In 1995, these three senators voted to end all filibusters in the Senate....

[SmarterThanYou]

What's the problem here. If a judge gets appointed and confirmed and then makes a decision that is clearly out of line with his job description is there not a process in place to punish him. Why is it that 2 branches of government fear the power of the other branch? Why not address the real issue? Make to much sense or will it expose personal power agendas ? Look at it ! We have 3 branches of government-----Why are 2 of them so intimidated by the other??

I don't think its intimidation but lets look at some things in a plain light. With a democrat administration and a democrat majority in senate, clinton wasn't impeached due to partisanship. The same would apply now if there were ever anything remotely close to being an impeachable offense against the republican administration. There would be no impeachment or conviction. Do you really think that a republican nominated judge that makes a decision the republicans like and agree with, despite the fact that it would go against a current law that the republicans DON'T agree with, would face ANY type of punishment or review?

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think its intimidation but lets look at some things in a plain light. With a democrat administration and a democrat majority in senate, clinton wasn't impeached due to partisanship. The same would apply now if there were ever anything remotely close to being an impeachable offense against the republican administration. There would be no impeachment or conviction. Do you really think that a republican nominated judge that makes a decision the republicans like and agree with, despite the fact that it would go against a current law that the republicans DON'T agree with, would face ANY type of punishment or review?

You've only proven my point----Congress has submitted to and accepted the fact that the Supreme Court controls the other 2 branches of government.
Why----Because the are the only branch that is not directly responsible to the people.

 

[Bonnie]

You've only proven my point----Congress has submitted to and accepted the fact that the Supreme Court controls the other 2 branches of government.

Here is the latest Byrd and the Dems are proposing, a pool of nominees to choose from not appointed by the president. So now we have Senators so afraid of judge appointees being made by a president they want to usurp that power for themselves......Aside from turning the Constitution upside on this they are showing how afraid they are of judges. Mindboggling!!

 

[dilloduck]

Here is the latest Byrd and the Dems are proposing, a pool of nominees to choose from not appointed by the president. So now we have Senators so afraid of judge appointees being made by a president they want to usurp that power for themselves......Aside from turning the Constitution upside on this they are showing how afraid they are of judges. Mindboggling!!

Unreal--they actually dared to propose that?????

 

[Bonnie]

Unreal--they actually dared to propose that?????

Led by Sen Robert KKK Byrd. He was addressing the notion of compromise regarding the nuclear option??? Yeah uh huh! These guys are terrified!

 

[no1tovote4]

Here is the latest Byrd and the Dems are proposing, a pool of nominees to choose from not appointed by the president. So now we have Senators so afraid of judge appointees being made by a president they want to usurp that power for themselves......Aside from turning the Constitution upside on this they are showing how afraid they are of judges. Mindboggling!!

Now this is specifically against the Constitution, it would take an Amendment in order to bring this about.

 

[Bonnie]

Now this is specifically against the Constitution, it would take an Amendment in order to bring this about.

No deal
April 27th, 2005

Senate Democrats appear to realize that they have painted themselves into a corner. Republicans are calling their bluff on the threat to filibuster appeals court judicial appointments, by threatening to change Senate rules to restore the status quo ante of no filibustering of judicial appointments. The initial Democrat response to the Republicans’ so-called nuclear option counter-move had been to threaten to virtually shut down the Senate with obstructionism on every available pretetxt.

Suddenly, this cycle of threat, counter-threat, and counter-counter-threat is broken by Democrats cooing the word “compromise” in the smarmy tone favored by bullies facing a bigger, meaner, and tougher foe than anticipated. It would be a serious mistake for the GOP make any deal in which the President gives up on nominees with majority support in the Senate, in order to rescue the Democrats from their own folly.

No number of rigged polls from the likes of ABC News and the Washington Post can disguise the fact that the Democrats once again have nothing to offer but obstructionism. And that they insist on a judiciary willing to ignore the actual text of the Constitution and make-up fictional rights and prohibitions, in effect legislating from the bench. And even worse, that they demonize minority appointees like Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown as “extremists,” for their audacity in straying from the left wing plantation where the elitists dispense favors like affirmative action to a perpetually-dependent clientele supposedly unable to compete on an equal footing

Article

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4447

 

[dilloduck]

Led by Sen Robert KKK Byrd. He was addressing the notion of compromise regarding the nuclear option??? Yeah uh huh! These guys are terrified!

Do you have a link to this somewhere?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Here is the latest Byrd and the Dems are proposing, a pool of nominees to choose from not appointed by the president. So now we have Senators so afraid of judge appointees being made by a president they want to usurp that power for themselves......Aside from turning the Constitution upside on this they are showing how afraid they are of judges. Mindboggling!!

heard about that last nite. stupid ass idea.

 

[dilloduck]

heard about that last nite. stupid ass idea.

It certainly shows the true agenda of the Dems tho----they want to try to force THIER agenda thru too--POLITICS AS USUAL

 

[Bonnie]

heard about that last nite. stupid ass idea.

I heard probably the same as you, and I don't know if you noticed how Byrd sounded like a used car salesman trying to sell that old oldsmobile (compromise) using childhood stories of integrity and old mr quigleys broken window? It was laughable!! They really think we are stupid!!

 

[dilloduck]

Time to used the ridiculously titled "nuke option" and move on. Republicans are turning into chicken shits and thats NOT why I voted for em.

 

[musicman]

. Do you really think that a republican nominated judge that makes a decision the republicans like and agree with, despite the fact that it would go against a current law that the republicans DON'T agree with, would face ANY type of punishment or review?

You talk about "going against current law" like it's necessarily a bad thing. In light of the whimsy which has passed for judicial ruling in the last thirty years, a lot of current law is bad. Too much of it is the direct result of TRUE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, which involves the gang-rape of the XIVth Amendment in order to insinuate the federal judiciary into areas of our lives where they simply have no business. It is not judicial activism to restore the federal judiciary to it's appropriate constitutional role. It is sanity.

Honestly, Smarter, which party do you think wishes to restore the Constitution, as opposed to re-inventing it?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

This is another thing that seems pretty simple to me. The president, if the president is a Republican, Democrat, or otherwise, should be allowed to appoint anybody he wants to appoint. If there is a real problem with a nominee, that should be presented and quickly voted on, and I don't consider a real problem to be "to conservative" or "to liberal".

 

[manu1959]

This is another thing that seems pretty simple to me. The president, if the president is a Republican, Democrat, or otherwise, should be allowed to appoint anybody he wants to appoint. If there is a real problem with a nominee, that should be presented and quickly voted on, and I don't consider a real problem to be "to conservative" or "to liberal".

completely agree

or too mean......

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

completely agree

or too mean......

Heheh, yeah. My "compromise" for the Democrats would be: Let the judicial nominees through without a filibuster, like every judicial nominee for the last 200 years has been, and get off Bolton's back.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

With just about everything except cabinet appointees. The executive branch should have a relatively easy time being able to hire who they feel is best for the position.

If 60 votes were required for just about everything we'd ALL be in trouble as it would slow down the already slow Senate to a snail's pace. They don't call 60 votes a "super majority" for nothing. Appointing judges is pretty much business as usual and should not require a super majority. Of course we see the fear in the Democrats' eyes as the appointment of the Chief Justice looms in the future...

By this statement I see you couldn't care less about any 'minority' so why bother trying to answer you? I hope it doesn't bother you too badly when you're on the losing end of the minority in a few years.

This is such a typical whiny liberal retort. I think the Republicans are very aware of the implications in the future. However, like I've said earlier, if the present situation were reversed, do you think the Democrats would even hesitate to use the nuclear option? Hardly. Besides, there are other avenues within the Senate to derail a judge who is not wanted.

no, 60 votes does nicely in my mind. It's more than just a single vote majority and not too much to be insurmountably accomplished. It's only bogus because it blocks your objective at the moment.

Well, 60 votes might satisfy you currently, but later, when the Democrats continue to lose power, they would continue to wail for a bigger and bigger vote as their number of Senators got smaller and smaller - because they want to control things even as a minority in the Senate. Protecting the minority interests was set up by using both a House and a Senate and having the Senators get a 6 year term and why with fewer numbers they tend to debate more than the House - this so-called "protection" of minority interests is not to be used WITHIN the Senate itself in the form of super majority voting. In order for the Senate to even function, things need to be passed with a majority vote and only use the super majority for special issues.

The only reason the Democrats want the super majority vote is because at this time it would make it impossible to appoint the conservative judges. However, appointing judges has been historically within the purvue of the Executive Branch and only the occasional judge who was considered really bad was voted against - not against ten good qualified judges. This is because the purpose of a judge is to only interpret the law as it is written and created by the Legislative Branch.

However, activist judges have made a mockery of the Judicial Branch. And since these activist judges are all on the liberal side of the aisle, it means the Democrats are making a mockery of the Judicial Branch. They are also making a mockery of the American people because they do not want to allow the majority-elected leader of the country to appoint judges of both his choice and, by extenuation, the majority of the people's choice. (It seems that choice is supposed to exist only where the liberals are concerned.) This is how the Judicial Branch is controlled by the American people and the Democrats are attempting to stop the American people from executing their Constitutional rights.

Any thinking person would realize that the Democrat party as it operates today is not American. It has aspirations of establishing a world socialist government. To do this they must obstruct and bend and break our American Constitution along the way.

 

[Bonnie]

Jimmy the Dems would use it at night when everyone was asleep.....!!!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

This is such a typical whiny liberal retort.

:blah2: :blah2: :blah2:
whiny liberal this and whiny liberal that. what the fuck ever.

However, activist judges have made a mockery of the Judicial Branch. And since these activist judges are all on the liberal side of the aisle, it means the Democrats are making a mockery of the Judicial Branch.

your refusal to acknowledge that there are right wing judicial activists is like this..
again, whatever. I know what will happen later when one of these extremists starts making wild ass legislation from the bench, we'll hear all these justifications that redefine the constitution from the conservative dictionary.

Any thinking person would realize that the Democrat party as it operates today is not American. It has aspirations of establishing a world socialist government. To do this they must obstruct and bend and break our American Constitution along the way.

just more :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

anymore.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

your refusal to acknowledge that there are right wing judicial activists is like this..
again, whatever. I know what will happen later when one of these extremists starts making wild ass legislation from the bench, we'll hear all these justifications that redefine the constitution from the conservative dictionary.

No, I don't rule out that right wing extremists can also exist. But I would not call them the same as conservatives who stick close to the Constitution as it is written and not to how they "see" it. In any case, please point out one of these "right wing extremists" you see in the current lineup and tell us what they intend to do that is so "radical".

I can easily point out liberal judicial radical activists starting with my least favorite, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former ACLU radical who should never have been appointed to the Court, who says such things as this:

"boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding" of the Constitution is sometimes necessary. From "Seek and Ye Shall Find - Ginsburg's Philosophy", New Jersey Law Journal, July 12, 1993.

This is a Supreme Court judge who wants to look to other countries for basis of American law instead of what exists in our Constitution. I think this is treasonous and she should be expelled from the Supreme Court.