| Author | Message | ||
     Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 111 Registered: 9-2003 |
When are YOU going to start getting upset by these Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees? With voters realizing the Dems are holding up votes on President Bush's judicial appointees, more Republicans will be elected. Most Americans don't want a liberal judiciary stuffing extreme liberalism down our throats. The current filibuster of judicial nominees threatens to put the lie to the fundamental belief that the USA is the land of equal opportunity. The filibuster of ideas is an acceptable device. The extreme fundamentalist device of blackballing an individual from public service by blockading a public vote on that individual's nomination is repulsive in a free society. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1449 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh give it up. As if what Americans are just dying for is a conservative judiciary stuffing extreme conservatism down our throats. Bush is perfectly capable of coming up with consensus nominees. He has plenty of times already, and they get confirmed easily. But why argue? The transparent cynicism and dishonesty of phrases like, "extreme fundamentalism" and "land of equal opportunity" indicates that you must be some kind of mouthpiece and clearly aren't in a position to be allowed to think for yourself. But for thinking people who are reading this, I just want to remind everyone that even more Clinton appointees were held up, just so that those seats could be "held" in case a Republican was elected in 2000. Many Republicans prior to that maintained that there were enough judges on the circuits already and there was no need for the expense of bringing new ones on. After Bush's appointment by the Supremes, they did a rapid about-face. Somehow I think that, except for the "amen" corner people on the fringe (who will vote Republican anyway) this isn't a swing issue for citizens who are really more interested in not getting blown up on the way to work. | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 115 Registered: 9-2003 |
tom, why so bitter? Can't you handle the truth? You're certain that "even more Clinton appointees were held up." Prove it. Or maybe Nohero will come to your defense with a link. What rapid about-face did the Supremes make? Do you think that only the religious right votes Republican? I think you are showing signs of increasing paranoia. Be careful, relax and maybe see a doctor. Regardless, face the facts. The DNC is more interested in the fringes than in the mainstream. The Democratic Party is lacking conservative leaders who can traditionaly appeal to those folks and as a result the Dems will continue to lose important elections to voters who are discovering the Republican Party has room for them too. We need to have government work and do its job, not be held hostage by a select few. | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 778 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cliff - ask for proof and ye shall receive: Vacancy Rate Low for Federal Courts By David G. Savage Times Staff Writer 1:44 PM PST, November 5, 2003 WASHINGTON -- The vacancy rate on the federal bench is at its lowest point in 13 years, thanks to a recent surge of judges nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate. The intense partisan battle over a handful of judges aside, Bush has already won approval of more judges than President Reagan achieved in his first term in the White House. And with 67 of his nominees winning confirmation by the end of October, Bush has a better record this year than President Clinton achieved in seven of his eight years in office. Experts who track federal judgeships say the Republican complaints about an unprecedented Democratic filibuster over four judges have obscured the larger picture. "The Bush administration has been spectacularly successful in getting the overwhelming proportion of its judicial nominations confirmed. There are only a relative handful being filibustered and held up," said political scientist Sheldon Goldman at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. "And this contrasts with the dozens of Clinton nominees who were held up by the Republicans in the last six years of the Clinton administration. The truth is the Republicans have had an outstanding record so far." The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee lists 39 vacancies among the 859 seats on the U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Courts of Appeal. That is a 4.5% vacancy rate, the committee said. That is the fewest number of vacancies since 1990. During Clinton's term in office, the number of vacancies on the federal bench did not go below 50, according to the administrative office of the U.S. courts. On Thursday, the Senate committee is set to approve four more judicial nominees, including California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown. She is likely to be opposed by most or all of the panel's Democrats, one of whom called her a "right-wing judicial activist" during a hearing two weeks ago. If confirmed, Brown would fill a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals that has been vacant because Republicans blocked two of Clinton's nominees. http://www.latimes.com/la-110503judges_lat,1,4836959,print.story?coll=la-home-le ftrail | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2399 Registered: 10-1999  |
Cliff: Thanks for invoking me in a discussion I was not a part of. I didn't know that I had such a reputation. Sadly, I have no link to respond to you, but a link is not needed. If you are half the informed person that you say you are, you know that Tom is correct. The fact that you pretend he is not, says something about one of you. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1450 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cliff, it wasn't the Supremes that made the about-face, it was the 'many Republicans' referenced in the preceding paragraph. Who said anything about the religious right? A straw-man argument (no, not you Straw Man). It's not paranoia, it's annoyance. Please use your head for something other than a doorstop. Eagerly awaiting you backing off on your claim, due to Ashear's proof to the contrary... | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 116 Registered: 9-2003 |
Don't you just love statistics? Percentages can be made to seem quite deceiving. Exactly how many Clinton nominees were held up during his first three years? At the rate that Bush's nominees are being held up, how does this compare with the rate during a similar portion of Clinton's first term? And just because a few of Clinton's nominees were held up, why should that play a role at all? | ||
| luanda Citizen Username: Luanda Post Number: 103 Registered: 2-2002 |
Cliff - you brought the same nonsense up about 6 weeks ago, and I responded with several articles proving the very point that you were asking Tom to prove. Look it up. I guess you figure we're all dumb and have memories even shorter than yours. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2400 Registered: 10-1999 |
We also all talked about this last summer: Catch up on your reading, then get back to us if you want. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1451 Registered: 5-2001 |
and all this over two -- that's right only two -- filibusters! You'd think there were hundreds the way this guy writes. | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 779 Registered: 5-2001 |
First cliff says
I provide it. Then he says
Nice changing the subject once you are shown to be wrong. I think the point is hypocracy. The repubs are okay with holding up Clinton's nominies but hold up a couple of Bush's out of 67 confirmed and its an outrage. Also since the article states the Bush has done better than Clinton did in 7 of his 8 years it seems safe to say he did better in his first two don't you think. Do you have any of the data you demand? On the actual subject, I think what happened to the confirmation process under Clinton was deporable. Moderate nominies were blocked by wacos like Stom Thurmond (partially based one the argument that the 4th Circuit did not need its full alotment of judges, an argument that died as soon as Bush was elected). I think the two fillibusters being waged by the Dems are unfortutnate, but necessary to keep the President honest. We seem to be in a cycle that has no end, the repubs block Clinton so the dems think they have to do the same to keep the repubs from owning the judiciary and converting it into a federalist society rubber stamp for their views. (The idea that the current Federal Judiciary is liberal is one that can only be espoused by people who have no idea what they are talking about or are lying for political gain.) I would prefer that this come to an end, that both parties focus on legal accumen rather than politics, appointing mostly moderates, but who backs down first? That would seem to be the dilemma. (A lot of this is also posturing so that Bush knows that if he gets a spot on the Sup Ct the Dems are not going to just roll over for another Scalia or Thomas). | ||
| thegoodsgt Citizen Username: Thegoodsgt Post Number: 304 Registered: 2-2002 |
I know this issue is very complicated, but is anyone else sick to their stomach like me that a judge can even be labeled conversative or liberal? | ||
| duncanrogers Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1015 Registered: 12-2001  |
CLIFF For once just say. Wow, thats interesting. You get so annoyed when people refute your argument that you start to sound like a 5th grader. Stats work both ways FACTS DO NOT www.freshwater-films.com | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 371 Registered: 8-2003 |
The only way for the republicans to get their nominees through is to win elections. Though I find it interesting that Sharpton spoke to having Janice Brown get a floor vote. I'm wondering if she's an authentic minority unlike Estrada. As I recall, some NJ congressman implied Estrada wasn't a real Hispanic because he came from a successful family. And we all know real Hispanics aren't from successful anything, just as we know that white men in the South driving pick-ups with confederate decals are all racist, and conservative black republicans are really just Uncle Toms. | ||
| Ken Zeidner Citizen Username: Blackflag Post Number: 12 Registered: 9-2003 |
For what it's worth: As far as I know, the GOP never filibustered a Clinton nominee. Furthermore, it was the Dems who gave us "Borking" and the Thomas fiasco (who, by the way, are two of the greatest legal minds ever to sit on any bench). Bottom line: a person's political leanings are completely irrelevant to the job of judge, as long as they can uphold the law (as all of the filibustered Bush nominees swore they would do). | ||
| Cliff Harris Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 117 Registered: 9-2003 |
Well now that I have accomplished my objective, getting all the looney left MOLer's involved in protective spin, let's address the real point. Regardless of the comparison of whatever occured during the Clinton, or Reagan, or any other administration, why can't our government go about doing it's job? They cannot because of tactics that delay and circumvent the job at hand. A handful of Democratic Senators have decided to hold our government hostage because they cannot get their way. The point is obvious, all of the spin will continue ad in finitum. Yet, our government is being prevented from operating due to the partisan political piousness of a select few liberal Democratic Senators. And when the question is raised here on this board, the fact is all of the defenders of this strtegy seek to compare, spin and attack the messanger. Hey, look it is not about me. It is about allowing our country and its government to accomplish the task of governing. I wonder just how much money has been wasted by these Senators. not ed about it | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 3788 Registered: 5-2001 |
The basic situtation, going back to Civics 101, is that there are a system of checks and balances. While fillibusters aren't part of the constitution, they are part of the rules that in there collective genius the Senate has instituted. The Repbulicans could probably muster enough votes to change the rules if they really wanted to. Since Bush is quite capable of nominating capable judges who can get confirmed, why does he insist on nominating idealogues? Is he playing politics as well? And do you, Ken, really think that Thomas is one of the greatest legal minds ever to sit on the Supreme Court? Bork, I will give you, is brillant, but Thomas? | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1453 Registered: 5-2001 |
Precisely how is our government being "prevented from operating"? Congress meets, war is waged, taxes are levied, regulations implemented, parks are open, the mail is delivered. What precisely is not happening that would happen if the cross-burner and the anti-abortion zealot were seated? And how important is it? | ||
| duncanrogers Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1019 Registered: 12-2001 |
Cliff just cannot lose an argument. thats all folks. He has to be right. God forbid he acknowledge even the slightest error. (at least politically) "Regardless of the comparison of whatever occured during the Clinton, or Reagan, or any other administration, why can't our government go about doing it's job?" This is just silly. Are you so OCD about this fillibuster that you havent noticed the economy perking up? Laws being enacted (tho that partial birth thing is making me sick to my stomach)? What more do you want Cliff. The previous administration, whether you liked them or not, I'm guessing in your case not, still managed to govern while the judicial blockages happened. Just let it go, man. There are alot of responsible people sitting on the benches of the country that Mr. Bush appointed. He is throwing up the more than occasional clay pigeon for the Dems to shoot at so he can scream PARTISANSHIP. Its part of the game. It cannot be ok when your side does it and not ok when the other side does. Thats just spoiled brat thinking www.freshwater-films.com | ||
| rckymtn Citizen Username: Rckymtn Post Number: 182 Registered: 5-2001 |
No party has ever taken the judicial nomination process to the low level that Schumer and his cronies have taken it. There always have been games with nominees -- not just judicial ones -- and they sometimes got nasty and brutal (Bork and Thomas), but not like this. Estrada, Pryor, Rogers Brown, Pickering, and Owen are victims of a sadly successful Democratic strategy which (1) has not forced Bush to back down, (2) has deeply hurt relations between members of the judicial committee, (3) has inflicted personal and professional damage on nominees, and (4) most unfortunately, has dissuaded many fine candidates from accepting invitations to be nominated. God help us all when the day arrives that federal judges are as dumbed-down, unskilled, uninspired and political as many state judges. It's a tragedy. On the other hand, maybe this is all just a brilliant move by the president -- he creates a diversion with a handful of nominees who promptly get labeled as "extreme" by the opposing party and filibustered -- while pushing through a record number of less-attention-grabbing nominees who over the years will have much more of an impact on the law than the 5 or 6 ultimate rejects. Also, don't forget that the ideology of many judges changes once on the bench, over a number of years. Stevens was a Republican nominee (Nixon) who everyone thought would be conservative; today he's perhaps the most liberal member of the Supreme Court. Bush No. One thought Souter would be conservative, and guess again. |
