I say more power to 'em. Moreover, I'm not sure why the Senate Republicans are trying to remove mechanisms of the minority. Isn't that a little shortsighted? What happens when the Democrats control the Senate again? Do they really want to be left hanging out in the wind, hobbled by measures they took when they were in power?
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Karnaj's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
I say more power to 'em. Moreover, I'm not sure why the Senate Republicans are trying to remove mechanisms of the minority. Isn't that a little shortsighted?
Kennedy himself had considered the same thing when the Dems were last controlling the Senate along with one or two others that are being outspoken about it now. You'll note they didn't do it either back then. I'm trying to find archives to support what I say but I'm pressed for time this evening.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Karnaj!
Senate Democrats threaten to stave off nomination of judges indefinitely.I say more power to 'em. Moreover, I'm not sure why the Senate Republicans are trying to remove mechanisms of the minority. Isn't that a little shortsighted? What happens when the Democrats control the Senate again? Do they really want to be left hanging out in the wind, hobbled by measures they took when they were in power?
Item 1:
For starters, the senate minority has no right to do what they're doing and there's no precedent of the Senate doing anything like this. They are, essentially, preventing anybody that does not agree with the Democratic party from becoming a judge. The senate approval is to determine competency, NOT whether or not a judge agrees with the right stances on certain issues. Surely you, being a political minded individual, realize the inherent danger of the senate revoking judges based purely on their political views, thereby granting the senate near total control over the judicial branch.
The judges aren't even REQUIRED to answer the questions of the senate in the first place, and a great many of the approved judges only recieved approval because they abstained from the senate questioning. Senate approval was NEVER intended to be a litmus test for a judge's political polarity, and the senate minority is abusing their power in treating it as such, just like they abused their power to slam the Bush administration through Condi Rice. The senate democrats are behaving like spoiled little power-mad children that are going to piss and moan until they're afforded all the power of the majority and if that's not a wanton abuse of government, I don't know what is.
Item 2:
Saying the republicans are trying to "remove the mechanisms of the minority" is misleading in the extreme. The "Nuclear option" exists, among other things, to PREVENT precisely this kind of thing from happening. That's one of the reasons being in the majority is a GOOD thing. It's the senate DEMOCRATS that are trying to remove the mechanisms of the MAJORITY by abusing their positions in this way. Senate republicans need to grow some balls and press that button before every crackpot activist senator gets it into his head that he has the right to change the world in his favor.
Democratic senator and former KKK member Robert Byrd is one of the most vocal nutjob opponents of the "Nuclear" option, saying it's a "usurption of tradition" and other such bullshit, but he himself advocated the use of the very same option dozens of times, including in opposition to the "Civil Rights Act" Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-15-2005 at 08:04 PM.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Noxhil2!
I was going to comment on how you restated Bush's position down to the use of "litmus test" but then you edited
I only added things when I edited, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Senate republicans never attempted to filibuster judges purely because of their political beliefs. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-15-2005 at 08:27 PM.
quote:
Maradon! got served! Maradon! got served!
Item 1:For starters, the senate minority has no right to do what they're doing and there's no precedent of the Senate doing anything like this. They are, essentially, preventing anybody that does not agree with the Democratic party from becoming a judge. The senate approval is to determine competency, NOT whether or not a judge agrees with the right stances on certain issues. Surely you, being a political minded individual, realize the inherent danger of the senate revoking judges based purely on their political views, thereby granting the senate near total control over the judicial branch.
I call bullshit. Those judicial nominees are being selected because of their stances on issues like stem cell research, abortion, and church-state separation. They're not being chosen because they're competant judges who happen to be conserative; their alignment with conservatism is the reason they're being chosen. Perhaps there's a sort of "fringe benefit wink-wink" attitude about it(in that Republicans won't acknowledge their motives, but they won't complain when Roe v. Wade gets overturned or the gay marriage bans in various states get upheld), but the motivations are clear as as a bell. I will then say this to you: you, being a politically minded individual, realize the inherent danger in pushing through nominations purely based on their political views, yes?
quote:
The judges aren't even REQUIRED to answer the questions of the senate in the first place, and a great many of the approved judges only recieved approval because they abstained from the senate questioning. Senate approval was NEVER intended to be a litmus test for a judge's political polarity, and the senate minority is abusing their power in treating it as such, just like they abused their power to slam the Bush administration through Condi Rice. The senate democrats are behaving like spoiled little power-mad children that are going to piss and moan until they're afforded all the power of the majority and if that's not a wanton abuse of government, I don't know what is.
Big deal if it wasn't. Times change, and in the face of the majority attempting complete dominance of the government, I applaud the minority for using every tool at their disposal to keep the majority in check. Condi Rice's treatment was simply a show of solidarity; there was no good reason to fuck with her appointment. There is good reason to block these nominees.
Now, I suspect partisanship on your part, so I posit this: were the situation reversed, would you support the Democrats attempting push through ultra liberal judges? I would applaud the Republicans doing all they could to block such hippies; the Senate is one of a precious few checks on SCOTUS.
quote:
Item 2:Saying the republicans are trying to "remove the mechanisms of the minority" is misleading in the extreme. The "Nuclear option" exists, among other things, to PREVENT precisely this kind of thing from happening. That's one of the reasons being in the majority is a GOOD thing. It's the senate DEMOCRATS that are trying to remove the mechanisms of the MAJORITY by abusing their positions in this way. Senate republicans need to grow some balls and press that button before every crackpot activist senator gets it into his head that he has the right to change the world in his favor.
Bullshit. Our government is elected to protect the rights of the minority, not enact the will of the majority. Majority does not give you carte blanche to whatever you want. The line is drawn when the majority's will comes at the expense of the minority, and so is it here.
quote:
Democratic senator and former KKK member Robert Byrd is one of the most vocal nutjob opponents of the "Nuclear" option, saying it's a "usurption of tradition" and other such bullshit, but he himself advocated the use of the very same option dozens of times, including in opposition to the "Civil Rights Act"
Biased Sample. Not all democrats are nutjobs, despite what you may believe.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
JooJooFlop had this to say about Robocop:
I wonder a lot about why judges on the Supreme Court are more or less chosen by the president and get to serve for life. Is there such a shortage of people qualified that only so many are available in a lifetime?
If they were "elected" for set periods of time, it makes them corrupt.
Rather, they are constantly vying for re-election, swaying to the wills of the voters at the time. A lifetime appointment makes them immune to such, and ensures that an unbiased interpretation of the law is given.
quote:
Karnaj had this to say about pies:
Those judicial nominees are being selected because of their stances on issues like stem cell research, abortion, and church-state separation.
No shit! It's the prerogative of the administration to appoint judges in line with their views, that's a PART of the checks and balances of government, that's why they are appointed rather than elected. Senate approval is NOT intended as a mechanism to prevent that, Senate approval is NOT a check on SCOTUS and never has been, using it that way is nothing short of a childish power grab.
quote:
Condi Rice's treatment was simply a show of solidarity; there was no good reason to fuck with her appointment.
I guess that's why only the three most whacked out nutjob democrats on the senate were responsible for the relentless harassment.
quote:
So quoth Delphi Aegis:
If they were "elected" for set periods of time, it makes them corrupt.Rather, they are constantly vying for re-election, swaying to the wills of the voters at the time. A lifetime appointment makes them immune to such, and ensures that an unbiased interpretation of the law is given.
So instead of giving them lifetime appointments why not make it 10 years? Can't be a Supreme Court justice after that, so you don't have to worry about keeping your job.
quote:
Karnaj wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Now, I suspect partisanship on your part, so I posit this: were the situation reversed, would you support the Democrats attempting push through ultra liberal judges? I would applaud the Republicans doing all they could to block such hippies; the Senate is one of a precious few checks on SCOTUS.
You forget that I am diametrically opposed to the Bush administration on stem cell research, abortion, and church-state separation.
quote:
Karnaj got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Senate Democrats threaten to stave off nomination of judges indefinitely.I say more power to 'em. Moreover, I'm not sure why the Senate Republicans are trying to remove mechanisms of the minority. Isn't that a little shortsighted? What happens when the Democrats control the Senate again? Do they really want to be left hanging out in the wind, hobbled by measures they took when they were in power?
Yes it's a mechanism of the minority, but when it raises the needed vote from 51 to 60; it's like changing the rules in the middle of a football/baseball/whatever sport to something new. I feel this is illegal, and unconstitutional; if you're going to change the vote, you might as well change what the constitution states about the advise and consent of the Senate to 60%, or maybe convince your senators to maybe vote No on the candidate, maybe get enough of them (51) to vote no, that's a turn of 6 senators. it could happen a lot better, with out the fillibuster changing the vote ammount.
quote:
Razor had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
Yes it's a mechanism of the minority, but when it raises the needed vote from 51 to 60; it's like changing the rules in the middle of a football/baseball/whatever sport to something new. I feel this is illegal, and unconstitutional; if you're going to change the vote, you might as well change what the constitution states about the advise and consent of the Senate to 60%, or maybe convince your senators to maybe vote No on the candidate, maybe get enough of them (51) to vote no, that's a turn of 6 senators. it could happen a lot better, with out the fillibuster changing the vote ammount.
Now I'm certainly no master of the US constition, but isn't the entire point of the filibuster to function as a check and balance to keep the judicary system (which in itself is supposed to be a check and balance, see Supreme Court) from being completely dominated by a winning party?
quote:
JooJooFlop thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
So instead of giving them lifetime appointments why not make it 10 years? Can't be a Supreme Court justice after that, so you don't have to worry about keeping your job.
They would still have to worry about getting another job after those ten years.
quote:
Mod was naked while typing this:
They would still have to worry about getting another job after those ten years.
So?
It's also designed so that justices will sit on the bench for decades and thus be able to moderate social change so that any short-term fads in politics don't have a chance to destroy the balance of law. FYI.
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
For starters, the senate minority has no right to do what they're doing and there's no precedent of the Senate doing anything like this.
Bullllllshiiitttt. Senate rules have always permitted filibuster. Don't like it? Take it up with Robert's Rules of Order. 
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Drysart wrote:
Bullllllshiiitttt. Senate rules have always permitted filibuster. Don't like it? Take it up with Robert's Rules of Order.
1) Filibusters are not detailed or guaranteed anywhere in the constitution. They are nothing more than a traditional rule. A rule that can be changed (and likely will be).
2) A filibuster has never in the history of the senate been used to stall voting on a judge in this way. Senate advice and approval is NOT INTENDED to be a litmus test for a judge's political views. Senate advice and approval is NOT a check on the supreme court. To use it that way is an abuse of power in the extreme.
3) Having one political party control all of government does not violate the checks and balances detailed in the constitution in any way. There is NO prohibition against having all three branches of government populated by people who merely agree with each other. Acting as though this filibuster is the only thing staving off a totalitarian state like nutjob Ted Kennedy does is nothing but pure lunacy spouted for shock factor. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-18-2005 at 06:12 AM.
quote:
JooJooFlop stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
So?
So that would undermine their independence, if a judge had to worry about what would become of him after his career as a judge is over he'd be more likely try not to rock the boat.
quote:
Maradon! stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
3) Having one political party control all of government does not violate the checks and balances detailed in the constitution in any way. There is NO prohibition against having all three branches of government populated by people who merely agree with each other. Acting as though this filibuster is the only thing staving off a totalitarian state like nutjob Ted Kennedy does is nothing but pure lunacy spouted for shock factor.
No, however it effectively cirumvents them. You have institutions that are supposed to be keeping each other in check and thus by their nature be somewhat adversarial towards one another all controlled by the same people.
quote:
Mod thought about the meaning of life:
No, however it effectively cirumvents them. You have institutions that are supposed to be keeping each other in check and thus by their nature be somewhat adversarial towards one another all controlled by the same people.
Not really. The three branches of government exist to prevent a single entity from having total control, not to encourage adversity. Simply belonging to the same political party as another person does not grant them influence over you.
quote:
Mod painfully thought these words up:
So that would undermine their independence, if a judge had to worry about what would become of him after his career as a judge is over he'd be more likely try not to rock the boat.
Then why don't we have presidents/senators/etc for life?
Supreme court justices are in for life for a number of reasons. 1st and foremost is the fact that you dont' want the courts changing based on the whims of the people that change quickly. Lets face it, Humans have short attention spans. There are fads that work their way into every part of our life and are then forgotten within a short period of time. You dont' want a whole new crop of judges coming in that may just be willing to change case law based upon these "fads" Essentially the Courts, especially the supreme court, is supposed to change slow and ponderously. ANything else is dangerous.
Now, look at the elected offices, the same thing applies. Senators represent the state as a whole. Since the needs of a state change slowly you have a 6 year cycle, this means that anyone elected has time ton get things done and effect change fore elections come around again.
Congressmen are on the opposite end of the spectrum, the represent the needs of much smaller portions of a state, in these areas change can occur fairly often and the needs of the people can shift drastically. Therefore you have only a 2 year term, although arguably this could be increased to 4 due to current communications technology.
And finally in the middle we have the president. He represents us all. In this case the 4 year term is there as a balance, he has time to get things done but can be replaced as needs arise.
Hey, we found a use for republicans! 
Haha, Just kidding, Az. You know we hate love you.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when JooJooFlop said:
Then why don't we have presidents/senators/etc for life?
Azizza pretty much explained it, the poistion of judge should not be political.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Mod wrote:
Azizza pretty much explained it, the poistion of judge should not be political.
Shit, I couldn't have said it better myself.
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
1) Filibusters are not detailed or guaranteed anywhere in the constitution. They are nothing more than a traditional rule. A rule that can be changed (and likely will be).
Filibusters are detailed and guaranteed in Senate Rules, and, when they're not blocking one party's pet bill, are generally regarded by both sides of the aisle as a good thing. I don't see how anyone could view throwing out two hundred years of legislative practice with the intention of forcing through one issue as acceptable in any sense of the word.
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
2) A filibuster has never in the history of the senate been used to stall voting on a judge in this way. Senate advice and approval is NOT INTENDED to be a litmus test for a judge's political views. Senate advice and approval is NOT a check on the supreme court. To use it that way is an abuse of power in the extreme.
Please point out anywhere in the Constitution that supports your claim. Since you were so happy to point out that filibusters aren't in the Constitution, you obviously must have Constitutional backing for your statement of the founding fathers' intention of Senate approval of judicial nominations. I mean, anything else would be hypocritical of you, and we both know you're not that, right?
quote:
Maradon! came out of the closet to say:
nutjob Ted Kennedy
hurr hurr 
