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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hold on there Bust...

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]

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]

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???

 

[Bruzilla]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Larry Gude]

And one can look at the begining of the end...

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]

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]

...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.