The constitution calls for the Senate to exercise advice and consent on Presidential judge nominations, approving by a majority vote. The constitution does NOT call for a super majority vote on judicial nominations. It is time to end this crap with Democrats blocking the president's judicial nominations. If they want to exercise their consitutional power to advise and consent, great, vote NO on the floor of the US Senate. I say do what it takes to get these nominations to the Senate floor for a vote. If that means revising a rule that the Senate made for itself, so be it. Big friggin' deal, you change your own rule.
It seems the news media has painted the Republicans who would revise this rule as the big, bad wolf and some Republican Senators who don't have the balls to stand up for what is right seem to be reluctant to take the fight to the enemy. Send email to your senators TODAY urging them to do what is right and get these nominations onto the floor of the senate for a up or down vote. Send a telegram. Call them on the telephone. Snail mail is probably too slow at this point, as the fight seems to be joining today.
Frankly, with a Republican majority in the House, a Republican majority in the Senate, and a Republican President, if we can't get some action going I'm going to stop thinking that voting has any influence, that "representative democracy" has no meaning, that it is just a sham to dress a government of self-serving elites in the cloak of legitimacy. This matter of judicial appointments is critical to gun owners, as the role of the judiciary in either upholding or corrupting the interpretation of the second amendment will be vital going forwards.
I don't have a problem with the opposing side having a differing point of view , but when they start reading from phone books and other crappy tactics just to keep the filibuster going then it's time to put a few standards into the practice if they want to keep it . Relays of guys taking turns for the same reason should also be eliminated .
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
I don't have a problem with the opposing side having a differing point of view
they've gone beyond insane. Calling a nominee a "hard core right wing fanatic" because she believes that minor children should have to get parental consent for an abortion is beyond repulsive.
they have fallen off the edge of sanity.
Oh, and because Owens is critical of Affirmative Action she's also a "right wing lunatic"...
I wish I could run this country for 5 years (as obergruppenfuhrer)
It mattereth not to me what their opinion is of a judicial nominee. As far as I'm concerned, if they want to vote NO on a judicial appointment because the candidate went to Yale and the Senator went to Harvard, so be it. If they vote NO because the candidate is a Yankees fan and they are a Red Sox fan, so be it. They should be held accountable at the next election if they comport themselves and bear their responsibilities poorly, but let them vote how they may. My problem is with a minority blocking the majority over a technical rule of procedure which is not dignified in the constitution and is a mere convention.
Our government is no stranger to change. We changed our government to permit blacks to vote when they were denied the vote before. We changed our government to permit women to vote when they had been denied the vote before. You want me to believe that changing one of the rules of the operating procedures of the Senate, a rule which is maybe 150 years old (help me someone, how old is this rule?), a rule which predates abolition, is a big deal and is going to undermine our government's essence and principles? Poppycock and hogwash. And those are just the polite words which I restrain myself to using in this public forum.
You want me to believe that changing one of the rules of the operating procedures of the Senate, a rule which is maybe 150 years old
Agreed, the fillibuster has been toyed with 5 times since it's inception. But I have to differ with you on the issue of "why" they would vote against a nominee and it being very pertinent, the current judiciary (especially the evil ninth circus court in kookafornia) are acting as if they are the executive branch.
They need to be taken out, and taken out with a vengeance.
Someone educate me on filibusters, please. I thought someone had to retain the "floor" to cause a filibuster. You can't tell me that someone has been talking, nonstop, for five years. So what's the deal. What's the loophole that can cause a filibustuer to last indefinitely?
they've gone beyond insane. Calling a nominee a "hard core right wing fanatic" because she believes that minor children should have to get parental consent for an abortion is beyond repulsive.
they have fallen off the edge of sanity.
Well tard I'm against the law myself, I believe a minor should ahve to get parental approval. However I don't want activist judges from either side on the court.
Found this on the web.
One example was the state Supreme Court's interpretation of the then-new Parental Notification Act regarding abortions sought by minors. In early 2000, the nine justices, all Republicans, took up a series of "Jane Doe" cases to determine under what circumstances a girl could get a court order to avoid telling a parent that she intended to get an abortion.
Owen and Justice Nathan Hecht consistently argued for interpretations of the law that would make it virtually impossible for a girl to get such an order.
Finally, in one Jane Doe case, another justice complained that "to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to createwould be an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
The justice who wrote that was Alberto Gonzales, who is now Bush's general counsel.
Owen also could usually be counted upon in any important case that pitted an individual or group of individuals against business interests to side with business.
Owen is being appointed to a lifetime position in the judicial branch of government, not to a post in which her duty is to carry out the will of the president. And given the narrowness of his 2000 election victory, Bush is not in a position to argue that the public has said it wants ultra-conservative judges.
It's pretty bad when Alberto Gonzales calls you a judicial activist.
I think you don't have a problem with a judge writing new law as long as you agree with it.
(
Quote:
especially the evil ninth circus court in kookafornia) are acting as if they are the executive branch.
This is exactly how Pricila Owen will act.
Quote:
They need to be taken out, and taken out with a vengeance
I say you want them out so that your own judicial activist can be selected in their place.
Quote:
hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute,
What does this mean?
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Republicans just did it a little different they never let 60 of Clintons apponitees out of committee. Once again it's all politices and neither party really cares about the people that elected them.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Judicial Filibusters
