Chief Delphi - The 'nuclear option' has been averted

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Chit-Chat (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)

- - The 'nuclear option' has been averted (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38291)

Re: The 'nuclear option' has been averted

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

no appointed judge (or any other appointed official) has ever been prevented from receiving an up/down vote, once they cleared the senate committes, since our nation was formed.

Not one.

Until the democrats started using fillabusters against appointments in GWBs last term.

Are you saying these appointed judges are so unqualified, or so off the wall that 230 years of precident had to be thrown out the window?

If that is your position, then please tell us what is wrong with each of these appointed judges, who have been discriminated against with fillibusters in the senate? Please dont come back and say they are conservative extreemist, but show specifically what is wrong with their individual professional records.

There is only one issue behind all this. Row vs Wade. The democrats are scared to death GWB will appoint conservative judges and the decision will be reversed. That is absurd.

These lower court appointees were nothing but pawns in this political posturing leading up to GWB's first supreme court appointment, but they are REAL people - they do not have records that justify the way they have been stalled in the senate, some for almost 4 years now!

^^^this is why politics and religion are practically banned on CD. I talk about politics in ONE THREAD and suddenly Im

?!?!?

Precedent? That’s what your argument is about? Precedent? “Precedent” has the kind of sway you suggest in law, after there have been rulings interpreting law. That’s the only time that precedent actually means something concrete. Precedent hasn’t meant anything concrete or binding in politics (domestic or international) for those same 230 years. This is really just a coincidence that it has taken this long to come about. If you really cared about precedents, then you’d also care about the precedent that even minorities deserve rights, which has been around since before the time of Thomas Jefferson, but obviously some people don't care about trampling on those.

As for the judges I would back any elected Senator’s right to either vote in favor of rejection or filibuster (given the opposing side doesn’t have enough votes to enact cloture), as is their constitutional right and obligation to their constituents. If I were in their position and had a large percentage of constituents who wanted me to block a nomination then I would do so to the best of my ability. In a republic officials are elected to act on the peoples’ behalf.

Why is the burden of “proof” on me? Why don’t you tell me why these people are qualified, and should be accepted by all sides? But I’m not a jerk and actually a nice guy and I don’t want to put you on the spot and make you research every one of those 7 peoples’ life stories.

These 7 nominees aren’t being appointed to some court like The Peoples’ Court; these are Circuit Court of Appeals courts, one step below the Supreme Court. It’s ridiculous to claim that Democrats are just playing with pawns. Rulings in Circuit Court cases have a widespread effect on the legal makeup of the country, and appointments to those courts are extremely important to every political party. Claiming otherwise just helps show how little you actually know and / or care about our government’s politics.

* Following Ken TOTALLY Off Subject *
I believe you’re thinking of the court case Roe vs. Wade. What’s so absurd about pro-choice peoples’ fear that it could be overturned with the unchecked influx of conservative judges to the judicial system? It seems like a legitimate fear to me. Do you happen to have some inside information that would put these fears to rest, or are you still wearing your “completely conservatively biased, and not wanting to listen to anything anyone else says” hat? The Republicans are supposedly the party of states’ rights and individual’s decisions, yet they don’t trust people to make their own family planning decisions or to even use contraception in some cases. Roe vs. Wade isn’t the only issue behind this, but you’re right that it’s one of them. Don’t be so narrow-minded and partisan as to claim that this procedure is only about one issue.

If I was going to follow your example and stoop to your level I’d say that you’re right, posts like yours which were so inflammatory and spotted with half-truths painted as if they were the words of God are the reason why Religion and Politics are such closely moderated topics on CD. It’s so hard for uninformed people to weed through posts like that to find what’s true and what isn’t. All you do is harm the community and continue the divisiveness that plagues this country by promoting such skewed views of reality / political spin talking points (either far right or far left).

Re: The 'nuclear option' has been averted

ok, you accused me of being a political hack for the republicans, now you accuse me of having a god-complex.

and I asked you to back up your statement that these appointees are so far out in right field that the democrat senators had 'no choice' but to block them with a technicality of senate rules

and you offered nothing to support your statements

there is no constitiutional provision that presidential appointments must be approved by a super-majority (60%) in the senate.

Re: The 'nuclear option' has been averted

My apologies gentlemen, I stopped reading this thread after Daniel and Conor's posts, when you started arguing.

I respect your opinion, everyone respects your opinion, and we also can tell your political postitions because you've been ranting about them ceaselessly.

If you're going to discuss senate, discuss senate. If you're going to discuss justices, discuss them.

Ken, you are right. This is why politics and religion are almost banned on CD: because people argue. Enough said.

Re: The 'nuclear option' has been averted

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

No, there isn't, but there is a provision that says you cannot infringe on a member's right to speak, with less than that many votes.

And Ken, does it really matter what kind of description Bill or anyone else brings back on these judges?

You will:

A) Disregard any, or all of it, for being from a liberal slanted source, and thus not credible.
B) Contend that they're good people of high moral standards, and that we just don't like them because they're not from our party.

I'm normally tolerant of opposing view points, but only when they respect my own. It's clear that you have no respect for any view point other than your own, and won't even stop for a second to think about it, regardless of how much information we put out.

As such, I don't have any respect for your arguments.

P.S. We might take you a little more seriously if you put ten seconds of effort into your posts and used spell check and some punctuation. It makes you look like a 5th grader. I'm not impressed by someone who can't even spell the word they're talking about. It probably took you longer to make your one post full of punctuation marks than to just use them while writing.

Oh, and just to satisfy you, even though I know you'll completely disregard this information, here's your background:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Independent Judiciary

The New York Times reported, “Justice Owen is
considered by legal analysts in Texas to be among the most conservative members of the Texas Supreme
Court, which, in turn, is considered one of the nation’s most conservative supreme courts.” The Minneapolis
Star Tribune noted, “Even her conservative colleagues have commented on her habit of twisting the law to fit
her hyperconservative political views.” The San Antonio News Express found that “her record demonstrates a
results-oriented streak that belies supporters’ claims that she strictly follows the law.” The Houston
Chronicle concluded that she is “less interested in impartially interpreting the law than in pushing an agenda.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Independent Judiciary

Justice Owen reliably votes to throw out jury verdicts favoring workers and consumers against corporate
interests and dismisses suits brought by workers for job-related injuries, discrimination and unfair employment
practices. She has cast many such votes in dissent, with even her conservative colleagues – including former
colleagues

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Independent Judiciary

Prior to her original nomination, in each of the many cases that came before her involving Texas’ Parental
Notification Act, Justice Owen voted against allowing a minor to obtain an abortion without notifying her
parents, often ignoring the law’s explicit exceptions. In one case, she advocated requiring a minor to show an
awareness of the “philosophic, moral, social and religious arguments that can be brought to bear” before
obtaining judicial approval for an abortion without parental consent. The statute contains no such requirement.
• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, when he was one of Justice Owen’s colleagues on the Texas Supreme
Court, criticized Justice Owen in another case for attempting to re-write the parental notification statute, calling
her dissent “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Independent Judiciary

Justice Owen has taken campaign contributions from law firms and corporations, including Enron and
Halliburton, and then, without recusing herself, ruled in their favor when their cases came before her.
• After an investigation by a district attorney and a ruling by the Texas Ethics Commission, the Texas
Supreme Court revised its practice of allowing law clerks to accept money during their clerkships from their
future law firm employers, including those litigating before the court. Justice Owen nevertheless defended
the practice and dismissed the matter as a “political issue dressed up as a good government issue.”

I'm not even wasting more time finding something you'll pay no attention to anyways.

Also, this is not unprecedented. In 1968 republicans filibustered one of Lyndon Johnson's judicial nominees, causing it to be withdrawn.

Re: The 'nuclear option' has been averted

Ok, guys, after multiple requests this thread is going into the cooling area for just a while until we can make a decision on it. Please pm me with your suggestions on how to handle this thread in the future.