Democrats Obstruct Judicial Nominees

[Lincoln]

If che thinks they are radical right wingers they are probably moderates. That is a good rule of thumb. Too bad though that the Democrates are so racist that they oppose these minorities and women because they are not liberals like them. Hypocrites!

[chequita guevara]

They serve Mammon, Lincoln.

Let's take Owen. Look up the case of Willie Searcy, a quadrapalgic kid, and the judicial activism she engaged in that resulted in his death.

[Sprayber]

Their reasoning must be that if your a minority and don't credit the Dem. party for your success that you must have sold out somehow.

[chequita guevara]

Why is it supposedly God-fearing, Christian Republicans always support the servants of Mammon?

[Ming]

Not all repubs are whining... some of the judges are just morons and loons and it's a good thing the Dems are blocking them.

But yeah... politcs as usual

[chequita guevara]

Ming, when are your Republicans gonna stop letting the Religious Right control your party?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Democrats Obstruct Judicial Nominees

Originally posted by Sprayber

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031114/us_nm/congress_judges_dc_26

I feel sad when I read stuff like this. I respect the right of Senators to debate and it's good that nominees are approved by the Senate, but are the Democrats doing it because they disagree with the nominees or is it out of spite. Daschle points his finger and says they did it first. Reminds me of how a child would act. But mommy he did it first. Shouldnt they at least have a vote?

The Senate rules have been designed from the beginning to prevent a narrow majority from doing anything over the objections of a vocal minority. Remember, the Senate was originally not a popular body, but the direct representative of the states themselves, with Senators elected by State legislatures. Part of the idea was to weaken the power of the Federal goverment vis a vis the states, and part of the idea was to weaken the common rabble (who could vote for Representatives in Federal elections, even though state property ownership requirements might disenfranchise them completely for state elections (hence Dorr's rebellion). The Senate is designed to stifle highly controversial measures that might pass by a bare majority.

It's not just judges - Republican members of the Armed Services committees in the last few years have delayed promotion votes for generals in the Air Force (more than other services) unless and until USAF procurement types agreed to fund and purchase equipment the USAF didn't want or need, as pork projects for those Senator's home states.

You could go back to the beginning of the US and find by now thousands of examples of Senate filibusters that couldn't be ended by a cloture vote, and other rules games to either block something entirely, or to coerce pork barrel concessions.

And che is right about the judicial records of these judges. The fact that there are some woman and minority types is more guided by strategy and pandering than it is guided by either their ethnicity or gender, or by their qualifications. It's their ideologies, and the fact that a minority can be spun whether the vote is up or down, or stalled.

Just like Clarence Thomas - could anyone really say with a straight face that a 39 year old with no trial bench experience, 18 months at the appellate bench and less than 20 opinions authored was the single most qualified judge in the entiire US for promotion to SCOTUS? There were even plenty of judge as conservative as Thomas who were far more qualified, but they were also far older, so there was no way to guarantee an ideological slot to fill one SCOTUS seat for 40 years - and to eventually reach the senior AJ position.

The problem is with BOTH parties - the tendency to want to pack Article III appointees with friendly ideologues to whichever side is in power, regardless of qualfication. IMO, the 9th Circuit should have far more conservative judges appointed, as it is truly a frootloop circuit. The 4th and 5th Circuits are already several steps to the right of Judge Roy Bean, so there's really nothing wrong with appointing centrist moderates to those judicial slots. There should be two goals: Appointing appellate judges nominees with the highest objective qualifications, and seeking judicial balance as much as possible between difference appellate circuits. Neither of those is done now, because after all, the important thing is for both political parties to try to put spray ideological imprint wherever they can make it stick the longest.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ming, when are your Republicans gonna stop letting the Religious Right control your party?

They don't... lip service is paid when needed. If somebody campaigns as total toadies of the RR, they will lose, because mainstream repubs don't buy into that crap

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Their reasoning must be that if your a minority and don't credit the Dem. party for your success that you must have sold out somehow.

Or if you're ideologically pure and young, but unqualfied, they'll be able to stick you in a slot for 40 years due to lifetime employment, and the fact that you happen to be a minority can be used as spin - "look at us, we appointed one!" or "look at them, claiming to be for you colored folk, but they stab your boy in the back" as the case may be.

But the real sticking point is that as long as judges tend to live, and having lifetime appointments, if you can get a guy of yours on the bench when he's in his late 30's or early 40's, you own that seat for 30 to 50 years.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Democrats Obstruct Judicial Nominees

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The problem is with BOTH parties - the tendency to want to pack Article III appointees with friendly ideologues to whichever side is in power, regardless of qualfication.

I read an interesting solution to this: require a super majority to affirm any Federal judges. It will take partisanship out of the picture completely, unless one side or the other has a supermajority, in which case packing thecourts will be bringing them in line with the will of the people anyway.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Sava
Democrats have approved 168 of Bush's nominees... and blocked 4 of the most extremists...

Republicans approved around 330 Clinton nominees... and blocked OVER 60!!!

Don't give me this bull**** about Democrats being the bad guys here.

I don't agree with Sava's numbers (I seem to recall more Clinton nominees not get it), but his sentiment is correct: both parties do it, it's a part of politics, move along, nothing to see here...

[JohnT]

Re: Re: Re: Democrats Obstruct Judicial Nominees

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I read an interesting solution to this: require a super majority to affirm any Federal judges. It will take partisanship out of the picture completely, unless one side or the other has a supermajority, in which case packing thecourts will be bringing them in line with the will of the people anyway.

If you go with supermajority votes for both increasing overall government spending and cutting taxes, I'll give you this. No problem.

[Q Classic]

i don't know if it's quite official, but...

http://democrats.senate.gov/bedtime_story.pdf

i find it amusing, even if i don't quite care about this right now.

[rev]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
No cliton nominee (nor any other that I call recall) was blocked by a filibuster minority; they were voted down either in committee on or on the floor. A filibuster is a minority blocking a vote from taking place.

Because a good number of the Clinton nominees (that weren't suggested by Republicans) never came to a vote in a committee or on the floor. Many were blocked using changes in the procedural rules, so a single Republican senator could prevent a nomination from ever coming up for any vote at all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sprayber



Then we agree that both sides are whiners, but i still say that Jessie Jackson more than makes up for anything concerning this. Jessie raises it to a new standard. It takes two republican whiners to equal just one of Jessie.

But the Republicans now have a majority in Congress, so they're still ahead.