Ok Those With A Gripe About Judicial Fight

[Annie]

Here's something to write about:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050503/ap_on_go_ot/judges_ads

WASHINGTON - A costly advertising war erupted Monday over President Bush's controversial court nominees, with opposing groups vowing to spend at least $1 million each over the next two weeks.

Responding swiftly to advertising from a group that supports Bush's nominees, People for the American Way said it would launch counter-commercials.

"We do not intend to let their ads go unanswered," said Ralph Neas. "We're working with the masters of deception and distraction that brought us the Swift Boat smears," he added in a reference to last year's campaign attacks on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Neas spoke less than an hour after Progress for America, which has strong Republican ties, unveiled a commercial designed to pressure wavering Republicans and help assure quick approval for Bush's judicial nominees.

Over the next two weeks, Progress For America intends to spend $350,000 on "radio ads on Christian stations" and $1.5 million on television ads in six targeted states as well as nationally, according to one internal estimate.

"Senate Democrats have abused the rules and refused to even allow a vote," says the television ad. "So courtrooms sit empty, while thousands of Americans have their cases delayed."

The ad says it's the job of a senator to vote, adding: "Urge your senators to vote, up or down."

Neas, whose group has strong Democratic ties, said it would air its commercial in the same media markets. He said the group would spend more than $1 million over two weeks on television, radio and newspaper advertisements.

The ad criticizes the two nominees whom Progress for America defended in its own commercial, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown.

"Too much power's a dangerous thing," it says, referring to Republican threats to ban judicial filibusters.

Questioned about his attempt to connect the current ad campaign with the attacks on Kerry, Neas cited the presence of Ben Ginsberg at a Progress for America news conference earlier in the day. Ginsberg, a lawyer, advised Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, an organization that accused Kerry of inflating his Vietnam War record.

"The People for the American way are as skewed and misguided about this attack on Progress for America as they are about the Constitution," countered Stuart Roy, a consultant to PFA. "Judges deserve an up or down vote and Ralph deserves to say whatever he wants no matter how wrong or obtuse his screed may be."

The dueling ad campaigns dramatize the importance the two parties and their allies attach to a struggle that directly impacts the fate of seven appeals court nominees — and also has implications for any Supreme Court vacancy that occurs during Bush's term.

Democrats blocked 10 of Bush's first-term appeals court nominees by filibuster, a parliamentary tactic that requires supporters to post 60 votes to advance to a final vote.

The president renominated seven of the 10 after he won re-election. Democrats give every indication they are prepared to block some or all of them again on grounds they are too conservative to warrant lifetime appointments to the bench.

Republicans have responded by threatening to use their majority to ban judicial filibusters. The GOP has 55 of the 100 Senate seats, but two members of the rank and file have announced plans to side with the Democrats and enough others are publicly uncommitted to leave the outcome of any showdown in doubt.

At the same time, recent internal Republican polling found only minority support for the GOP plan to abolish judicial filibusters, which much of the public views as political in nature. At the same time, a heavy majority in the same poll favored guaranteeing all nominees a yes-or-no vote.

Against that backdrop, Progress For America intends to advertise in six states this week and on cable television nationally the following week.

The states are Alaska, Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota and Rhode Island — home to many of the Republicans least enamored of their party's position on judicial confirmation.

GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record) of Rhode Island has announced plans to vote with the Democrats while Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine are publicly undecided. Republicans have also expressed concern about Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (news, bio, voting record)'s willingness to follow the party leadership on the issue.

Arkansas and North Dakota each have two Democratic senators, and all are expected to support their party's leadership. Along among them, Sen. Kent Conrad (news, bio, voting record) of North Dakota faces re-election in 2006, and Republicans have said they intend to target him for defeat.

Conrad issued a statement saying he and Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., had worked with Bush "to quickly confirm two Republican nominees" to the bench. "Having an out-of-state pressure group pay for TV ads to influence people in North Dakota is not constructive," he said.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Media_Fund


http://216.109.117.135/search/cache...merican+way+soros&d=1F1B1A5EDE&icp=1&.intl=us

 

[SmarterThanYou]

7 of the 11 US Circuit Court of Appeals have majorities appointed by republican presidents

Justices O' Connor and Rehnquist were considered "perfectly conservative" not more than 20 years ago by the GOP and now those 2 are considered almost too liberal

What's even more telling is only 2,TWO, were named by a Dem president.... Ginsberg and Breyer. The rest were all placed by true conservative presidents.... so maybe instead of crying about how liberal the court is, real conservatives should look to see how far right their party has become.

 

[Mr. P]

7 of the 11 US Circuit Court of Appeals have majorities appointed by republican presidents

Justices O' Connor and Rehnquist were considered "perfectly conservative" not more than 20 years ago by the GOP and now those 2 are considered almost too liberal

What's even more telling is only 2,TWO, were named by a Dem president.... Ginsberg and Breyer. The rest were all placed by true conservative presidents.... so maybe instead of crying about how liberal the court is, real conservatives should look to see how far right their party has become.

So true, which is just what has happened since the extreme right wing Christian "MORAL" majority invaded the party. IMO...the GOP as I've always known it is toast..

 

[BR-549]

7 of the 11 US Circuit Court of Appeals have majorities appointed by republican presidents

Justices O' Connor and Rehnquist were considered "perfectly conservative" not more than 20 years ago by the GOP and now those 2 are considered almost too liberal

What's even more telling is only 2,TWO, were named by a Dem president.... Ginsberg and Breyer. The rest were all placed by true conservative presidents.... so maybe instead of crying about how liberal the court is, real conservatives should look to see how far right their party has become.

to be closet libs. Won't happen again and Bush will see to it. Or perhaps, as a good chance, those nominees got the power hungry bug once on the Court and could not resist legislating from the bench. That's the real problem the judiciary overstepping its Constitutional role.