto the ones he doesn't like.

The system works like it's supposed to. Just like with the Supremes, the President nominates someone he likes and Congress pisses around with it until they either give him the or the . It would be almost unthinkable for anyone too outlandish to make it through the confirmation process.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

But the judges are supposed to be outside the executive branch. Not part of it. You should elect a president because he will pass laws that you agrees with not because he will force laws to be accepted.

...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?

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

The President doesn't pass laws - Congress does. All the President can do is veto the ones he doesn't like.

The system works like it's supposed to. Just like with the Supremes, the President nominates someone he likes and Congress pisses around with it until they either give him the or the . It would be almost unthinkable for anyone too outlandish to make it through the confirmation process.

I'm saying congress creates, president passes, but that's just semantics.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

I'm saying congress creates, president passes, but that's just semantics.

Right. But any law that gets proposed has to go through Congress first and they can 86 it before it even gets to the President. So there's a separation of power, just like there's supposed to be.

Didn't you ever watch Schoolhouse Rock???

The Senate is suppossed to provide advise and consent services to the Prez IRT judicial appointments. They are not suppossed to pick the judges anymore than the Prez is suppossed to write laws. I think that your observation goes once again to the issue that rraley brought up some weeks ago, that being when is a minority big enough to listen to? If the Senate was comprised of 99 Republicans and 1 Democrat, should that one Democrat have the right to veto a judge nominee? How about a 70/30 split? While having a smaller split gives the minority a feeling of power, the truth is that it is, and should be, the perogative of the majority to decide who gets the bench.

What bothers me is that once again, our stupid fellow citizens have been duped by the Democrats and the media. I heard about several polls today that showed a majority of Americans believe that it should continue to take 60 votes to approve a judge and that the rules shouldn't be changed to allow the approval of a judge by a simple majority of 51!!! These people have actually been duped into thinking that the Republicans are trying to change the law from 60 votes to 51 votes, and don't even realize that the rules are that a simple majority determines the judges fate.

The rules are, and have been, that a simple majority is all that's needed to approve a judge. Nothing's changed except for the Democrats not wanting to see pro-life judges get a seat on the bench. This is not about unqualified judges, it's about abortion. If the President were nominating cronies, or unqualified judges, I would agree with your concerns, but that's not the case. The Democrats have shown they can't win going the legislative route, so they have to rely on judges, and they'll do anything they can to oppose judges who won't let them impose their views.