posted
I'm planning on sending each an e-mail of appreciation, because they say the political flack that these 14 will take for Doing The Right Thing is going to be huge.
Still the fact that they bypassed their own leaderships gives me hope.
posted
Not to rain on your parade, but I would wait to see what actually happens. I think this deal will be broken quickly by both sides
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
THE GROUP OF 14 Democrats Robert Byrd (West Virginia) Daniel Inouye (Hawaii) Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut) Ben Nelson (Nebraska) Mark Pryor (Arkansas) Ken Salazar (Colorado) Republicans Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) Susan Collins (Maine) Mike DeWine (Ohio) Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) John McCain (Arizona) John Warner (Virginia) Olympia Snowe (Maine)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it will, for a while. Possibly not until the end of this senate term. They've got too many other things that both sides have to get done.
posted
I don't know, I don't think either side really wanted a showdown like they were both hurtling towards. Democrats, because by God they didn't want those 'radical' (lol) judges being appointed, and Republicans because they don't want the inevitable screwing that would come to them years down the road if they forbade judicial-appointment (which has a hallowed history of noble use in American government, right?) filibuster.
I think this will be a positive career move for all fourteen of them
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, BannaOj. Everytime they run for re-election, they can-hopefully-run as the Senators who kept the Congress and US government from grinding to a halt.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
IME, most peoples' complaints about government would be solved by more inefficiency in decision making, not less.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I agree, BannaOj. Everytime they run for re-election, they can-hopefully-run as the Senators who kept the Congress and US government from grinding to a halt.
What's so notable about that? When, during teh Clinton adminsitration, the government shut down over the budget debate, it was the best thing to happen in many years. Congress can do no harm when they aren't in session.
Posts: 90 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree fugu. What you are overlooking is that the filibuster rule is one of the key places where inefficiency is implemented, and it needed to stay that way.
posted
(so everyone wins... they get to say they stopped inneficiency when in reality they actually allowed it to continue. And even while endorsing inefficency, I admit I have a vested interest due to my partner's employment, in seeing the Transportation Bill passed.)
That guy has been in Congress since before my parents were born. Does anyone even give him serious challenges anymore?
Well, with out a campaign or anything he is polling at 52% against an opponent who hasn’t even said she’d run against him. Shelly Moore Capito is in the house right now and is thinking about it. He’s in trouble here since WV is a red state now! But I guess the KKK will come in and campaign for him. Not to mention half the state is named after him.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Still the fact that they bypassed their own leaderships gives me hope.
During the presidential election, I told my dad how I planned to vote one party in the White House and another party for most of the state offices. I wanted to support checks and balances.
He reminded me that the structure of our government offers the best checks and balances. With the Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches vying for power, they will keep each other in check far more then a party line. The threat of the nuclear option proved his point to me.
Wait a second….weren’t the two powerhouses involved both in the legislative branch of government? Now I am confused. Was this an example of checks and balances working? I need to brush up on politics. Now that I am thinking about it, I am a little unclear what the different responsibilities of the congress and senate are. Would someone elaborate?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know it's going to be a meaningful discussion when someone brings up the KKK. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of whether or not he will be reelected, the fact that Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK as a younger man is very relevant. I know that we all make mistakes and are capable of change, but there are certain things that in a political context should be unforgivable. KKK membership to me is one of them.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banna, I'm just waiting for someone to claim that Joe Lieberman squeaks into office with the Nazi vote. Once Hitler is brought up in reference to George Bush, we'll be right in that dark spot in the life of a forum discussion.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
Jay, not to rain on your parade, but lots of people trail in teh polls before someone actually announces they will run. I don't know if Byrd should be reelected, or if he is why, but I doubt the KKK will be the reason he gets elected.
He probably got elected DESPITE his history, not because of it.
As OJ said, sometimes even a bad person does the right thing....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I had no idea he was a former KKK member. Ah well, still doesn't make me give a flying fart about West Virginian politics.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea I think Jay was being sarcastic about the KKK "helping" Byrd. I think he was pointing out that Byrd has a repugnant past.
My original post was not to argue that sometimes bad people do good things. That is a simple fact. Mussolini and the trains etc. It was to point out that Byrd was indeed a KKK member because it was apparent that some on the board misunderstood Jay's reference.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Democracy is safe. It's dangerous to end the ability to filibuster...because the filibuster forces people to compromise and talk to the current minority. Without that we would have the tyranny of the majority/passions of the moment/fickle mob.
This current crisis I think was first caused by Bush's camp refusing to talk or compromise with the minority. Who cares if a handful of non-Supreme Court Judges are appointed...the issue was the lack of respect to the minority, and the danger that this will happen when the Supreme Court Justices are up.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
These are among the most important judges shy of the USC, Telperion. The filibuster has never before been used in this fashion, and the DNC's only real objection is one that isn't exactly valid: they're too far right. Not that they aren't qualified, not that they've broken laws, but that they're too far right.
I'm not terribly fond of any of them, but the Democrats decided that because so many judge slots are up for grabs, and especially Justice-slots, that they would change the rules. In the past, the majority didn't have to respect the minority on this issue. The Constitution does not call for that regarding judicial appointees.
Still, I am relieved at the outcome. This makes it less likely we'll get far-leaning people of either stripe onto the benches.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Not to mention that Republicans just didn't have to filibuster most of the time -- they just denied the Clinton judges committee hearings, which is decidedly worse, particularly as they did it to far more judges.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Robert Sheets KKK Byrd was a grand wizard in the club back in his youth. Not like he didn’t inhale, he got up there in rank. He took it in! I doubt the KKK will “really” come campaign for him, but with the 527’s (is that the number?) I’m sure there will be signs with a KKK member on it in support of Byrd. Should be a fun campaign!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What this was about wasn't really the long standing tradition of minority rights in the Senate, or the logic of the filibuster. It was about something older and more traditional--Reciprication.
For eight years under Republican control of the Senate, Democratic nominees were stopped cold. Not fanatical or liberal judges, but any judge that didn't meet the rather conservative beliefs of the Republicans in charge.
Now that the Repbulicans get to nominate thier judge hopefuls, they realize that their Democratic coworkers will want to recipricate.
Ok. I don't know how to spell that word.
The bigger fear is that this could in one swoop, have greatly weakend the checks and balances in our government. If the Senate allowed itself to be the Yes-Men of the administration/party, just blindly passing anything the President/party gave them, then that check would have been removed. Add to that the Judges this would have allowed to be nominated and passed could then have been Presidential/Party yes men, getting rid of that check on power.
However, enough Senators realized this would have been bad for them and the country to stop it.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know enough about the judges, but if the Senators take their job seriously, and they really have a problem with the nominees, then it's their responsibility to do everything within their power to stop them from being nominated, because a rubber stamp congress is even worse than a constipated congress.
Now if they don't have a problem with the judges and were just blocking their appointments because that's what the party leadership told them to do, then that's a different issue. Either way, I can only hope that senators on both sides of the filibuster debate are approaching the issue with care and courage.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The judges that were being fillibustered rightly deserved to be so...they are all so far beyond even the mainstream right...They scared staff in the republican senator's office I worked in for two years as a legislative counsel.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And enough cannot be said about the GOP clamping down on the Clinton appointees -- such BS hyposcrasy coming from the GOP on this..."they deserve an up or down vote"...makes me ill.
Posts: 54 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, fugu, that committee-room blockades and shut-downs have been going on for a long, long time. This is a bit different, if in scope if not necessarily effect.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that in the article it mentions at least two times Republicans filibustered Clinton judge nominees -- unsuccessfully, both times. This is not a new practice. Furthermore, they used one rule in particular to block judges that isn't around any more, the ability of a senator from the nominee's state to block the nominee in committee. Given that ability isn't around any more, its completely reasonable to use another available tool for similar ends.
And what scope are you talking about? I believe the current count of judgeships held up by Democrats is ten. That's hardly a broad scope, Democrats have confirmed by far the majority of judges sent to them (hundreds, iirc). The Republicans held up several times that number under Clinton using other methods.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
1lobo1 I would be interested in any specifics you can provide on exactly how all of these judges are "beyond even the mainstream right." Obviously being pro life is not beyond the mainstream right so I'm looking for some other info. It sounds like you may have been in a position to have some.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the one who just got voted in after the deal, Priscilla Owen, got one of her dissenting opinions called "an unconscionable act of judicial activism" by that radical liberal Alberto Gonzales.
And this Government site frankly worries me: http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/owen.htm It presents information on the nominees, but doesn't even pretend to show more than the President's side, showing only documents in support of his nominees despite the government as a whole not having decided on their appointment through the processes laid out in the Constitution.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Fugu but when referencing sites that have an obvious bias that should be pointed out in the post. All it takes is a look at Independant Judiciary's coalition partners to know that this is a left wing pro abortion site. They include Planned Parenthood and The National Abortion Federation amoung others. The structure of your post makes it appear that you are presenting an unbiased source of information followed by the government source that is disturbingly biased towards the governments position. The government site is indeed biased but your site is as well and should have been noted.
It is also worth noting that the Alberto Gonzalez quote that you referenced is regarding her dissent in an abortion case about parental notification of abortion for minors. Most on the right believe that judges should only interpret law and if she indeed was trying to add to or rewrite the law in Texas that is disturbing. However her position that parents of minor girls should be notified before an abortion is performed is hardly outside the "mainstream right."
The other objections presented on the site are weak. I think it is fair to say that if she was pro abortion and all of her other decisions remained the same there would be no organized opposition to her appointment.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
These judges are exceptionally important, fugu, much more so than the scores of judges permitted to the bench.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That she was ignoring the actual law on the subject does put her outside the mainstream right, which, last I checked, advocated generally following the law, particularly when one was a judge.
I don't think there's an unbiased source of information out there, so I don't take any particular time pointing out biases, particularly ones I feel are blatantly obvious. I'll occasionally remark on biases I feel are remarkably well checked by the authors.
Again on how conservative she is, did you note in the summary pdf the citation of the NYT as reporting some legal analysts in Texas considered her the most conservative member of the hardly liberal Texas Supreme Court?
Also, note that Gonzales' comment on her dissent was when he was serving on the same court. Justices of courts generally refrain from making particularly exceptional remarks about the other justices, that he made such a remark says quite something.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Republicans held up 20 appeals court nominations, sixteen circuit court nominations, and 31 district court nominations. That's quite as much at the current scale (more in every category than the ten total being held up by Dems). The stats are all in the exact same article I pointed you at before.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
She was not ignoring the actual law on the parental notification abortion case. The actual law talks about parental notification and has that ever so elusive to define 'best interest' phrase in it. That phrase is being used by both sides for political purposes
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm also sort of lost on how Republicans are evil for holding up judicial nominees that they feel should not be elected because of their extreme positions but Democrats are noble because they are doing the exact same thing. If it is good that Democrats are holding up nominees for their own reasons, then the same should apply to Republicans. They are using different tatics, but the end result is that the minority party is doing what they think is best. Republicans are not doing away with the filibuster for everything, just for this specific example of judicial nominees (which as pointed out earlier has never been done before). I'm quite sure if Democrats were in power and threatening to do away with the filibuster we would be having a much different discussion.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
? I don't think Republicans were evil for doing it, though I do think preventing even a committee hearing on a person is taking things too far, that was a problem with the political/governmental structure, not the Republican intent, though.
I think both parties are perfectly justified in holding up judges they have strong objections to.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, notice the several exceptions written into the law. There are quite clearly situations a minor may have an abortion without parental notification, such an affidavit by the parent waiving that need or a court hearing to determine the minor is capable of making the decision on her own or would come to harm by the notification law being followed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This point is interally contradictory. Her position was that parents should always be notified before an abortion. The Texas law that was being interpreted here had exceptions to the notification requirement
Not contradictory at all. My point is that if indeed she was changing the law that is something that I am opposed to. I don't know enough about the Texas law in question to make a judgement. In a seperate point (that probably should have been in a seperate paragraph) I was pointing out that having prolife views is not outside of the mainstream right. I was not asserting that because she is pro life she should be able to legislate from the bench.
Posts: 127 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So now all we know are the specifics of the law, next comes finding out the actual specifics of the case that Ms. Owens was involved with. Just because there are exceptions does not mean that this case met those exceptions. The law specifically states:
If the court finds that the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed, that notification would not be in the minor's best interest, or that notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor, the court shall enter an order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of the abortion without notification to either of her parents or a managing conservator or guardian and shall execute the required forms.
To me the phrase "that notification would not be in the minor's best interest" is just opening a huge can of worms because that is too hard to determine in some cases
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notice that's one of a list of independent reasons, and is there precisely because there are situations hard to cover by a specific list of reasons. Courts exist to make difficult judgements, I think it perfectly reasonable to allow them that discretion.
Though I would like to say that in my further reading, it appears Gonzales' comment was meant to refer mostly to another dissent on the case, though he does explicitly extend it to all dissenting opinions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was wrong, then-I wasn't aware that the scope was greater, even though methods have differed somewhat. Thanks for pointing it out.
I do, however, think that the current filibuster rules do need to be changed. But I suppose that's because I attach such weight to the word. Just another round of screwing going around, as usual.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
@PC![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
