JUDGES

rodbolt · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

boomyal which drunken,philandering manslaughtering gas bag are you refering to? seems there have been a few over the years. seems some of it is even current. PW the texas schools are in deep doo doo and have been since aa certain govenor placed unrealistic mandates on them and changed the rules of accounting for drop outs and advancemet tracking. seems that the current legislation about the cheerleaders is a direct action against the constitution. seems to me its a local issue not a state issue. like the war on terror,the war on drugs, the war on cheerleading, while comendable is to subjective. from the outset, morality cannot and has not been regulated well. whats suggestive to some is not to others. when I grew up the babtists were not allowed to dance. period. dancing was a sin and not allowed by the church. dancing lead to sex. so we went to the methodists dances

. so according to our preacher cheerleading may have been a sin as well. its bad when one fool thinks he knows best for all and is willing to force his view of the world on everyone at any cost.

rogerwa · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

The rules that we have had in the senate have worked fine in the past. What we are experiencing now is a new tactic for the minority to indefinitely delay things they cannot outright vote down. Those who say the republicans did this while clinton was president don't remember that the republicans controlled the senate and had the majority to not confirm nominees. The arguments that the Dems are just preserving the checks and balances do not hold water. We still have checks and balances. Last I checked, there is still three branches of government. The C&B's, when devised were not meant to preserve the right of power for the minority party. For that matter, there were no republicans and democrats at that time. The C&B's were to ensure the executive brach could not have entire control, the legislative could not have entire control, etc.. That still exists. To make the argument that the senate is just a rubber stamp is just sour grapes. The people voted the senators in. Let them do their job. As for protecting the minority, the senate is performing that action by not allowing population centers like New York and LA from taking the representation away from the poor schmucks in ND. Unfortunately this minority protecction does not favor the democrats.

PW2 · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

The repubs excersised their power over judicial nominees of Clinton by not even putting the ones they didn't like on the judicial committee agenda. The majority could control and decide the agenda, and they could not get a vote without getting out of committee. I fail to see how this practice of the dems is any different--In utilizing a different rule, perhaps, but certainly it has the same effect. Bush has got something like 95% of his nominees confirmed, but there are a few that are simply too far right. Even that liberal and federalist society member Ken Starr thinks Frist and friends are trying to go too far in their assault on the judiciary.

demsvmejm · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

Originally posted by PW2: The repubs excersised their power over judicial nominees of Clinton by not even putting the ones they didn't like on the judicial committee agenda. The majority could control and decide the agenda, and they could not get a vote without getting out of committee. I fail to see how this practice of the dems is any different

Because that was then this is now. It was ok because the Repub's did it. It is not ok now strictly because the Repub's can't get their way. Essentially it is a temper tantrum, just like my three year old exhibits. And the Republicans try very hard to muddy the waters, instead of address the facts and concerns that are raised. The primary reason for this refusal, regardless of who is refusing to argue on the facts, is because they have no ground to stand on. So what does that say about the Republicans cause? If they won't refute the opposition with facts and solid reason, then they are saying they have no foundation for their assertions. And I doubt any detractors to my point of view will be able to challenge me with facts.

Ralph 123 · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

Myth #2: Filibusters Of Judicial Nominations Are Part Of Senate Tradition. Fact: Having To Overcome A Filibuster (Or Obtaining 60 Votes) On Judicial Nominations Is Unprecedented And Has Never Been The Confirmation Test For A Nominee -- And In The Past, Even Democrats Have Called For Up Or Down Votes. Myth #4: Democrats Treatment Of Bush's Nominees Is Analogous To Republicans Treatment Of Clinton's Nominees. Fact: President Clinton's Judicial Nominees Were Not Filibustered And Never Before Has A Judicial Nominee With Clear Majority Support Been Denied An Up-Or-Down Vote On The Senate Floor By A Filibuster. In 1994, When The Democrats Controlled Both The Senate And The Executive Branch, President Clinton Confirmed A Record Number Of Federal Judges. "President Clinton has gotten 129 federal judges confirmed by the Senate, more than any previous president during the first two years in office... 101 of his 129 judges were confirmed in 1994. That was the highest one-year total since Jimmy Carter won approval of 135 in 1979." (Michael J. Sniffen, "Clinton Outdoes Predecessors In Filing Judicial Vacancies," The Associated Press, 10/12/94) While Democrats Claim They Have Confirmed More Than 200 Of President Bush's Judicial Nominees, 10 Of The 52 Nominees To The Circuit Court Of Appeals Were Filibustered. (Jesse J. Holland, "Senate Confirms First Judge Of Bush's Second Term," The Associated Press, 4/11/05) Myth #5: The Constitutional Option Is Unprecedented. Fact: Senate Democrats Have Used The Constitutional Option In The Past. In 1995, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) And Eight Other Democrats Now Serving In The Senate (Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, And Sarbanes) Supported Ending All Filibusters. In 1995, the only Senators on record supporting the end of the filibuster were all Democrats, nine of whom are still serving in the Senate. (Karen Hosler, "Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster," The [Baltimore] Sun, 1/6/95; S.Res. 14, CQ Vote #1: Motion Agreed To 76-19: R 53-0; D 23-19, 1/5/95, Bingaman, Boxer, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lieberman, and Sarbanes Voted Nay) · The Harkin-Lieberman Proposal Would Have Amended The Senate Rules To Allow A Simple Majority To Overcome "Any" Filibuster, Legislative Or Executive. (Karen Hosler, "Senators Vote 76-19 To Maintain Filibuster," The [Baltimore] Sun, 1/6/95; S. Amdt. 1, Motion To Table Agreed To 1/5/95) "Party Of Nine" Past Rhetoric Doesn't Match Current "Party Of No" Obstructionist Message: "Party Of Nine" Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "Senators Who Feel Strongly About The Issue Of Fairness Should Vote For Cloture, Even If They Intend To Vote Against The Nomination Itself. It Is Wrong To Filibuster This Nomination, And The Senators Who Believe In Fairness Will Not Let A Minority Of The Senate Deny [The Nominee] His Vote By The Entire Senate." (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, 6/21/95, p. S8806) · "Party Of No" Kennedy: Will "Continue To Resist Any Neanderthal That Is Nominated By This President" For The Federal Judiciary. (Helen Dewar, "Senate Filibuster Ends With Talk Of Next Stage In Fight," The Washington Post, 11/15/03) "Party Of Nine" Barbara Boxer (D-CA): "According To The U.S. Constitution, The President Nominates, And The Senate Shall Provide Advice And Consent. It Is Not The Role Of The Senate To Obstruct The Process And Prevent Numbers Of Highly Qualified Nominees From Even Being Given The Opportunity For A Vote On The Senate Floor." (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 5/14/97, p. S4420) · "Party Of No" Boxer: "So We're Saying We Think You Ought To Get Nine Votes Over The 51 Required. That Isn't Too Much To Ask For Such A Super Important Position. There Ought To Be A Super Vote. Don't You Think So?" (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Remarks At MoveOn.org Rally, Washington, D.C., 3/16/05; Byron York, "Right On, MoveOn!," National Review, 3/17/05) "Party Of Nine" Joe Lieberman (D-CT): "For Too Long, We Have Accepted The Premise That The Filibuster Rule Is Immune. Yet, Mr. President, There Is No Constitutional Basis For It." (Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Congressional Record, p. S36, 1/4/95) "Party Of No" Lieberman: Explained That His 1995 Proposal Stemmed From His Concern That Minority Of Senators Were Hindering The Majority's Will. "I was just concerned that the system was being used at that point by a minority to frustrate legislative accomplishment. It was contributing to legislative gridlock ... [Now] it seems to me that the much more serious threat to our government ... is partisan polarization." (Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Press Conference, Washington, D.C, 4/20/05) "Party Of Nine" Tom Harkin (D-IA): Urged "[T]he Republican Leadership To Take The Steps Necessary To Allow The Full Senate To Vote Up Or Down On These Important Nominations." (Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, p. S8339, 9/11/00) "Party Of No" Harkin: Harkin Spokeswoman Said Eliminating Executive Filibusters "Sets A Dangerous Precedent." (Jane Norman, "Grassley: Filibuster Rule Needs," The Des Moines Register, 3/2/05)

Boomyal · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

Thanks for that Ralph. I'm about to vomit over the Progressives lies and claims of fairness. In my lifetime I have never seen such a bunch of Orwellian thugs. And all of our Progressive iboat associates just keep lapping it up.

DJ · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

Come on Ralph, you know that FACTs mean NOTHING to those people. And, YES-I'm judging-calling them, "those people". Joe Bidon was caught in an an out and out lie today. He said that close to 100% of GW's judges were voted on. Wrong-only 53%. Did the media report this-NO. Ruth Bader Ginsberg was/is an extreme liberal judge. She was given her day, to be voted on. She was confirmed. I do not like how the Dem's change the rules when they do not have power. It reminds me of children. Honesty is a lost trait in this country. I've seen a marked change, in my business, over the last twenty years. Particularly among young people. The have no, code of ethics/morals or any sense of responsibility. Those traits, which Chinese youth still have, will be our (US) downfall. They will surpass US.

DJ · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

Should the Republicans be able to get their Judge nominees voted on?

Why not? It's always been done before, regardless of who (party) had the majority. Now-the Dem's are doing nothing but "throwing a hissie fit" because they can't get thier way. Childish, pathetic and shamefull. Grow up!

rogerwa · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

What was it Ken Starr said?? Courtesy of Powerlineblog.com Where's That Video Tape? Today's hottest media story relates to a CBS News report on the judicial filibuster by Gloria Borger that aired Monday night. The segment included an interview with Ken Starr, in which Starr, seemingly in reference to the Republicans' effort to end the filibuster, said: "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." You can watch the CBS report here. The two Starr quotes are the main feature of the segment; what is most interesting to me is Bob Schieffer's reaction: he clearly understood Starr to be talking about the Republican effort in the above quote. Only he wasn't. Starr learned of how CBS had edited his interview, and has made public an email in which he wrote: I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her. As we have noted repeatedly, the mainstream media have pulled out all the stops to support the Democrats on the filibuster. This, though, would appear to be over the line. It is also being reported that Starr has asked for a copy of the video of his interview and been turned down by CBS, but I haven't yet seen that in writing anywhere. I don't know, maybe there is an innocent reason why CBS wouldn't want to give up the tape; maybe they sent it to Davos for safekeeping.

DJ · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

Wha!!!

CBS lie???

You betcha they did. Too bad there is no longer any room, in our court system, for a good old slander suit. CBS has been caught-red handed (pen).

rodbolt · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

naaahhh they would never edit a 10 second sound bite for a slanted view. I personally dont wish to see the filibusters eliminated but it needs to have rules of use like it did in the past. once a person starts they caannot stop, no phone breaks food breaks or potty breaks, once they quit talking or run out of reading materiel its over. done deal. that way in 24 hours or so the senate can get on with bidness at hand. I would personnaly like top see a two term lifetime limit on all house,senate and congress members. we could then eliminate a whole slug of slugs. some of these people overestimate their value and their service.

DJ · May 12, 2005

Re: JUDGES

rodbolt, I cannot completely disagree. Make those SOB's an B's work for it. However, this is a NEW (Dem) stunt. New territory for all the legislative branch. Just because some didn't get their way. And, I think you know what side of the aisle the whiners are on.

rogerwa · May 13, 2005

Re: JUDGES

More fun with Judges, courtesy Powerlinblog.com: No good deed goes unpunished As we head for a showdown over the filibuster rules (or not), we continue to hear self-proclaimed voices of reason suggesting that both sides share blame, and that President Bush brought this battle on with an uncompromising approach to his appointments. As I've pointed out before, however, President Bush actually adopted a conciliatory approach to the process four years ago. At that time, he renominated two Clinton nominees, both African-American. Subsequently, he has continued to use this approach, as when he nominated both Claude Allen (conservative) and Allyson Duncan (not conservative and supported by John Edwards) to the Fourth Circuit. The Democrats have responded by quickly confirming the non-conservatives, blocking the conservatives, applauding themselves for confirming Bush nominees, and complaining about how uncompromising Bush is in continuing to support the conservatives in his package. Today in NRO's new Bench Memo feature, Bradford Berenson presents the forgotten history of President Bush's attempts to cooperate with the Democrats. Berenson was at the White House four years ago. He recalls how, after Bush sent up a slate of 11 eleven nominees including the two Clinton candidates, they immediately held hearings for, and confirmed, the two Democrats among the nominees and then held up the rest, refusing even to hold hearings for a long time on most of them. They then complained incessantly (and, for the most part, falsely) about not having been adequately consulted by the White House with regard to these nominations. . . This sent the strongest possible message to those of us in the White House that there was no interest at all in cooperation or good faith from the Democratic side and that they were determined from the start to try to frustrate the new president's efforts to fill judicial vacancies. The Democrats were alarmed that the president had begun by focusing on appellate appointments; that those appointments were concentrated in circuits where the partisan balance was close; and that the president appeared determined to appoint highly qualified minorities and women, such as Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. I hope that moderate Republican Senators keep this history in mind as the showdown approaches. The president has not acted uncompromisingly. Even his conservative nominees are not "in-your-face" conservatives. That's why there's little doubt that, unlike John Bolton, all or virtually all of them would easily be confirmed in an up-or-down vote. Absent real evidence of extremist behavior by the president or his nominees, the only card the Democrats have to play with moderate Republicans is the notion that changing the filibuster rules is itself extreme. But this argument is largely a phony because the filibuster rules have been changed by the Democrats in the past. The real extremism on display here is the unprecedented use of the filibuster to block a dozen or so nominees based on their alleged ideologies. It's natural for moderates to want a last-minute compromise. But, as Berenson shows, the administration is already operating from a position of compromise to which the Democrats did not respond in kind. It cannot be expected to compromise what's still on the table. The Democrats have made it clear that no good deed goes unpunished. To the extent that more compromise constitutes a good deed, the Democrats would punish it by filibustering one or more of the president's future Supreme Court nominees, regardless of what they might now say on this subject.

DJ · May 13, 2005

Re: JUDGES

Good info. by rogerwa. It just proves you cannot play fair with people that have no sense of fair play.

Boomyal · May 13, 2005

Re: JUDGES

If the major news networks included all this background and information regarding the filibuster, there would not even be a public question. Why even PW might get educated to the facts. But I guess that would be too much to expect.

demsvmejm · May 14, 2005

Re: JUDGES

Originally posted by DJ: Good info. by rogerwa. It just proves you cannot play fair with people that have no sense of fair play.

Read "Politicians", republican or Democrat.

demsvmejm · May 14, 2005

Re: JUDGES

Funny no one wants to mention the "compromise" offered by the Dems recently. Regarding Michigan Appeals court nominees, the Dems offered an agreement to no block any of the nominees to this court, but in typical tantrum fashion, rhe red party refused, and the Dems didn't ask for any return favor. They were simply attempting to extend an olive branch, to try and jumpstart debate on the less desirable nominees. And with the led-around-by-the-nose behavior of the largest percentage of republicans, the Democrats, and the rest of the nation for that matter have right to fear allowing any progress on these less-than desirable nominees. They have the right to fear the nominees being fast-tracked into position. Unfortunately it is to the detriment of the worthy judicial nominees. And don't try to say that all of baby bush's nominees are worthy. It is truly unfortunate that the idiot put in office hasn't cared to unite the nation. If he had, we probably wouldn't have this issue at all. But he is too interested in pushing his welfare fo wall street SS plan, and p[laying army men in the middle east. I mean he's missed the boat on the nuclear proliferation around the world. Just rea dthe newspaper. It's not all liberal media bias. To quote DJ Grow up!

DJ · May 14, 2005

Re: JUDGES

David,

Funny no one wants to mention the "compromise" offered by the Dems recently. Regarding Michigan Appeals court nominees, the Dems offered an agreement to no block any of the nominees to this court,

Comprimise, do you think me a fool? As a liberal, I know you do. You are the "judgers". The Dem's are pulling a "whining", self serving, "got to be me", stunt never pulled before in 214 years of legislative rangling. Don't give me the lies about a "no nominee" block. If you cannot see that that is a completely new (childish) tactic, than you need to re-read some history books. The (Rep's) have called the bluff of the pompous Dem's, in this debate, and the whining has started. You know, if you want to bring out a congressional ability (never done before) to block, be prepared to fight-DON"T WHINE. As for the "red" party winning. Give me a break. You'all have been red for so long I guess it's time to start calling the others exactly what you are. ("A name called is a self reflection") BTW, the oldest trick in the book. Too bad for you, too many people have read the book and don't agree.

You represent the party of "no absolutes". I'll tell you this, with no no ends to any adventure and NO truths, what's the use for living? That is a philosophy your party thrives on. No thanks. I have plenty to live for and absolutes. Very little grey, plenty of black and white. Have a very nice

day.

JUDGES

Supreme Mariner

Commander

Commander

Master Chief Petty Officer

Captain

Supreme Mariner

DJ

Guest

DJ

Guest

Commander

DJ

Guest

Supreme Mariner

DJ

Guest

Commander

DJ

Guest

Supreme Mariner

Master Chief Petty Officer

Master Chief Petty Officer

DJ

Guest