Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bonnie, May 17, 2005.
May 17, 2005
thats so much spin I'm dizzy.
Good article. How about an investigation into Harry Reid? I understand he/his family has their hands into just about every thing in his state. Turnabout is fair play...who knows what might be turned up? :bat:
Let me see if I've got this straight. Tom DeLay's statement that "judges will have to answer for their actions" is, at best, rank intimidation of the judiciary ( and, at worst, an open invitation for extremist wackos to start offing judges) - for which he should apologize, resign, or kill himself.
But this is OK.
What does the private financial records of the judge have to do with the job? Let me see if I can figure it out........ This is to see if they have heard and ruled on cases where they may have a financial interest? Probably so I'd guess. Don't public officials have to suspend certain investments and do an annual disclosure statement anyway?
All elected and appointed officials must file when running for office or are in the process of being appointed....I also agree that Harry Reid should receive some scrutiny...He is very good at stirring it up...then apologizing when challenged...or he cuts and runs...."No comment"...unless it is a canned answer...!
It looks like the Republicans are going to start with Priscilla Owen (TX) and Janice Brown (CA). Those are two of the most controversial appointments. There is going to be lots of debate over these two, starting with Owen. Since both of these judges needed to be voted in to their respective state judgeships, the debate should make it obvious to the public that the Democrats are trying to stop these judges for partisan politics only.
For instance, Priscilla Owen, received 84% approval by the Texan vote to get on the Texas Supreme Court on which she has served with distinction for ELEVEN long years. This means that she was approved by majorities from BOTH Democrats and Republicans. (I think Brown won 78% approval in CA.)
I have the feeling that the Democrats are going to have to back down. How can they substantiate that the Republicans are trying to appoint judges with "radical right wing" agendas if these two have received such high approval from both parties in their respective states and have also served with distinction for so many years?
Absolutely!! Im surprised most of these nominees are still willing to even go thru the process, Ill bet if you asked Clarence Thomas he might say it wasn't worth it.
Isn't it interesting how the liberals are against both black and female judges? :duh3:
Their missing an important label "Liberal" No litmus test my behind.
Separate names with a comma.