The W
Views: 97787656
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.7.07 1554
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The whole judges thing Register and log in to post!
(1592 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (7 total)
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1319/2093
EXP: 6484985
For next: 165705

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
#1 Posted on 9.5.03 1420.21
Reposted on: 9.5.10 1429.01
So the "upping the ante" on confirming or rejecting judges that the Senate has played for a while now has gotten a bit out of hand. So Jr. is talking about only requiring 51 votes to get them through (after 4 tries, but what's the difference).

My solution? 2/3 confirmation required. This will disavow both parties of the idea that if they can just hold off the judges until the next election meaybe they'll get their's through. And it would also force the President to nominate people more within the mainstream of the country (and with open records), and lead to less drastic swings in the judiciary depending on who's in power, giving some much-needed consistency.
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1441/4700
EXP: 21376530
For next: 460132

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1183 days
Last activity: 980 days
#2 Posted on 9.5.03 1446.28
Reposted on: 9.5.10 1446.29
Enh...you'll never get the 2/3 requirement through.

I just wish that the Democrats wouldn't be so damn blatantly hypocritical in doing this after bitching about the Clinton years. What annoys the general public is that the Dems are them minority party and they are the ones monkeying everything up.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1321/2093
EXP: 6484985
For next: 165705

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
#3 Posted on 9.5.03 1452.22
Reposted on: 9.5.10 1455.33
Oh, like you guys aren't hypocritical for holding up Clinton's nominees and bitching about the same thing being done with Bush. All those vacancies need to be filled because Clinton apppointees never got a hearing you know.

The "general public" could care less about this issue, much less blame one party or another.
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 145/711
EXP: 1284608
For next: 29590

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 713 days
Last activity: 56 min.
#4 Posted on 10.5.03 0924.31
Reposted on: 10.5.10 0929.01

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    My solution? 2/3 confirmation required. This will disavow both parties of the idea that if they can just hold off the judges until the next election meaybe they'll get their's through. And it would also force the President to nominate people more within the mainstream of the country (and with open records), and lead to less drastic swings in the judiciary depending on who's in power, giving some much-needed consistency.


Well, it's better than Chuck Schumer's latest idiocy, but I still think it's problematic because you'll get less judges confirmed with your solution than we do now. The GOP held up a large number of Clinton's nominees but the majority of them still got confirmed. The Democrats have become the first party to filibuster/reject a candidate rated well qualified by the ABA but have still aagreed to the confirmation of the vast majority of Bush's nominees. With the 2/3 proposal, there's no way that anyone can get confirmed since a number of influenial Democrats and Republicans have established issues that serve as ideological litmus tests. Do you honestly think that 2/3 of the Senate could agree to approve a candidate who, take your pick, thinks that Roe and Doe are either the greatest decisions ever or the most appalling travesty ever perpetrated by the Supremes? I don't.

Tim
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 673/1493
EXP: 3906630
For next: 99449

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 86 days
Last activity: 8 days
#5 Posted on 12.5.03 1148.50
Reposted on: 12.5.10 1159.01
An actual Constitutional duty of the Senate, and neither party can manage to actually do it.

Why? Stupid rules, which are not Constitutional, just rules that they arbitrarily set up for confirming judges. So the solution is to just change the rules. Nothing in the Constitution says there has to be a committee. But it is probably a good idea to have a forum to ask questions. However, they should simply set a rule that says that a judge will have a Senate (the whole Senate) confirmation vote within 'X' months of his nomination, come hell or high water. Every judge nominee should at least get a vote, and in a fairly timely fashion, be it up or down.

Of course, I believe that the President, no matter what party, should pretty much get the nominees he wants. I think the Senate check was only created to make sure that the President didn't put in a total wacko, or 'my friend Bob, sure he's never been a judge before and he only has a GED, but I'm sure he will do fine'. I don't think it was created to micro-analyze all the judge's personal politics, which theoritically shouldn't be coming into play into decisions anyway.

Unfortunately, that is part 2 of the problem, that not only have some judges become political to the point of sometimes ignoring law, we have also allowed judges to become too powerful, to the point that they are sometimes allowed to actually make law, even though that's the job of the legislative branch. Due to this, the fights for confirmation have become political, too, because there is so much power up for grabs. Someday somebody in one of the other branches may actually call the judicial branch on overstepping their bounds. But until then, I don't think this situation is going to get much better.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1066/2042
EXP: 6251676
For next: 141123

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2948 days
Last activity: 161 days
#6 Posted on 12.5.03 1205.30
Reposted on: 12.5.10 1205.35
    Originally posted by bash91
    Well, it's better than Chuck Schumer's latest idiocy, but I still think it's problematic because you'll get less judges confirmed with your solution than we do now.
    ...
    Do you honestly think that 2/3 of the Senate could agree to approve a candidate who, take your pick, thinks that Roe and Doe are either the greatest decisions ever or the most appalling travesty ever perpetrated by the Supremes? I don't.



That's sort of the point. I don't want judges from EITHER extreme on the bench. I'd rather have ten good ones from the middle than a hundred thrown out there because they tend to rule in favor of the party in power.


    Originally posted by ges7184
    Of course, I believe that the President, no matter what party, should pretty much get the nominees he wants. I think the Senate check was only created to make sure that the President didn't put in a total wacko


123 of Bush's nominees for district and circuit courts have been confirmed.

Two are being blocked.

I'd say that the President pretty much _has_ gotten the nominees he wants.


(edited by vsp on 12.5.03 1009)
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 676/1493
EXP: 3906630
For next: 99449

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 86 days
Last activity: 8 days
#7 Posted on 12.5.03 1833.57
Reposted on: 12.5.10 1839.37
But the point is that no one should be "blocked". Vote for them, vote against them, but just vote. This shouldn't just be tie-up in the Senate. There should be resolution one way or the other.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Man, I can't figure out Iran.
Next thread: So much for WMDs
Previous thread: Somebody Call Robert Byrd and Henry Waxman....
(1592 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - The whole judges thingRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.159 seconds.