| Author |
Message |
    
joeltfk
Citizen
Username: Joeltfk
Post Number: 123
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 4:24 pm: | 
|
I'm forwarding this to both interested and ignorant parties:
The Senate is debating the nomination of mining and cattle industry lobbyist William Myers III for a lifetime appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals -- the second highest court in the land. Myers is the first of 20 nominees Bush has re-submitted in his second term. All 20 repeat nominees were rejected last term by Senate Democrats (as compared to 204 judges they accepted) because these nominees consistently sided with corporate special interests over the rights of ordinary Americans.
The Senate has the power to approve or reject judicial nominations because judges -- above all else -- must be trusted by Americans on all sides to rule fairly. So why does Bush refuse to send new nominees both parties can agree on? Because while his presidency will be over in 4 years, the judges he appoints will be on the bench for the rest of their lives. This is Bush's big push to lock in his hard right, corporate-friendly ideology for decades to come -- and that is exactly why we must not back down now.
The fight begins today. The Myers vote is a key test -- and may well determine whether Bush can stack the judiciary, all the way up to the Supreme Court, with a steady stream of hard right, pro-corporate judges. It's crucial that our Senators know that we out here in America are counting on them to hold the line against all 20 of Bush's rejected, partisan judges.
Please sign today:
http://www.moveonpac.org/judges/
We will deliver your comments to your Senators before the crucial votes on these 20 judicial nominees.
Here's a brief summary of just the first three of the 20 partisan judges re-nominated by President Bush.
William Myers III has never been a judge and spent most of his career as a lobbyist for the cattle and mining industry.[1] He has written that all habitat conservation laws are unconstitutional because they interfere with potential profit.[2] In 2001, Bush appointed him as the chief lawyer for the Department of the Interior. In that role he continued as a champion of corporate interests, setting his agenda in meetings with former employers he promised not to speak with, and even illegally giving away sacred Native American land to be strip mined.[3]
Terrence Boyle was a legal aide to Jesse Helms. As a judge, his signature decisions have attempted to circumvent federal laws barring employment discrimination by race, gender, and disability.[4] His rulings have been overturned a staggering 120 times by the conservative 4th District Court of Appeals, either due to gross errors in judgment or simple incompetence.[5]
William Pryor Jr. served as Attorney General of Alabama, where he took money from Phillip Morris, fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit until it was almost over, and cost the people of Alabama billions in settlement money for their healthcare system as a result.[6] He called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and has consistently argued against the federal protections for the civil rights of minorities, lesbian and gay couples, women, and the disabled.[7]
If we falter now, then decades down the road dozens of judges like this will still be ruling in favor of unchecked corporate greed and against the basic principles of accountability and fairness.
The Bush Administration is prepared to stop at nothing to smash Democratic resistance and stack the courts. As President of the Senate, Dick Cheney has even threatened to push these 20 through by using a parliamentary trick so abusive even he calls it the "nuclear option." If they can get away with it, the "nuclear option" would eliminate the right to filibuster -- a rule that has allowed 40 or more Senators to keep extremists from all sides off the courts for centuries.
If that happens, when Supreme Court vacancies begin to open up in a few months there will be no motivation for Bush to nominate justices acceptable to both parties, and no ability for Democrats to oppose even the most dangerous extremists.
We must draw the line here, by stopping Bush's 20 repeat nominees. They were rejected once -- they can and must be rejected again.
Please sign the petition today:
http://www.moveonpac.org/judges/
Thanks for all that you do,
--Ben Brandzel, Eli Pariser and the whole MoveOn PAC Team
Tuesday, March 1st, 2005
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2117
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Thanks, Joel. I was going to post it, but deleted it by mistake.
If Myers gets in, I'm gonna puke. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 3400
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
eh hem...it's "nukuler option" |
Face
Citizen
Username: Face
Post Number: 520
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 4, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
"I'm posting this for both interested and ignorant parties."
“In 1992, Democrats in the Senate denied Sixth Circuit nominee John Smietanka a hearing. In light of the delay caused by this, a deal was brokered between President Clinton's White House and Senator Spence Abraham's office, under which Senator Abraham would support Clinton's first nominee to the bench — Eric Clay — and the White House would work with Abraham to find a consensus nominee for a second vacancy. As an initial matter, it is curious that Judge Clay’s nomination ever made it that far: A disciplinary panel at Yale Law School found that he had threatened a professor with physical violence while he was a student there — something that would ordinarily be problematic for those seeking to join the bar, let alone the bench."
"Senator Abraham kept his end of the bargain, assuring that Clay was confirmed. The White House, however, opted against a consensus nominee for the second vacancy in favor of controversial candidate Helene White, the wife of Senator Carl Levin's cousin. With the deal broken, Senator Abraham did not support nominee White, and she did not receive a hearing. But Senator Levin is protective of his in-laws, and he has been stonewalling all four circuit-court nominees from Michigan until White gets a place on the Sixth Circuit.”
taken from: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/daly200503021028.asp
|
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 546
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
...which has what to do with Joel's post? |
joeltfk
Citizen
Username: Joeltfk
Post Number: 124
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, March 6, 2005 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Ya got me. |
Mark Fuhrman
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Right, and the Republicans didn't stonewall Clinton's judicial appointees? I recall Orin Hatch giving every Republican a veto with a simple "no" vote. Yes, Clinton appointed a lot of judges, but he did so by choosing, by and large, moderate candidates who could pass muster with a very hostile Republican-controlled congress. Bush should present more moderate candidates and the roll-over Democrats will accomodate him, I am sure. |
Maple Man
Citizen
Username: Mapleman
Post Number: 515
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 11:21 am: |
|
actually Bush and the Republicans like when this happens. They intentionally pick these fights over judges so that they can campaign in '06 against "obstructionist" Democrats. it's clever politics on their part.
I don't really believe they'll ever choose the "nuclear" option, because then their nominees will sail through, but they'll lose this issue as something they can beat Democrats over the head with.
|
Strawman
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4617
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
So far all we know is Joeltfk gets his news from the daily Show and Moveonpac.org. I guess quoting Michael Moore is no longer stylish.
 |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 2120
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 7, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Maple, I'm not so sure. While there may be some political tactics involved in choosing candidates that are so far to the right, the greatest advantage is to be had by actually getting these guys installed, rather than making a stink out of Democrats filibustering against them.
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page