Dems Threaten Going Super Nuclear

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Mar 15, 2005.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Should be intesting, blackmail and all:

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_go_co/senate_judges

     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    Great! Do it! Let's not spend any money on non-critical programs!!! Is this what we've needed to do all along to turn Democrats into fiscal conservatives?

    Seriously, though, who the hell cares what Harry Reid wants? He and his other 44 Dems are on the losing end of every battle they want to fight.
     
  3. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    Haha i totally agree! Let them block all unnecessary legislation. In fact i wish the Republiacns joined them for that!

    Basically from reading the article the only real change i see in the Democrat policy is no longer blocking important legislation. Its about time they started thinking of America first.
     
  4. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    i'll open up this can of worms again, but why wasn't there such an uproar when the republicans blocked 60 of clintons nominees yet blocking 10 of bush's is tantamount to treason?
     
  5. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616

    And I will answer like I did last time. Just because the Republicans have been more successful in their spin than the Democrats doesn't mean that it isn't exactly that or that it is particularly evil. The Democrats screamed bloody murder when their candidates were blocked and the Repubs do as well. It is called politics and both sides will forever be party to it.
     
  6. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    I also think it's worth mentioning that the federal judiciary is an institution in crisis at this point. The Constituion, and it's concept of the separation of powers, has been perverted beyond recognition - just as some of the framers (Jefferson and Hamilton, to name two) feared it could be. Perhaps the most important question an American can ask THIS CENTURY is, "Is this nominee going to be part of the problem or part of the solution?" I'm not saying that all Republican choices in this regard have been good ones (there have been some severe disappointments), But, let's be honest here. Overall, which party do you think believes more strongly in strict adherence to the constitutional design of the separation of powers - and which do you think would like to see more legislating from the bench?
     
  7. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Some of the seats that Bush is trying to fill right now(4th circuit for one) are seats that clinton tried to fill and orrin hatch said that there was no crisis. This is really nothing more than another blatant attempt to align the judicial branch to the conservative side instead of interpreting the constitution and law.

    currently? obviously from the left, but these 10 nominees from the rebublicans should even the score. soon we'll have both sides legislating from the bench.
     
  8. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533


    Do you really believe that, STY - in view of the behaviors of the respective parties across our lifetimes?
     
  9. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    Can you give me an example of a truly conservative judge legislating from the bench? It seems to me it would be a betrayal of the principles of conservatism.
     
  10. SmarterThanYou
    Online

    SmarterThanYou Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Justice Priscilla Owen

    Before joining the court, Owen was a partner at the Houston firm Andrews & Kurth, where she represented primarily large corporations, including oil and pipeline interests. On the Texas Supreme Court, she has tended to distort or rewrite the law to reach desired results, voting consistently to dismiss the claims of injured workers and consumers and citizens wishing to protect the environment. In addition, prior to her nomination to the Fifth Circuit, she never voted to grant a minor a judicial bypass under Texas' Parental Notification Statute. The Houston Chronicle wrote that her "interpretations [in these cases] were generally stricter and more conservative than the majority of her all-Republican colleagues" on the court. Indeed, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, then a fellow Justice, called one of her dissents in a bypass case "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."*

    *Flood, Mary, "Judicial Nominee Takes Issue with Conservative Label", Houston Chronicle, May 10, 2001
     

Share This Page