Democrats Obstruct Judicial Nominees

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Democrats Obstruct Judicial Nominees

Originally posted by JohnT


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

Shall we throw in knocking over banana dictators you don't like in this go-round, or try to limit the scope of our delusion?

[JohnT]

Well, since we're dreaming, I want a better house. And a pony for my little girl.

[chequita guevara]

you know what really makes me hate this SOB? He's so bad, I'm thinking of voting for the Democrats! I hate the Democrats, just not as much.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by JohnT
Well, since we're dreaming, I want a better house. And a pony for my little girl.

She should get a pony.

[chequita guevara]

Isn't she a little young for a pony?

[Ned]

Does anyone know whether the constitutionality of the filibuster has been before the Supreme Court? I know it has been part of the Senate rules for a long time, but I do not believe it is authorizied by the Constitution.

[uh Clem]

The Constitution specifies that each house is free to determine its own rules. Yeah, it's Constitutional.

[Ned]

Originally posted by uh Clem
The Constitution specifies that each house is free to determine its own rules. Yeah, it's Constitutional.

The Constitution also specifies the vote necessary to pass or approve certain measures. The issue presented is whether the filibuster rule can effectively erases the specific Constitutional provisions.

In statutory construction, specific provisions are given weight over general provisions if there is a conflict.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why should being 'scary' have anything to do with whether one is a good judge or not?

I find many of the dem appointees 'scary', does that mean they ought to be prevented from taking a seat in the court?

MtG:

Why should one strive for a judicial balance? This automatically implies that the judiciary is not impartial, in that each justice ought to be considered on the basis of their political beliefs.

That's the really sad part about the shenanigans, political idelogy outweighing other judicial qualifications.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone know whether the constitutionality of the filibuster has been before the Supreme Court? I know it has been part of the Senate rules for a long time, but I do not believe it is authorizied by the Constitution.

It is contitutional, you are just POed because the dems have the courage to tell the repugs to f*ck off.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned

The Constitution also specifies the vote necessary to pass or approve certain measures. The issue presented is whether the filibuster rule can effectively erases the specific Constitutional provisions.

In statutory construction, specific provisions are given weight over general provisions if there is a conflict.

The Senate is charges with determining its own rule in the Constitution. The Senate has determined that a Senator may speak unless cut off by X number of Senators. They can change the rules, but that requires a supermajority or the President of the Senate creating a new ruling. Cheney could show up in the Senate and change the rules on executive cloture, but doing that would mean that the Dem's would enage in some serious payback when they next controlled the Senate.

BenK, among other things the illustrious Prissy Ownes did was send a law suit back to be retried, finding that it had been initiated in the wrong district. She did this on the basis of a law that hadn't been in existence at the time of the law suit. The result of the lawsuit was still victory for he plaintiff, but he then died of his injuries before he could collect the money that was to be used to hire a full time nurse to look after him. He died when his volunteer nurse left him alone for an hour.

Ms. Owen also ruled that despite a Texas state law that requires government entities to provide all documents to the public (excepting grand jury documents), she said the law doesn't mean that and that a particular city that awarded a no-bid contract didn't have to give the contract to the local newspaper, i.e., citizens no longer have the ablity to see if their government is honest.

In addition, she rewrote the parental consent law from the bench, ruling that a minor must prove they are mature enough to understand the consequences of the actions, including understanding the social, philosophical, economic, and religious issues involved in having an abortion, despite the fact that the law requires only that the minor has a serious risk of being abused or neglected.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


It is contitutional, you are just POed because the dems have the courage to tell the repugs to f*ck off.

Odin, think about the stink if the Dems filibustered, in some fashion, the Clinton impeachment vote.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Odin, think about the stink if the Dems filibustered, in some fashion, the Clinton impeachment vote.

You can't fillibuster in the House, therefore fillibustering an impeachment is impossible.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ned -

the ability of the Senate to make it's own rules, and the House of Representatives to make theirs, are express provisions of Article II of the Constitution.

A filibuster isn't a formal procedure, so you really can't challenge what doesn't exist in more than name. Under Senate rules, vote in committee or on the floor happens at the end of debate, and Senators have no time limits for debate.

Debate ends when the members agree, or if a supermajority of 60 invoke cloture and vote to end debate and move an item to a committee or floor vote. Filibuster is just the name given to the tactic whereby a Senator or Senators realize there aren't 60 votes to force cloture, so they simply don't stop debating. They can do the cot trick for show, but nobody forces that, because you only need one guy, and if you've got more than 40 votes to defeat cloture, you can keep one guy on the floor forever by doing it in shifts.

The only things you can challenge are whether the Senate has the right to not limit a Senator's time for debate, or whether the Senate has the right to set a supermajority of 60 votes for an internal procedural vote. Both of those are clearly within the Senate's right to form it's own rules, and both can be changed by the Senate if they so desire.

The Constitution does not specify when a vote must take place, only that it must take place, unless the matter is withdrawn for consideration. And if it isn't today, it can be tomorrow. If it isn't tomorrow, well, there's the next day. And on and on...

*******

Ben - ideological judges of any stripe have enormous powers, because they are lifetime appointments, subject only to impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. "scary" dem appointees should be prevented just as much as scary rep appointees, unless it's to achieve balance. There's a place for legal minds like Scalia and Rehnquist. Ideally, not if they're the most "liberal" members of SCOTUS, and you have seven avowed neo-nazis to their right. Same thing with Douglas and Black, but not if they are the right wing, and you have seven members of the American Communist Party to their left.

As for judicial balance, no human being ever born is impartial, even the ones who try to be. The benefit of balance is that in order to get a majority opinion, you have to have some compromise and melding of views, and the quality of judicial work generally improves when you have to acknowledge and work beyond different interpretations. Appellate work is about interpretation and application of law far more than it deals with factual issues, so interpretive work is far more subject to bias, whether intentional or otherwise.

At the Federal court of appeals level, you've got 13 circuit courts of appeal which generally cover the same types of cases (11 numbered circuits for the 50 states and territories, the Federal circuit for actions against the US government and the DC circuit). Ideally, since you're dealing with application of law, and usually Federal law, it would be nice if you could expect consistent treatment of the same legal issues in different circuit courts of appeal. Especially as SCOTUS under Rehnquist takes very few cases, and only a tiny number involve resolving conflicting interpretation of the same issue from different circuit courts of appeal.

[Ned]

Che, you know the reason the Dems are resisting these nominations is the abortion issue. That is what they mean when they say these nominee's are outside the mainstream. The cases you cited seem to indicate judicial incompetence, which is an issue that is something other than being outside the mainstream.