Ted Kennedy

[bfp]

Can we all agree that Ted Kennedy is the most discusting senator out there? Besides Harry Reid?

Again, throwing up smoke-screens regarding the judicial fight in the Senate:

Kennedy: THERE'S A FIGHT TO KEEP THE EXTREMISTS OUT OF THE INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY!! WE'VE APPROVED 90% OF BUSH'S JUDGES - HE HAS A HIGHER APPROVAL OF ANY OTHER PRESIDENT - OVER 200 JUDGES HAVE BEEN APPROVED - AND NOW WERE HERE TO STRIKE DOWN THE EXTREMISTS.>End.

I love how he sets up the arguments by completely twisting reality, and even lying. Can anyone tell me what type of extremism Janice Rogers Brown has used in the past? No one can. She made a statement in 2000 against the New Deal, so their doing anything they can to thwart any judge that has that type of ideology.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by bfp

Can we all agree that Ted Kennedy is the most discusting senator out there? Besides Harry Reid?

Again, throwing up smoke-screens regarding the judicial fight in the Senate:

Kennedy: THERE'S A FIGHT TO KEEP THE EXTREMISTS OUT OF THE INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY!! WE'VE APPROVED 90% OF BUSH'S JUDGES - HE HAS A HIGHER APPROVAL OF ANY OTHER PRESIDENT - OVER 200 JUDGES HAVE BEEN APPROVED - AND NOW WERE HERE TO STRIKE DOWN THE EXTREMISTS.>End.

I love how he sets up the arguments by completely twisting reality, and even lying. Can anyone tell me what type of extremism Janice Rogers Brown has used in the past? No one can. She made a statement in 2000 against the New Deal, so their doing anything they can to thwart any judge that has that type of ideology.

she is against the idea of Social Justice, one of the basic tenets of the modern Democratic party. Of course they would block her. duh!

and there are far more disgusting politicians out there (say...ones that live in houses provided by christian fundamentalist groups)

I dont think that Kennedy is the bees knees or whatever, but he has had the same politics since before you were born (most likely) and has always consistently and convincingly re-elected. He touts what has classically been the tenets of the Democratic party and has hardly budged in the last 20+ years.

just because you dont like his politics, doesnt make him disgusting

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

she is against the idea of Social Justice, one of the basic tenets of the modern Democratic party. Of course they would block her. duh!

Just for my own education.... what does the DNC mean when they use that term?

... and how is she opposed to it?

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

and there are far more disgusting politicians out there (say...ones that live in houses provided by christian fundamentalist groups)

who are you referring to? we're all friends here - you can tell us

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

I dont think that Kennedy is the bees knees or whatever, but he has had the same politics since before you were born (most likely) and has always consistently and convincingly re-elected. He touts what has classically been the tenets of the Democratic party and has hardly budged in the last 20+ years.

just because you dont like his politics, doesnt make him disgusting

I think it was his showboating that bfp found appauling - not his political position (though I'd bet he finds that disgusting too.... as any right minded person would)

The DNC refuses to let a number of GWs appellate court nominees out of debate by using the filibuster.

Because the debate has not finished there can be no vote on the Seante floor to confirm the appointment or deny the appointment.

The GOP has suggested changes to the rules for ending the filibuster.

The DNC has said they will exercise the nuclear option (their term not the GOPs) and shut down the Senate if the GOP tries to change the rule.

- - - I think that's a fair representation - - - anyone got clarification?


- as for my opinion

the filibuster exists for a good purpose and the GOP shouldn't change the rules, however the DNC is doing something that has only ever happened once before (and there is a good argument that the prior situation with confirming Fortas is not directly on point.) and then apparently the nominee never had the votes in the Senate to carry the nomination in any case. GW's nominees apparently do have the votes to get confirmed but not enough to end the filibuster.

Originally Posted by stargazer

so they are voting for these judicial nominees... and the democrats don't want them in but they are the minority so they decide to not filibuster so no vote can take place.. in response the republicans want to change the rules so they aren't allowed to do that?

are these judicial nominees as extreme as the democrats make them out to be?

Sorta, teh DNC oppose a number of nominees so they use the filibuster to prevent an end to debate - meaning no vote to confirm or deny the appointee.


My understanding is that the GOP is considering changing the rules for ending a filibuster (I think 60 votes are needed to end filibuster - but it may be 67) - the GOP is considering changing it to a simple majority.... that's how I understand it anyway.... open to correction



as for the candidates... you know as much about them as I do.... and in fact one DNC Senator was asked (by Chris Matthews?) to name one decision he found objectionable by one of the nominees (Brown I think) and he was unable to name a single case....

its politics - not sure how much is really ideology -

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

who are you referring to? we're all friends here - you can tell us

how bout Sam Brownbeck (sp?) from Kansas

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

how bout Sam Brownbeck (sp?) from Kansas

I must admit that I've no clue who he is...

Originally Posted by stargazer

and you figure they are doing this because they have the majority?

The DNC is using the filibuster because they are the minority and the GOP is considering a rule change to avoid that tool of the minority.

Originally Posted by stargazer

all this talk about checks and balances... i guess the filibuster assists in this and that a majority would not?

Checks and balances work between branches of the government not within one.

However, this is certainly analogous. As I said above, I don't think the GOP should change the rule. There will be a day when the shoe will be on the other foot.... which is something the DNC needs to recognize as well.

I think the DNC is doing something essentially unprecedented and frankly wrong. I think a GOP rule change would compoud that wrong.

Originally Posted by stargazer

i think all this nonsense about democrat vs republican needs to stop, how someone can be so narrow-minded about their views as to have them all fit along one line is beyond me

well - they'd argue they're "not being narrow minded - but the other guy sure is"

Frankly, appointing judges is one of the plums that goes with winning the elections and the DNC is pissed about. Who can blame them for that? But we can, imho, legitmately blame them for blocking an up or down vote on judges who, using that Brown example, they know very little about.

[bfp]

This is all about the new deal. The democrats are trying to stop Janice Rogers Brown because of the speech she made in 2000 re the new deal. The liberals want to eventually create new rights through the courts via [new constitution]. As one of the Yale law proffessors said: "We don't have much choice other than to believe deeply in the courts--where else do we turn?"

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah is a member of the Judiciary Committee and Senator Jon Corzine is a Democrat from New Jersey. Which of the opinions of Justice Brown, Senator Corzine, don’t you like?

SEN. JON CORZINE: Well, I think that the judicial activism risk of a judge who argues that all of the New Deal doesn’t fit into our constitutional framework is a danger ...

MATTHEWS: But which of her judicial opinions don’t you like? Cite some cases you don’t like about Justice Brown.

CORZINE: I think it is actually how she has spoke about what she believes is constitutional and not is how I have come to my view. It is not the particular decisions she has laid down. I think, though, she has stated very clearly that her view is that these laws are outside the precedent and the constitutional framework that allows them to be.



Precilla Owens also is under fire because she doesn't fit in line with the liberal views re the parental notification law.

[Element4040]

I'd like to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel.

Originally Posted by Element4040

I'd like to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel.

I'd like to watch

[Element4040]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

I'd like to watch

I'm the original Quick Draw McGraw

hmmm - I'd love to see Quick Draw McGraw duel El Kabong

[bfp]

I also love the argument Chuck Schumer uses on the floor of the senate. He read out the names of 200 judges that were approved by the senate. The major debate of this is issue is on the federal level though Chuckie. Not the 200 district court judges.

The judges that are being rejected have to do with constitutional and federal law. And he knows it. Someone needs to ask him about the federal judges that have been approved as of today. The eighteen out of 34 have been rejected. Hopefully then he will shut up.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

Originally Posted by bfp

I also love the argument Chuck Schumer uses on the floor of the senate. He read out the names of 200 judges that were approved by the senate. The major debate of this is issue is on the federal level though Chuckie. Not the 200 district court judges.

The judges that are being rejected have to do with constitutional and federal law. And he knows it. Someone needs to ask him about the federal judges that have been approved as of today. The eighteen out of 34 have been rejected. Hopefully then he will shut up.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

- - - - - - - - point of clarification - - - - - - - -

the President only appoints federal judges. State court judges are either elected or appointed through a state process.

The judges that were approved, as I understand it, were in fact District Court judges. The judges who've gotten entangled in this filibuster are actually Appellate (Circuit) Court judges. Federal all, but different levels.

link with a list of all the federal courts by jurisdiction