| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
O'Connor Retires From Supreme Court |
|
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/01/oconnor.letter.nobanner/index.html In a suprising move to many, assuming Rehnquist would be the first to go, who is currently battling thyroid cancer, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor offered her letter of resignation to President Bush today. O'Connor has been known to be the swing voice on a number of decisions, including these: * * Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor’s opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment. Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting. Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled. Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary. Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person. Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports. Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events. Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor. Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates. Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties’ use of unlimited soft money contributions. Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion. McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses. * * Now, with O'Connor slipping off the black robe, what direction may the Supreme Court move, especially with Rehnquist likely to also step down in the coming months? Both sides of the aisle have begun voicing out on who should fill the position. Current possible nominations include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and federal courts of appeals judges J. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Michael McConnell, Emilio Garza and James Harvie Wilkinson III, though it can certainly be someone else entirely. Will the next nomination be more moderate, or will it lean more conservative? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
| © Copyright 2005 Nadia Lockheart - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The stage is set for the same melodrama. Bush will nominate someone, Democrats will refuse it and filibuster if necessary, repubicans will threaten to break the filibuster, Democrats will threaten to shut the government down if the filibuster is broken.....so it goes. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Isn't it a shame we don't have statesmen instead of partisans. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
yep, somewhere i think it was written that there was not supposed to be politics involved in supreme court selections....their abilities to judge was to be the criteria....or maybe that was a story in Mother Goose. I get confused...  |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Deer? You rock! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Hey, there, love bug!!!  |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Hey :P I love reading your political commentary! My thoughts? She's served for many years, she's elderly, I think she has a right to retire. I know it will be a mess, replacing her. Of course, every time our president tries to do ANYTHING, his foes make it a mess. It's childish, really.. Love's a lovely lad |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Well, I think this could be a decisive turning point in terms of the leadership on Bush's part here; if he'll be more of a uniter or more of a divider. The next few weeks, possibly longer, will indeed be a real mess I believe. Bush is facing a lot of pressure right now from both sides of the aisle here, where if he goes with someone far to the right, it will encourage the Democrats to filibuster. However, if he goes with someone more moderate, it may appear to be a sign of weakness among his faithful. I believe it's very likely he'll go with the former strategy, but I think as Bush decides a nomination, he should consider what Howard Dean said, someone who I've disagreed with his approach as chairman for the Democratic party as of late, which I believe he was right on in his press release: "President Bush should follow the example established by President Reagan when he nominated Justice O'Connor. President Reagan had the courage to stand up to the right wing extremists in his party by choosing a moderate, thoughtful jurist. "A President faces no more important decision in terms of protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans than nominating a Supreme Court Justice. President Bush has a constitutional responsibility to do what presidents before him have done -- seek the advice of senators from both parties before making a nomination, and choose a mainstream nominee who will protect our most important rights and freedoms. "Democrats hope this process can be one of consensus, rather than confrontation, but that will be up to President Bush." I certainly hope Bush puts some thought and discipline into selecting a nomination after the G8 summit in Scotland that indeed proves to be consensus-minded with the spirit of O'Connor. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
I think Bush should follow Clinton's example and nominate a middle-of-the-road moderate like Justice Ginsberg.  Contrary to Dean's oddly selective recollection of things, Reagan THOUGHT he was getting a conservative jurist when he nominated O'Connor. The trend, however, is for Supreme Court Justices to move toward the middle during their time on the bench. Noah, I'm surprised you missed O'Connor's vote (and Majority Opinion) in Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey which upheld Roe v. Wade by a vote of 5-4. Bush will nominate a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court. If Renquist turned out to be the only retiree during Bush's second term, there would not likely be any significant ramifications to Roe v. Wade. Now that O'Connor is leaving, I think Roe v. Wade's days are numbered. Jim |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"Democrats hope this process can be one of consensus, rather than confrontation, but that will be up to President Bush." Considering the fact that they have made EVERY nomination by Bush a confrontation, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee, this statement is humorous. It WILL be confrontational and I don't think they would have it any other way. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I'm not surprised, however, that many of Bush's nominations have been confronted. It's because their positions are quite questionable and in the periphery of the mainstream scope. That's why John Bolton is currently being stalled. He is seen as more of an antagonizer rather than a reformer. Most agree the United Nations should be reformed, as do I. We just have different ideas in how it should be reformed, and Bolton is seen as someone who cares less about international relations and wants to weaken those ties. Many of his nominees are partisanlly-driven, and so there has been little consensus. I certainly hope this time he makes an effort to nominate someone of a centrist heart, who doesn't operate in a partisan manner, which is why I believe many have respected O'Connor because she has been known to make both conservative and liberal decisions. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
The President could nominate the most moderate and skilled judge, and I can think of 4 Senators who would criticize: Boxer, Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy, if for nothing else than to get even more air time. Within a few hours of Justice O'Conner's decision, moveon.org already had attack ads aired about President Bush and his possible choices. Immediately after the resignation was accepted, those mentioned Senators were already before microphones, making veiled and overt threats of judicial filibuster. It's gonna happen, irrespective of the candidate. Though judicial filibuster had never been used prior to President Bush's first term, it's now a tradition, having been used excessively for the past 5 years. |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Byrd is an expert at filibuster... West Virginians DO have a hard time shutting up! Bwah! Love's a lovely lad |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Byrd...how could I have forgotten him? He looks like he's done talked himself to sleep.  |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
I don't think a filibuster takes much skill.. I could probably pull one off! hehe |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
It would take stamina if they really followed the rules and made you actually stand up there and talk. Now it seems all they have to do is say I'm filibustering and everything stops. Meanwhile the senators all go back home, even the talker, until it's all over. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
The right to debate is really what is at stake in terms of the filibuster. The right to express both dialogue and dissent prior to nomination, which many have made an effort to eliminate that form of dissent. It's certainly not true either that only within the last five years that the filibuster has been used or attempted to be used. You speak of that the Democrats are nothing but confrontational, when over 60 judicial nominees during the Clinton era were blocked by the GOP Senate. It was Frist himself who tried using the filibuster on Clinton's nominee of Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. For four years he was blocked, then Frist and others tried capping it off with a filibuster. The same Frist who proposed the "nuclear option" and said at the Federalist Society last November that filibustering is "radical". There was also the effort to filibuster of H. Lee Sarokin in 1994. In addition, within Clinton's second term, twenty of his nominees were never granted access to Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Plenty of times the GOP made an effort to filibuster prior to Bush's first term, including Frist, the man who says filibustering is radical and must be overcome yet it is OK to do it once on Paez. And I certainly would have respected them doing it if they wanted to get additional information or discuss the nominee's credentials. That plainly wasn't the case much of the time. * * Anyway, the point I am making is, we need to remember why it is that O'Connor has been, quite possibly, the most popular, admired Supreme Court Justice in our nation's history. She had an esteemed independent voice which I believe most Americans yearn to see more of. She was more conservative in my mind, but she was inclusive to both sides in a non-partisan manner. One article I read made a good metaphor of it, she was the "rudder of the ship", and was a great independent thinker and probably has offered more consensus than any other justice at least within my lifetime. And hey, I didn't like some of her decisions, like closing the 2000 vote when further votes and information hadn't been considered yet for instance. Nevertheless, my, how Reagen's instincts were right when he said, declaring her nomination in 1981, that she was "truly a person for all seasons, possessing qualities of temperament, fairness, intellectual capacity and devotion to public good." When Rehnquist retires, I support a conservative to replace him to keep the balance going. But I believe the proper way to pay homage to O'Connor is to nominate someone who has that spirit of consensus. Someone who makes independent decisions rather than partisan decisions. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Sun Jul 3,11:31 AM ET WASHINGTON - Democratic senators said Sunday a filibuster is one of the weapons in their arsenal when the time comes to vote on a nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Well, that didn't take long. They are already talking filibuster even before names are submitted.....just laying the groundwork for the inevitable. |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Could be purely semantics, but I really don't think the Republicans during Clinton's tenure actually used judicial filibuster. True, they would hold up candidates in committees and starve em out, but that's not filibuster. Filibuster is, or at least used to be, taking the floor and keeping the floor for as long as humanly possible with no sleep, and with very very short bathroom breaks, and you had to have someone take your place during those breaks. I believe that was instituted during the more rambunctious Senate days, when spitoons had multiple functions. There's the difference, Noah: committee in chambers verses the Senate floor. If it is indeed true that all one has to do to call filibuster is simply to state 'Ok, I'm filibustering' and everyone files out for a set period of time, then perhaps the filibuster should be done away with completely unless we get some people up there who have the stamina, integrity and loquidity to actually use it correctly. I'll admit to not watching much Capital innards coverage, but the only time I actually witnessed a true filibuster was on a TV show. Think it was called 'Mr. Sterling' or similar, about young Senator without cutthroat senatorial experience, who got elected due to his father's name without PAC backing. Was an interesting, if very shortlived, show. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
(giggles) Hey, I think I know that show you're talking about. My uncle told me about it last year when he came to visit. After hearing his name, I already thought it was playing off of Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the now retired Colorado senator. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
If I remember right, "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" gave the classical example of the filibuster. |
||
|
LoveBug
Moderator
Member Elite
since 2000-01-08
Posts 4697 |
Yeah, no breaks should be allowed. It should be like the contests like, to win a free car. Whoever can stay there without leaving to go potty or drop dead wins! :P Byrd wouldn't have a chance! Teddy Kennedy wouldn't last long either :P Love's a lovely lad |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Kennedy? Sure he would. Just promise some stiff whiskey and a lady of questionable morals at the end, and he'd outlast everyone! |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
Noah quoting Howard Dean: "Democrats hope this process can be one of consensus, rather than confrontation, but that will be up to President Bush." Balladeer replies: "Considering the fact that they have made EVERY nomination by Bush a confrontation, regardless of the qualifications of the nominee, this statement is humorous. It WILL be confrontational and I don't think they would have it any other way. If by "confrontation" you mean questioning the history of the nominees and their qualifications, you are right. I believe that the Senators must speak their feelings, regardless of their party.Isn't that their job? The record shows that they have not made "Every nomination by Bush a confrontation" The Senate has approved 208 judicial nominees. (as of May, 2005) With Democratic Senators filibustering 10. Does this not show that the vast majority of Bush nominees have received bipartisan support?. ---------------------------------------------------- Alicat" "Though judicial filibuster had never been used prior to President Bush's first term, it's now a tradition, having been used excessively for the past 5 years." Noah: "It's certainly not true either that only within the last five years that the filibuster has been used or attempted to be used." It has been used before, the first time by Republicans in 1968. Lyndon Johnson tried to elevate Abe Fortas from Associate Supreme Court Justice, to Chief Justice. After several days of filibustering by the Senators, the Johnson Administration gave up the motion to proceed with the nomination, at the request of Mr. Fortas. ---------------------------------------- There are other, hidden ways to filibuster... One of them is the use of the "Blue Slip" law. "Blue Slips" are approval papers that senators are asked to submit on nominees for federal judgeships in their states. A senator from a nominee's home state can block a nominee by failing to turn in "blue approval" papers. Senate Republicans, led by Judiciary Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and former senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), used the "blue slip" law to block Clinton nominees. Alberto Gonzales has said that Republican senators "partisanship over judicial nominations" during the Clinton era was "improper" and "wrong." Hatch relaxed the "Blue Slip" policy after Bush became president. ------------------------------------------ The Republican-led Senate left 102 Clinton nominees unconfirmed, which pales in comparison to the 10 that Democrats have blocked by traditional filibustering, upfront, in your face and unhidden. I'll shut up now, don't want this reply to turn into a filibuster.... Peace---------ice ><> [This message has been edited by ice (07-04-2005 10:06 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If by "confrontation" you mean questioning the history of the nominees and their qualifications, you are right. I believe that the Senators must speak their feelings, regardless of their party.Isn't that their job? Yes, that is their job and the Democrats have NOT spoken their feeling BECAUSE of their party. They were not questioning nominees, not even doubting their qualifications. There was no, "We think this nominee is questionable because...". The records showed that they were eminently qualified so, to avoid that, they simply resorted to filibustering, tying up the floor NOT to have to discuss the issue. They did it in an "in your face" way? Of course...how could they hide it? When their filibuster was threatened, they countered with a threat to shut down the government....strange threat for a party so committed to the good of the country, wouldn't you say? Their objectives are much more important to them than the good of the country and the "common man" they profess to have such regards for. In order for your figures to have the proper validity, one needs to look at which positions they let in and which were shut out. They seemed to let in judges without complaint which would be restricted to local impoortance but not ones who might be in more powerful positions. Anyway, it will be easy to tell. We will see when the nominations come out. If you are a betting man, I'd love a small wager that, no matter who Bush names, they will oppose. They are already laying the groundwork for that. Wanna bet? Their game plan has always been to paint the asministration and Bush in the most unfavorable light possible, either with facts, twisted facts, distortion or downright lying. Anybody hear of Gitmo lately? I mentioned in the other thread that Gitmo would sort of disappear from the headlines after their last attempt at smear went awry...so where are those big drives for the truth they promised? No, I can't see them accepting a Bush nominee without a fight, regardless of the person's qualifications. It's just not their way. Your comments would never turn into a filibuster, ice. Filibusters are designed to avoid the truth and hide facts by speaking nonsense. Not your style at all.. Have a happy Fourth!  |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Well, it'll just depend on if a consensus or confrontational candidate is chosen. The Democrats didn't say they were going to filibuster no matter what the nomination is. They just warned they have the option and they'll use it if they have to. I'm willing to bet if it's a centrist candidate, it will all run smoothly with only a peep of criticism. But if it's a candidate that obviously favors extreme-leaning partisanship, of course there will be conflict, and a filibuster is likely. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
How about a nominee who is an 'originalist', who believes that it is the role of the judiciary ONLY to interpret the law and the Constitution on the basis of its clear and original intent when written, doesn't believe in legislating from the bench (that's what legislatures are for), doesn't believe that the Constitution is a 'living, breathing, ever-evolving document', and doesn't believe that we need to look to Europe for guidance when issuing rulings and proclaiming public policy, most often at odds with the will of the governed, 'we the people' (that's what elections are for)? Would that be considered extreme-leaning partisanship? I suspect for most of the Left such a nominee would be most unacceptable. We threw off the chains of British tyranny once and have now settled for judicial tyranny? What a waste of the vision, courage and blood of our ancestors. I would like Bush to nominate such a person. I don't know if he will, but that is the type of person I would like to see nominated. And I agree with Balladeer, whomever he chooses will be dragged through the mud and the Democratic leadership will fillibuster. Maybe someday we will again have our rights restored, upheld and respected, where life is protected, and people are not deemed less than human and therefore unworthy of Constitutional protections due to illness, age, infirmaty and the burden or inconvenience those in such conditions may place on others. Maybe someday the exercise of religious expression in the town square will be fully restored. Maybe property ownership will once again mean ownership, with the owner retaining the right to sell or not to sell, and can't be forced to sell because the government can use the property for a lucrative tax windfall. If so, then we can celebrate the true meaning of Independence Day again. As it stands now I can only celebrate the vision of our founders and the future possibilities. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: You never struck me as someone who would be opposed to women's suffrage, Denise. Jim |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I personally find it heartbreaking and extremely sad how anyone could think of exploiting such a holiday which is not a leftist holiday nor a rightist holiday, but an American holiday. I find it very unsettling myself how these days like Independence Day and September 11th, that have valued experiences to us all, regardless of ideology, keep being bended and such a conclusion that gets drawn here from the work we still have to achieve to fulfill America's fullest promise is to compare the Left to the ghosts of King George III and British tyranny, and why Independence Day is only half the holiday it ought to be. I can't respect that sort of polarizing, confrontational rhetoric. What I naturally meant by "extreme-leaning partisanship" was someone who operates only among party line, someone who lacks a sympathetic ear for the minority or other side in this polarized climate. Simply that. I'm all for someone who interprets the Constitution and the law in decision-making. I also want someone who is a competent communicator; flexible, ethical and other-minded, who will work to serve the interests of the collective American public. Sandra Day O'Connor was a great communicator. I disagreed with her much of the time politically, but the way she thought and decided more than makes up for those decisions I didn't quite agree with. She listened, and it's no surprise why, because of that, she has most likely become the most popular Supreme Court Justice, if not ever, certainly in recent years. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Juju Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429In your dreams |
I don't think she meant it that way Noah. She was simply approaching the arguement differently. -JUju Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. That's certainly one way to look at it, Mike. How much you want to bet that, in spite of many very suitable candidates, the Bush Administration will insist on putting forth one they know will be opposed? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
How much does anyone want to bet that no matter how much bellyaching the Dems do whomever Bush nominates will be confirmed? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, suitable to whom is the question. That sounds like a trick bet to me!! Knowing that whoever they put up will be opposed it's logical that they will feel anyone they put up will be opposed. (welcome back, btw)LR, no bet. Since most of the democratic belly-aching has little basis in fact, of course the nominee will be approved (but not before the dems throw every tantrum they can come up with, threaten, filibuster, threaten to close the government down and only back off when they see public opinion is against them) |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Again, I really do think it'll depend on how flexible and other-oriented the candidate is if there'll be conflict or not. I'm absolutely for someone who is true to the Constitution. I respect that Denise desires someone who will give town squares the right to have Christmas celebrations and other religious-themed celebrations and property ownership at its fullest promise. It's just like I would desire someone who is true to the Fourth Amendment, in that no unreasonable searches and break-ins should be allowed unless affirmed and/or accurately describing the place and cause for search, which the Patriot Act is allowing its erosion. We'll just see after the G8 Summit who Bush nominates and then this discussion can become toned according to the tone of the nominee. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I'm certain the nominee will most likely be approved in any case, Balladeer. I do believe the Democrats are within their rights to filibuster should the nominee be a confrontational one beyond Bush party lines. Mind you also that when Frist was calling for the nuclear option before the abrupt surprise "compromise", a vast majority of the American public believed in order for someone to be confirmed as a federal judge, both parties must agree together the candidate deserves to be a judge, not that because one party had the most senators that they should have the right to pass whoever they want. In addition, a strong majority of Americans believed that the Senate should play an assertive roll in examing each nominee rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. With that said, I believe if Bush tries to force a nomination through who is potently one-sided and unilaterally-minded, and Democrats take action, Americans will see a fault of leadership in Bush in terms of trying to divide the country further and he'll face a setback as Frist did recently, even when he's likely to get the nomination through. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
LOL I'm not at all, Jim. I'm pretty sure that there was an Amendment to the Constitution on that issue that came out of the Legislative branch and then was sent for ratification to the states (which makes it part of the Constitution unless or until repealed...or struck down as unconstitutional by some nitwit judge somewhere ), so proper procedure was followed on that one and it didn't involve a fiat issued by the Judicial branch.Tyranny is tyranny, Noah, and I personally don't see that the British had anything over our current Judiciary in that department. I was not trying to be devisive or denegrate the celebration for anyone, or make the holiday 'less' somehow. I'm just expressing how I now view it. I can only celebrate the vision of what was meant to be (each branch of government being co-equal and not overstepping their respective authority) and the possibilities for that becoming more of a reality in the future, but I can't celebrate how things are today, so out of kilter as they are. And I think all three branches are equally responsible for the situation we have today. We are in dire need of some true statesmen and patriots if we are ever to see things change. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=17197 Obviously this is just one poll, and it doesn't tackle the possibility that Rehnquist's resignation or loss due to his frail health may result in a dual vacancy, but it is rather detailed, non-partisan and explicit and I believe it provides a general frame of where America wants to see our Supreme Court head. Here's what the poll indicates: * 1) About half of Americans believe this decision means a great deal to them. A quarter feel it is moderately important. 2) About 2 in 3 Americans believe in a possible vote on Roe vs. Wade by a justice that it should be upheld rather than overturned. 3) Active churchgoers/conservatives/Republicans are divided/nearly split-even on whether Roe v. Wade should be voted to be overturned or upheld, with liberals and more secular citizens strongly suggesting it be upheld. 4) More Americans want the Supreme Court to become more conservative than liberal. 5) Gonzalez is seen much more favorably than unfavorably, despite half still unfamiliar with his background or don't know enough about him. 6) Roughly two in three Americans say it is at least somewhat likely that the president would appoint someone to the court who would let his or her religious beliefs inappropriately influence his or her legal decisions. 7) More than 8 in 10 Americans say it is very or somewhat likely that the Democrats in the Senate would attempt to block Bush's nominee for inappropriate political reasons. 8) A slim majority believe should the Democrats unite in opposing a nominee that Bush should nominate someone the Democrats find acceptable rather than holding to the nomination he finds appropriate for the job. 9) A slight majority believe should the Democrats oppose a nomination based on disagreements of important issues that the Democrats should work to defeat the nomination rather than vote to confirm the nominee. * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
**************Update************** Bush has chosen John G. Roberts Jr. as his Supreme Court Justice nomination. I took some time to research of this man's positions throughout his career, and found three noticeable facts: ***** 1) While working as a counsel in the White House and as a former deputy solicitor for Ken Starr, Roberts supposed a hard-line, anti-civil rights policy that opposed affirmative action, would have made it nearly impossible for minorities to prove a violation of the Voting Rights Act, and would have resegregated public schools. 2) He made strongly anti-choice positions in two Supreme Court cases, one that severely restricted the ability of poor women to gain information about abortion services, and another that took away a key means for women to and clinics to combat anti-abortion zealots. 3) As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the Supreme Court that "we continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion...finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." ***** With this said, one message has been made loud and clear tonight; he would rather prefer to divide the country rather than unite it. In light of this, I believe it appropriate the Democrats should unite and oppose this extreme-toned nomination. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I'll withhold demonizing and character assassinations until President Bush ACTUALLY tells us who. There's been wild and rampant speculation for the past week, even moreso throughout the bulk of today. It might be him, it might not be him, but I'm sure of one thing: we'll find out soon enough. Ok, found out. New thread. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
