I want to know what everyone thinks about this whole situation. Should these judges get the up or down vote? Should Democrates keep up the filibuster? Why or why not?
Judicial Nominations
I want to know what everyone thinks about this whole situation. Should these judges get the up or down vote? Should Democrates keep up the filibuster? Why or why not?
I think the Democrats should keep fillibustering. Alot of theese judges are far right extreamists, and only the most radical ones are blocked. We have the fillibuster for a reason, and I noticed no one complained when the Republicans used it against Clinton. Personally, I'm glad the Dems found a backbone.
*agrees*Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
I like Kung-Fu.
I hope they don't reach any comprimise and then Frist loses his nucular option that others really don't like. I have viewed this as just part of the process and am more pissed that they are wasting so much time on this. Democrates should let them throw the nucular option out there. I think it would help out the dems and hurt the republicans.
Things such as these need to be taken in context. As was mentioned, the Right filibusted the Clinton Administration when he attempted to pack the court, so it would be quite hypocritical to suddenly say that filibustering is Anti-American. In the end, the Supreme Court needs independent minds, not minds that have any sort of rack record for favoring one side or the other. Despite what Tom DeLay might want you to think, the Judicial Branch is SUPPOSED to be independent of the other two branches, not complimentary of them.
Take care all.
From what I understand(and I have yet to actually look this up) most of Clinton's nominations never even got to the filibuster stage. They never made it past the Committe
Ive heard alot of bad things about some of these judges. However, I can't make much of an informed opinion on this issue. I haven't really been following it (I don't even know who the judges in question are.) I do, however, know for certain that I do NOT want a right wing extremist as a supreme court judge. No way in hell.
Well i dont think that the filibuster should be removed... Did u know the republicans blocked 60 of Clinton's nominees, not with the filibuster i dont think, but they blocked them, and now they have the nerve to call democrates obstructionists. I hate the way they twist things, but its only for the village idiot i guess.
I like Kung-Fu.
The Democrats blocked a lot more judges than the Republicans blocked during Biilzebubba's presidency (mostly because Trent Lott was about nutless), and with a whole lot less reason. Even in general, it's not the conservative judges who are out there re-writing the Constitution.
I think the Democrats are going to stretch out the 'talks' as long as they can, and the true question is going to be whether Frist has the testicular fortitude to say "these guys just aren't going to work with us" and bust out "the nuclear option"--until then, good men and women are going to continue to get borked.
Regardless of whether these nominated judges should be confirmed, this really boils down to one party trying to assert dominance over the entire government. America historically has been fiercely resistant to let one party dominate the federal government in this way, and that's not going to stop now, nor should it.
Besides, every time the Dems have worked with the Bush administrationa nd the Congressional Republicans they've been hung out to dry and burned, so it's not like they have any incentive to work together now. Tyranny of the majority has its consequences.
Also, Redneck, I would ask you kindly to stop referring to President Clinton as "Biilzebubba". Or if you wish to continue, expect others to refer to your beloved President Reagan as Mr Mephisto, or some other more creative demonic nickname.
Exactly. That's one of the beuties of our government.America historically has been fiercely resistant to let one party dominate the federal government in this way, and that's not going to stop now, nor should it.
He he. Good idea.Also, Redneck, I would ask you kindly to stop referring to President Clinton as "Biilzebubba". Or if you wish to continue, expect others to refer to your beloved President Reagan as Mr Mephisto, or some other more creative demonic nickname.
I must aggree that it is a good idea to allow the prevention of one party being dominate. This world is about compromises. You don't get what you want rather you get in the middle ground.
STILL Updating the anime list. . . I didn't think I was that much of an anime freak! I don't even want to consider updating the manga list!
Such as the minority party deciding themselves which judges get appointed and which don't?Regardless of whether these nominated judges should be confirmed, this really boils down to one party trying to assert dominance over the entire government.
Every time? I've got to ask--when has this happened even once?esides, every time the Dems have worked with the Bush administrationa nd the Congressional Republicans they've been hung out to dry and burned, so it's not like they have any incentive to work together now.
Are you serious. "Lame" is OK, "Nazi" is OK, "I hope they shoot each other" is OK, "I want them all to die" is OK, but "Biilzebubba" offends people's delicate sensibilities? If I instead call him "Mr. Fluffy Bunny", will that be suitably inoffensive?Also, Redneck, I would ask you kindly to stop referring to President Clinton as "Biilzebubba".
You could always call Good Ol' Bill "Clit-Ton" :laugh: Thats actually pretty funny and it is a terrible insult!
Moving on to what you said about the minority party gets to choose. No. They get to choose who they don't want. This is 10 people we are talking about. Not hundreds. They have already let hundreds go through. They just think these 10 are not up to the standard. That is this case though.
Posting Permissions
