Slashdot Mirror
Republican Senators May 'Go Nuclear'
expriest writes "In an attempt to confirm Bush's most conservative nominees to the federal bench, Senate Republican leaders are considering a nuclear option. Under this procedure, the person chairing the Senate rules that filibusters of judicial nominations are unconstitutional. Republicans claim a simple majority (51 senators) would be all that is necessary to uphold this ruling, and therefore give them the power to confirm judges. The problem with this procedure, however, is that the Supreme Court could still overrule the Senate, and the status of the then improperly confirmed judges would be unknown."
can a republican senator even say "nuclear" correctly?
I was getting tired of democracy anyway. Two and a quarter centuries of tradition isn't that big a deal to begin with.
At least this is evidence that republican politicians are doing something. Heck, they are even attending.
The lack of news concerning democrat politicians is disturbing.
Then again, this whole story is basically a long-winded way of sayind "The system of checks and balances still works!"
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
of Congress. Now if we could just install slashcode servers for the House and Senate, with automatic e-mailing of poll results to the President, then we could REALLY get some work done!
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Can anyone find another source for this information? I did a lot of google searching and couldn't find anything.
Go nuclear!
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
and the status of the then improperly confirmed judges would be unknown
Why's that? The Supreme Court would say "no, you stupid partisan dolts, it's perfectly constitutional", the judges that were approved improperly would be removed, and new ones would need to be nominated in the usual fashion.
This space intentionally left blank.
They also purposefuly change meeting scheduals to dates they know some democrats can't attend.
And of meetings on intelligence, which ones do you think the work gets done in? The public ones? No. It's so funny. The ads tell you their misleading, and yet you believe the voice over for what it says it is. You can't put forth the effort to read a score of words, most of which are read for you, and you think you've something say, that's worth hearing? Quaint.
Have *all* judicial nominees require a 2/3 vote to confirm. Then no idealogues on either side would be affirmed.
Right or left, Republican or Democrat -- those filibusters are an outrage and they damn well should be gotten rid of. If you don't have the votes for a block, show your constituents some damn respect and accept it.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Well, if there's a hole any politician can slither through, you can bet they'll find it sooner or later.
The particular way they apparently plan to do this, though, is dubious. The Supreme Court tends to look, not only at the letter of the law (in this case ths Constitution), but also its spirit. Clearly, Senator Frist is trying to subvert the super majority requirement written into the Constitution.
I have some doubt the Republicans would go with this. It'll only further energize the Democrats. But if they do, I have a strong feeling the Supreme Court will pretty strongly rebuke them. (Funny that the third branch of the government has to step in and make the second branch follow its own damn rules.)
We may well see an Eliminate the Fillibuster constitutional amendment to go along with the Defense of Marriage one. Maybe Senator Frist really is just itchin' to revamp the whole document, and add his name to the bottom.
justen
I'm suprised the Hispanic community hasn't been outraged by some of this. One of the judges that have been unconsitutionally denied their chance would have been the highest hispanic judge in the land.
So much for Democrats being for minorities (which is an untruth anyway).
Jay | http://oldos.org
John McCain would never support this. They also won't get both Senators from ME. It won't happen because the GOP can't get 51 votes. This manuever is likely to be divisive like the Gay Marriage Ban, and while most Americans may not be concerned with these little intricacies of the Senate, Senators tend to take it seriously.
Santorum would turn this country into a Judeo-Christian version of Iran if given the chance. Frist is more timid and behind the scenes, but Santorum is a freaking pit-bull for the religious right. My fellow Florida citizens have managed to embaress me about a lot of things, but electing a theocratic loon to the Senate like Santorum takes the cake. I'd have a hard time admitting I was from Penn. every time that guy made the news.
Interesting thought experiment though.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
the republicans have been whining and crying about judicial nomination filibusters and threatening to change the Senate rules to allow simple majority votes (the nuclear option) for the last two years.
what are they suggesting now that they didn't suggest then?
i'd like to see the filibusters like we saw Jimmy Stewart do in "Mr. Deeds Goes to Washington." Instead, someone just says, "i'm filibustering" and everybody stops. Going back to the old rules should have no problem with the Supremes declaring THAT illegal.
Of course, it would be interesting to see the Supremes reject nominations to the bench. That would be an interesting "separation of powers" matter. Or suppose Congress were to impeach a Supreme Court justice and then the Court rejected it.
The page is already slow, article follows:
Guest Blogger: New Push To Confirm Rightist Judges?
By Simon Lazarus, Public Policy Counsel, National Senior Citizens Law Center
Beginning just before the August Congressional recess, the future of the federal judiciary has resurfaced as a prominent issue in both Congressional and Presidential politics.
During the week of July 19, Republican Senate leaders rushed four appellate court nominees to the floor for pre-recess votes; all four were blocked by Democratic filibusters. The decision to provoke successive filibusters, which nearly doubled the total number of similarly stymied Bush judicial nominations, from six to ten, appeared linked to reports that Majority Leader Frist had been persuaded by conservative advocacy groups to attempt, upon Congress' return in September, to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominations.
To achieve this result, Frist would invoke a controversial procedural maneuver known as "the nuclear option." Under this procedure, the person chairing the Senate, presumably Vice President Cheney, would rule that filibusters of judicial nominations are unconstitutional. Nuclear option proponents contend that only a simple majority vote (51 senators) of the Senate would be needed to approve that ruling - despite the fact that Senate rules require a 3/5 vote (60 senators) to stop a filibuster and a 2/3 vote (67 senators) to amend filibuster procedures. Their ploy would simply be to exploit their control of the chair to overrule or ignore Democratic objections. Then they could proceed to vote on - and, presumably, narrowly confirm - each of the would-be Bush federal judges stalled to date because Republicans could not find the 60 + votes needed to cut off debate. (Democrats have been highly selective: while filibustering these ten, exceptionally rightist candidates, they have greenlighted floor votes to confirm 198 new Bush federal judges.)
Up to this point, Republicans have not had the votes within their own caucus to pull off the nuclear option maneuver. But before the August recess, conservative Republican Conference Chair Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania told a reporter that "We're working on [rounding up] the votes to do it." On September 1, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told a breakfast gathering of Florida convention delegates that the Democrats' filibuster strategy is "inexcusable, and we're going to put an end to it."
The filibuster rule is the last remaining protection against President's often repeated aim of packing the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, with judges ideologically attuned to Justices Scalia and Thomas. The ten nominees blocked so far by filibusters include, for example, California Supreme Court justice Janice Brown, who has called the Supreme Court's 1937 decisions upholding Social Security, minimum wage, and other basic social legislation a "disaster" of "epic proportions." Another example is former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor. Pryor has called Roe v. Wade, which invalidated state anti-abortion laws, the "greatest abomination" in the history of the Supreme Court; he strongly advocates barring Medicaid beneficiaries from enforcing in court the right to treatment to which they are entitled by federal law. In addition to the 10 pending nominees who have thus far been blocked by filibusters are five additional candidates - a total of 15, enough to have a significant impact on individual circuits and the judiciary generally. These controversial appellate nominees include: William Haynes, DOD General Counsel, on whom Republican leaders have not yet sought a vote, presumably because of his involvement with administration legal memoranda on the permissibility of abusive interrogation of Afghan and Iraq war detainees; William Myers, who has advocated subjecting all regulatory actions affecting the beneficial use of property to judicial "strict scrutiny" in the same mode as governmental interference with free expresion; and former Deputy White House Counsel Bre
And the other problem of course is that unless they succeed in making it illegal for Democrats to hold the presidency or a majority in the senate, a few years down the road they'll be hoist by their own petard.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Government, at least the creation of laws, should be inefficient. It's another check against governmental power. Some of the worst legislation was very efficiently passed--right after some crisis prompted it (the PATRIOT act is the obvious example).
Because the Demos damn sure will as soon as they have the minority.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Further, if the Democrats are smart, maybe they'll start looking at ways to get rid of the extremist 'Christian' Coalition cancer, perhaps by adding laws that in some way encourage the expansion of minority viewpoints within the major parties.
The spoiled brats in the Republican party just need to accept that they aren't going to get their way all the time. Otherwise, it will return to haunt them.
The other problem with this is that they could have it used against them, next. For instance, should Kerry win and appoint judges not meeting the approval of a slightly Democratic Senate, the Republicans wouldn't be able to filibuster those choices themselves. As they did during the Clinton Administration, if memory serves.
Unless they're truly cynical, and expire such a rule on Jan 19, just before inauguration. But I think that would be really very surprising.
--
$tar -xvf
About bloody time. There are only two possible endings to the war on terror- genocide and surrender- and if we go with the first nuclear weapons will be necessary eventually.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Considering the War on Terror is a figment of Bush's imagination, all that it would take is voting him out of office. There have been terrorist attacks in the past, there will be terrorist attacks in the future. They have been, and should be, delt with by the police rather than the military (maybe if Bush had started that way, Bin Laden would have been caught).
Nevermind the fact that there is no conceivable way nuclear weapons _could_ be used against indivdual terrorists (e.g. CIA: Mr. President! There is a terrorist cell in New York City! Prez: Nuke it!)
I thought the republican spelling was 'nukular'
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Filibusters should be illegal with the only penalty is the lost position of any one found guilty of it. Our government could be better run if delaying tatics like this were removed.
Right or left, Republican or Democrat -- those filibusters are an outrage and they damn well should be gotten rid of.
Yes, to hell with the Constitution and the founding fathers. To hell with over two centuries of legislative procedure. Make it so that a simple majority can appoint far-right or far-left leaning judges. Make it so that the Republicans can now stuff the courts with anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-big-business, anti-gay, bible thumpers.
If you don't have the votes for a block, show your constituents some damn respect and accept it.
If your constituents are liberal and the judge being proposed is a born-again-Christian who's an outspoken opponent against everything they believe in, then showing your constituents respect is using every legal means to prevent the confirmation of the judge.
If you don't understand the importance of the Constitution and why filibusters are such an integral aspect of the checks and balances, please don't post in this section.
A fillabuster is a side effect of healthy free speech; if our senators can't speak their minds, then who can? You can't kill a fillabuster without severly hurting free speech.
It gives more power to the executive branch, which already has vastly more political power than the Constitution ever intended.
No, I want the legislative branch to keep every check it can get on the executive branch.
Forget Demm and Rep for a moment -- we're going to have to live with this in the future.
May we never see th
When asked to comment on this story, President Bush was quoted say "nucular" yet again.
That's "nuwk-yoo-lur".
The difference between republicans and democrats, with respect to race issues, is most clearly illustrated by the Miguel Estrada issue. The democrats wanted to deny Estrada a judgeship not only because he was conservative, but because he was a latino. The republicans don't give a damn about the color of a person's skin - they'll give anyone who's qualified a position, so long as they deserve it. Has anyone appointed more minorities to meaningful positions than bush?
The democrats, on the other hand, claim to be the party that represents the will of minorities, but then they'll criticize any minority who happens to vote republican. They derogatorily sneer at black republicans. The last thing they want is more qualified minority republicans in big name positions because it will mean that they might actually have to fight for the minority vote instead of just assumign they'll get it by drumming up racial fears and associating bush with burning churches. The democrats aren't complaning that republicans don't welcome minorities; they're complaining that republicans don't welcome liberals.
My blog
I mean, if they're filibustering, can't someone throw a chair at him or Duct tape his mouth or something? C'mon, there has to be a better way!
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
You know who convinced me hydrogen, and biological weapons are the answer?
Thomas Friedman, and that Pakistani woman, Sharmeen Obaid, who might do field reporting for the BBC. There is no reasoning with the people they gave voice to. They will only accept death or surrender. Of those options, only their death is acceptable to me. So be it. Maybe after a substantial fraction of them are dead, they'll reconsider. Well, they don't call it "The Law of Unintended Consequences" for nothing.
I just refreshed my memory on Article II, Section 2 (which gives the President nominating power), and the way I read it is that the Senate can approve any nominee with a simple majority. The Constitution doesn't spell out HOW the Senate must do it, so changing the procedural rules should, as I understand it, be perfectly legal and Constitutionally sound.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
His second term, Supreme Court tossed a bunch of New Deal laws, he tries some kind of novel and slimy trick to get rid of all of them? Don't have the history book here at work to check it out. I only remember that it backfired badly, with moderate demos jumping ship and condeming him.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
The fact that republicans will nominate "conservative" judges is one of the main reasons why I continue to vote for them although I am not part of any political party. Given this, it is very tempting to want to see this happen as it is frustrating when a fillibuster prevents a straight vote from occuring like it should. Still, I would hate it the next time the democrats have the majority and start trying to ram more "liberal" judges onto the bench.
I think the main problem we have here is the judicial side of the house is getting too powerful. Look at Massachusettes for example, Gay marriages did not come due to any Legislative process, rather it came because the judges decided it should be so.
What I would like to see is less power for judges to "write" their own laws through edict. I'd like to see more of judges applying the law rather then deciding they don't like the law that was created by the representatives we elected. Additionally, a clear method of removal of judges from the lowest level up to the Supreme court via super-majority initiative vote should also be established. By doing this, it makes it less of a threat when an "extreme" judge is put in place. If they are causing a problem then kick them off the bench!
While there was partisanship when the Democrats were in power, they at least attempted to give the opposing party a voice...
. ..
HAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Wooo!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Whew.
Heh heh.
Good one.
Oh man, I just read it again...
BWAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Where to me, armed surrender is equally as acceptable as genocide. Under genocide, we will lose our moral superiority as a nation, guaranteed, but nobody will ever fsck with us again. Under armed surrender (what one wag called my plan for "Fortress America"), we basically ignore that the rest of the world exists for a while- and kill anybody who tries to tell us different. That would cost us our economic superiority- but maybe, just maybe, when we come out a thousand years from now, the rest of the world will have caught up to us in standard of living.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
That's right, we all know that filibusters are an integral part of the constitution.
Yeah right, pal. Try reading the document sometime rather than eating whatever Franken and Moore feed you.
It is time to stock up on Guns and Gold. :)
Yeah, right.
What will you do when the government can't communicate and Taco only shrugs and says, "Par for the course," before turning back to his gin and juice?
Yeah, right.
What, like it's the evil political parties who are responsible for the divisions within this country? If they behaved this would all suddenly be a magic utopia where everybody agrees and loves each other?
There is still much more which unites us than divides us as a country. But there are real differences which wind up being reflected in the elections system. Abortion which you mention is one of those. There are deeply held believes on this issue by vast groups of citizens on both sides of the political aisle. That's not going to go away any time soon.
Rabid leftists love to demonize Republicans in general and the "Christian Right" in particular as religious zealots, simple-minded people who can't possibly think clearly enough to be taken seriously. The right thinks those leftists are selfish immoral hedonists who care only for their own pleasure. Both points of view are divisive.
Having different values and beliefs, and having those reflected in our elections, is not a bad thing. What's bad is the dehumanizing of our opponents on either side. And I have to tell you, in this election so far, it's the left who has dehumanized the right far more. Just scroll through these comments and read some of the anti-religious postings.
Under genocide, you would have declared war against humanity, and we - the rest of the world - would invade your country, put you under occupation for a few years, put up the nutcases who were responsable for the mass murder, and install a sane government. Your military superiorty wouldn't last too long given a few years of total war on the part of Europe, Russia, China, Japan, and all the other middle powers. By god, it would be fun to raise the UN flag over the white house.
This strategy certainly has worked wonders for North Korea.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
1) Since Filibuster and Cloture are Senate Rules, on what basis are they being deemed unconstitutional?
2) Since when does the Congress rule of Consitutionality? I thought the point of Marbury vs. Madison was to affirm the power of Judicial review of the Courts.
FYI, the Senate Rules Committee is headed by Trent Lott. The committee's web site is at http://rules.senate.gov/.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
I'd agree with you if the democrats were actually fillabustering. That is standing in congress 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, speaking [1] in order to prevent a vote. Instead they are saying "We fillabuster", and the republicans are moving on. There is no free speech being infringed because nobody is actually speaking.
Note that in theory they should be speaking against the issue the are blocking, but there is a long history of speaking anything. Reading from cookbooks is popular.
It's not that the Republicans couldn't get 9 of the 49 Democratic Senators to vote for most of these nominees given an up or down vote, it's that the Democrats are preventing such a vote entirely. It's one thing for a Senator to cross party lines to vote for a bill or a nomination, it's entirely different when they cross party lines on what to most people is an obscure procedural motion to limit debate. No Senator with any substantial number of Hispanic voters in his state would dare go on record to vote against confirming Miguel Estrada, but if that same Senator can hide his vote behind procedural technicalities, he'll go with his party most every time.
This strategy certainly has worked wonders for North Korea.
Not quite complete for North Korea though- somehow they got France to sell them a nuclear reactor, and it all went downhill from there. MAYBE if the border had been a complete shut out from both sides, it would have worked. This may still be the answer for the world to protect itself from North Korea though- set up automatic batteries of Patriot Missiles surrounding the nation tied to radar stations that automatically fire at anything with a bigger radar signature than a baseball (even the Stealth Interceptors have the radar signal of a basketball). And cut them off even more, by broadcasting wide band jamming signals across their borders. If there was ever a man who needed a country-wide insane asylum, it's Kim Jung Ill.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Why does this seem so irrelevant? Oh, right, it's a global network.
/.
Really, it's just so provincial to blather on about one's local comings and goings, isn't it.
Besides, politics is marketing and is inappropriate given the of engineering nature of
IMHO, only users believe in politicians.
Words to men, as air to birds.
Marbury v. Madison held that the courts had the power to rule on the constitutionality of actions of the other branches of government when those actions properly came before the court for their enforcement (actually, Chief Justice Marshall was remarkably clever because what he found unconstitutional was a law granting particular powers to the court itself, so he grabbed greater power for the court by refusing to accept lesser power).
The case did not say that the Supreme Court was the only one of the three branches of government entitled to decide the constitutionality of laws or other government actions. And in fact the court has generally worked hard to stay out of the internal affairs of the other branches of government. I strongly suspect that, if a lawsuit was filed over a judicial appointment under such circumstances, the court would decide that, since there was a certification from the President of the Senate that the Senate had confirmed the nominee, and the president had in fact appointed that nominee, then that's the end of the question for them. It's Congress' job to regulate itself, not the Court's.
I can see it now. Orrin Hatch yelling out "First Post!!" while Barbara Boxer moderates him "Troll." Ted Kennedy shouting "In Soviet Russia, the Senate confirms You!!" Arlen Specter pouring hot grits down his pants.... Yeah, this is gonna be great for democracy.
Really, please supply links or the such that show that a significant majority of hispanics were against the nomination of this judge.
Jay | http://oldos.org
That's right, look how nobody ever fucked with us after we killed off the American Indian. Err... I mean after we nuked Japan... Err, just forget it, ok?
You are trolling, right? you don't really believe in genocide? Never mind, I don't want to know.
Nothing like a blatently unconstitutional powergrab.
Emboldened by their success in using the federal supreme court to overstep the federal bounds and rule on state law; they up the ante and openly consider a blatently unconstitutional power grab.
Anyone in the Senate that would support this tactic, especially the senator that would overstep the check-and-balances and rule that a political tactic that written into the Constitution is unconstitutional would have to be impeached and removed from office. Why? They would have violated their oath of office to support the consitution as perscribed by Article VI, Clause 3.
No wonder why half the country looks at the current Republican party as them as a gang of protofacists.
Please explain how the Democrats are trying to get rid of democracy.
Just as an aside, I'd like to point out:
Lots of potentially Democratic voters haven't registered (college students, in particular, are very poor at registering to vote).
Currently, according to the polls, Bush will win re-election. Not by a huge margin, but he will win.
If you are considering voting Democrat, and you live in a swing state, and haven't registered, you really, really should do so:
The swing states are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Lousiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennesee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. If you live in one of these states and haven't yet registered, please do so. One of the reasons Bush gets so many votes is because so many elderly people are registered to vote and vote solidly Republican. Your vote is needed!
Remember that all it may take to alter the course of the election is winning the vote in your electoral district -- enough to swing a state. Last year, 500 votes in the right electoral district would have put a different President in office and given us an entirely different set of views on foreign affairs, research, military spending, research, abortion, research, charities that are trying to fight the spread of AIDS by teaching people about condoms, and research.
There are probably a lot of people down in a certain Florida county kicking themselves because *they* could have flipped the vote. His first term, Bush had to worry about re-election, so there were some constraints on what he can do. If he gets a second, there will be no limit. If you don't want to see the appointment of socially and religiously conservative judges (and these will *not* be the socially liberal and politically conservative judges that a Libertarian would like), please vote. *Please*. I'm going to do my part on Election Day. When I complain about abuses overseas and poor foreign policy, I'm complaining about not just what Bush is doing, but the choice of the American citizenry on the previous Election Day. We know what Bush does. There is no reasonable excuse not to vote in this upcoming election. Unless you are a religious conservative, please, please, please vote Kerry and get Bush out of office.
May we never see th
That you should register to vote whether you are a Democrat OR a Republican (or any other party for that matter). I support President Bush and disagree with most of what the previous poster believes about him, but I absolutely agree that every single eligible person should register and vote. And if you don't vote and you don't like the outcome of the election, keep your mouth shut and don't whine about it after the fact.
Ahaha Not a single one of the craven nations of the world would do anything more than talk. Well Russia and China would secretly do as we'd do to the undesirables they're having troubles with, a little wink and a nod our way, but a stern public face.
Here's the facts. The US and Russia can do anything they want that the other won't consider to be future killing. There are costs. Reduced trade, access to capital etc. And China doesn't have, or really want, weapons parity. They're not in the club the US and Russia are in.
The other countries of the world are powerless. They couldn't even get a modest number of troops into this hemisphere without our tacit agreement. And they've absolutely no ability to project airpower. By 2008, no country, not even Russia or allies that also fly the F-15, or Eurofighter customers will have any kind of credible assurance of airpower over their own boarders. On top of all that it would take all of an afternoon to run WWIII. The worst case for america is an everyone loses scenario.
The very most any country could reasonably accomplish without the certainty of swift annihilation to at the hands of the US is to detonate a nuclear device in orbit taking out sattelites. Which might still invite a nuclear response.
Don't kid yourself. The reason your country has a voice, any voice, is because the US tolerates it.
I don't LIKE either of the two options, I only point out that they are the only two methods that are historically proven to reduce terrorism. All other potential solutions only make the problem worse.
Besides, we left a couple of million Natives still alive, and killed less than 1/100th the population of Japan. For a terrorist situation the genocide has to be so close to complete that the only survivors are taken as slaves or something and prevented from reforming their country within the next millenia or so. Some of our nuclear weapons would be VERY good for that- the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't (you can visit ground zero in Nagasaki today without dying, for instance. They've put a very nice park there.) With terrorism, if you leave even ONE person alive and free to preach, you will have created a new terrorist problem. Terrorists breed like rats- and like rats, if you're even going to ATTEMPT extermination you've got to get them all.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
ok then, nerd... go to your preferences and turn of politics... and quit posting in politics if it's such blather.
.
There is a third possible ending: both sides eventually laugh to themselves about what idiots they're being and the problem goes away on its own.
It does happen, but because it's a long period of time with nothing happening instead of a sudden Muppet News Flash, people tend to not notice it's going on.
During the Clinton administration, Republicans didn't filibuster judicial nominees. They didn't have to. As the party in control of the Senate for most of Clinton's tenure, they could prevent nominees from having committee hearings or floor votes by controlling the schedule. Same result, but very different process.
Now see that's not true. People will take peace as a last resort and be happy with it, as long as they believe that suffering isn't worth it and the end is inevitable anyway. Look at consolidations of power pre Age of Enlightenment (which, coincidently, arabs and particularly islamists still are).
With out the Mongols there would be no Russia. Without the Germans there would be no Germany (that was nowhere near the cohesive country it is today circa our civil war). There would be no United States without tyranny from England. Japan is what it is because of the efforts of many tyrants and the invention of Gunboat Diplomacy. The threat of total annhiliation is probably needed to provide the impetus for the Islamic reformation, a few centuries late BTW. The death of enough of them to make credible the end of their beliefs and culture might be the only thing that can save them. Because they might push us like Hannibal pushed the Romans. And then, there's no peace but a final rest.
That said, watch "Terror's Children", and the Thomas Friedman specials. The funny thing is the Islamist, they'd vote for Bush. They think that he's the safer canadate for them when it comes to wielding American military might. Now that's ironic!
In the first place, the Supreme Court has ruled on STATE law ever since it was founded. This is because the federal constitution itself proclaims that it is a higher authority than state law.
It is this authority that led the Supreme Court to overrule STATE laws that: established racial discrimination; prohibited birth control distribution; promoted religion in schools; and (among many, many others) prohibited abortions.
So I'm not sure what in the world you are talking about when you claim the Republicans have used the federal supreme court to rule on state law.
As for filibuster being written into the Constitution, that's just not true. Neither the word nor the concept is set forth in the Constitution. It is found in the Senate rules which were adopted pursuant to the authority of the Constitution, but those rules, like all actions of the legislative or executive branches of government, cannot overrule specific provisions of the Constitution.
... hold an election, and the world laughs at you.
Really, guys, that's no way to have a democracy.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
The president may appoint the new judges, "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". All that means is that the Senate has to consent to the appointment. The senate may even suggest who the president should appoint. What does consent mean? It means whatever the senate wants it to mean. They can even allow the president to appoint whoever they want and consent without even voting.
Note that the senate is the one who formed the rules on how the senate makes decisions, and so the senate is the one who can change them. It was a tradition, not a rule, that all appointments who have passed the committee are voted on after debate. It is the democrats who changed that. 51 votes is all that has been needed since the beginning of our nation. Now it has changed to 60.
All they have to do is amend their bylaws and it is done. The justices have no say in the matter, and can't even rule whether they are obeying their own rules or not, because no one but the senate determines what rules the senate follow outside of the constitution.
You might want to pick up a copy of Robert's Rules to get a feeling for what I mean by bylaws and how a deliberative body makes decisions.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
LOL
Your genocidal rantings go well with your sig.
How do you propose to nuke terrorists living in London, New York, Hamburg? What do you propose we do about the non-terrorists living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East? What do you propose we do about global economic interdependence? Where shall we get our oil after your Final Solution?
By the way, in case you didn't notice, terrorists are not a "race." "Genocide" means destroying a race. What race do you wish to destroy? Muslims? (A religion, not a race, that spans many races, including whitey). Arabs? (What about all the terrorists in non-Arab Muslim nations like Indonesia or Iran?)
Finally, what the fuck are you talking about "historically proven to reduce terrorism." Which historical genocide has proven that? You've backed off of native America and Japan; perhaps you support the German genocide of Jews? Or the Armenian genocide?
(Why the hell am I arguing with you?)
You need to read a little bit more history, until you get to the part where FDR didn't like the decisions the Supreme Court made.
FDR checked his constitution, noticed that it didn't actually say "number of Supreme Court justices: 9" on it, and called for legislation to allow him to appoint six more supreme court justices (as well as 44 additional federal judges).
The reason that you don't see 15 judges today is that the Supreme Court, as well as popular opinion, shot down Roosevelt's plan. However, the court became much more complaisant about the Administration's laws after that.
Try google on "roosevelt supreme court packing" and read up.
I agree that we are in a war. I don't agree with everything else you said.
Although the economy could ALWAYS be better, I think it is doing pretty well, especially considering the massive economic hit we took when two of our biggest centers of industry were destroyed on September 11. Plus, the economy started tanking pretty quickly after the end of the Clinton administration; far too quickly for that to be the result of any actions by Bush. Nothing about the crash of the dot-com boom, for example, can be blamed on President Bush.
As for civil liberties, I've actually read the Patriot Act, and I just don't believe it's the piece of demon-writing that its critics try to inflate it into. You may disagree with me, but let's debate the merits, not just proclaim that our civil liberties have vanished overnight. Besides, both candidates for President supported the Patriot Act - check and see, John Kerry voted for it. (Now, maybe he voted for it before he voted against it, but...)
As for the war, we were attacked. We had been attacked before; even those specific targets had been attacked before. The actions we took as a nation in response to those attacks did not work to reduce the threat; it continued to grow unabated (note that I do not fault President Clinton for what proved to be ineffective responses; the harm caused by the first WTC bombing, the Cole attack, and the various embassy bombings, while evidence of a growing problem, did not inflict enough harm on the country to support a war even if it were justified).
And no, I do not in any way believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11 (nor has President Bush or his administration ever said so). But I do believe he was a force of instability in a dangerously unstable region. He, like the Taliban, thumbed his nose at the international community and its very legitimate responses to his past and on-going horrific actions. His army routinely fired on United States pilots patrolling the No-Fly zones imposed by the United Nations itself.
For a very long time, the U.S. did not respond in any significant and effective way to any of this. Frankly, the time for the 2nd Iraq war was when he first threw out the weapons inspectors. But everybody said no, let's try diplomacy. And it didn't work. Saddam did not become more civilized. He did not accept that he had lost Kuwait and lost the support of the civilized world. He continued to try to hide his actions until the very precipice of war. And even then his final "cooperation" with the inspectors was reluctant and not 100% forthcoming. Allowing him to continue in power would have only emboldened other nations to act as he did, with little fear of serious repercussions.
Finally, not only do I agree with President Bush in the determination he has shown, I don't believe that Senator Kerry even knows what he would do at this point. I truly do not know whether he would remove the troops from Iraq within 6 months, or if he would leave them there for 3 or 4 more years. I don't know whether he would continue to provide the funds to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed in the war, or whether he would yank them back to fund more social programs here. The latter, in my opinion, would be disatrous because it would leave us in that part of the region as having done a lot of damage and then cut and run before repairing it.
So, in a nutshell, that's why I support President Bush.
Congress and public opinion did. Had he succeeded in getting Congress to pass the law, though, it would have all been quite constitutional. Bad idea, but constitutional.
Now see that's not true. People will take peace as a last resort and be happy with it, as long as they believe that suffering isn't worth it and the end is inevitable anyway. Look at consolidations of power pre Age of Enlightenment (which, coincidently, arabs and particularly islamists still are).
For Islamic Death Cultists- Death is always preferable to peace. They still have yet to forgive the Mongols for running over their territory.
With out the Mongols there would be no Russia. Without the Germans there would be no Germany (that was nowhere near the cohesive country it is today circa our civil war). There would be no United States without tyranny from England. Japan is what it is because of the efforts of many tyrants and the invention of Gunboat Diplomacy. The threat of total annhiliation is probably needed to provide the impetus for the Islamic reformation, a few centuries late BTW. The death of enough of them to make credible the end of their beliefs and culture might be the only thing that can save them. Because they might push us like Hannibal pushed the Romans. And then, there's no peace but a final rest.
Hmm, now THAT is an interesting theory- but such a death better be enough to totally destroy the Death Cultists. You can leave the moderates in the United States alone.
That said, watch "Terror's Children", and the Thomas Friedman specials. The funny thing is the Islamist, they'd vote for Bush. They think that he's the safer canadate for them when it comes to wielding American military might. Now that's ironic!
But it's true- just think what an actual genius could do with the American Military. As opposed to a C-student frat boy whose sense of strategy is so bad that he couldn't even avoid getting caught for cocaine possession by the Texas Rangers.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I thought the Republicans were against so-called "activist judges", that have views that are "way out of the mainstream"! Surely if they're pushing for "mainstream" judges, they wouldn't need this sort of extrajudicial power? :)
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
How do you propose to nuke terrorists living in London, New York, Hamburg?
I propose deportation of all noncitizens back to where they came from, and an utter closing of the borders.
What do you propose we do about the non-terrorists living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East?
If we leave them alive after an attack of that magnitude, they won't be non-terrorists for very long- these are a people who still are racists against Mongols for what Ghengis Kahn did to them.
What do you propose we do about global economic interdependence?
It's a bad idea that needs to be ended, utterly. There should be no communication between countries at all.
Where shall we get our oil after your Final Solution?
Out of waste vegitation, it's a simple enough chemical process. Didn't you see the article on slashdot a couple of weeks ago?
By the way, in case you didn't notice, terrorists are not a "race." "Genocide" means destroying a race. What race do you wish to destroy?
More of a culture- the tribes of the middle eastern desert who have that strange idea that Justice will only come when Mecca is ruled by a dictatorship and has control over the whole world.
Muslims? (A religion, not a race, that spans many races, including whitey).
Not all Muslims believe that.
Arabs? (What about all the terrorists in non-Arab Muslim nations like Indonesia or Iran?)
Same solution as before- if they're of the Islamic Death Cult, they need to be killed, along with their families, friends, etc.
Finally, what the fuck are you talking about "historically proven to reduce terrorism." Which historical genocide has proven that?
Augustus Titus, Roman General and Governor of the province of Judah, came up with the solution originally. He responded to Jewish terrorism by killing 500 Jews for every centurion killed. Eventually he razed Jerusalem, sowed the fields with salt, took all the people as slaves, and left. It was 1948 before Zionism raised it's ugly head again. I'd say that's a pretty complete solution, wouldn't you?
You've backed off of native America and Japan; perhaps you support the German genocide of Jews? Or the Armenian genocide?
Nah, I go much further back in history than that, those are just some minor examples of incomplete solutions to largely non-existant problems (though the Turkish genocide of the Armenians comes close- you haven't heard of an Armenian attack in Turkey since, have you?).
(Why the hell am I arguing with you?)
Because you don't actually understand that to me, genocide is the worse of the two solutions- far better would it be for us to destroy our economy than our morality. We can reinvent our economy- we can't reinvent our morality. In addition, genocide would probably ruin us economically as well, we only had a small opportunity to use genocide as an option and Bush wasted the 72 hours after 9-11-2001 trying to pin it all on Saddam.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
WTF? When someone runs for office, and gets elected, I expect them to be ready to do their job ANY damn day.
Now maybe you're talking about scheduling hearings on Sunday at 3:00 AM, or during a recess, or something like that. If so, point to a link. Otherwise, if a senator can't show up for their JOB, that's a good reason to elect someone else who can.
Under the Nazis, German trains ran on time. Hope you enjoy the consequences for being late for work under your Republican overlords.
--
make install -not war
Like scheduling meetings on days the Democrats were out of Washington, as known in advance when there was no meeting, at the last minute, so there's no time to return to Washington? That's just one way that Republicans game the system.
--
make install -not war
Ever read "Savage Love"? Its syndicated in the Chicago Reader and a few other places. Basically a VERY funny, sometimes disturbing, VERY fringe sexual advice column. After one of Santorum's particularly theocratic and bigoted suggestions (which one? I don't remember, he's made so many) the writer -Dan Savage- coined a new noun.
Savage Love - 05/29/03 and http://www.thestranger.com/2003-06-12/savage.html
santorum: (san-TOR-um) n.
1. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex
Apparently the term has caught on and is in limited common usage.
www.spreadingsantorum.com/
There's nothing "extra-democratic" about law courts - unless you mean "very democratic". The Republican Party has been taken over by Christalibans who want to install Old++ Testament law, like the sharia in Muslim countries like Afghanistan. So they've installed the most rightwing judges ever, even though the country is more split left/right than it's ever been. The attacks on "trial lawyers" are the rhetoric in the Republican war against American's recourse to the law after damaged by corporate injury. The Judiciary branch is the only one in which Americans can still get the equal access to, and protection under, the government that this country was founded to defend. Republicans, the corporate party, are doing everything they can to keep people out of the process in favor of their corporate masters.
--
make install -not war
1. I can do whatever I like.
b. Changing the rules in the middle with no right or new justifcation for doing so is by definition not within the rules.
3. You seem to have missed the point I was addressing--the underlying hypocrisy that makes this necessary.
d. Carry on.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The Democrats always used the bully pulpit and press to pigeon hole the Republicans while they had dominance. If the Republicans had pulled this stunt of blocking nominees in a Democrat dominated Congress all hell would have broken loose.
the Democrats are purposely thrwarting the Constitution by forcing a super majority voting requirement on Judges, something the founding fathers would have found abhorrent. Minority rule was not the goal of the system. The only reason its working is because the Republicans refuse to play hard ball.
The Constitution already spells out how to nominate and install judges. A 2/3rd requirement would simply provide us with a legal system which is indebted to the Congress. It would also prevent the system from ever moving forward. It would destroy the very Republic we hold dear by allowing a minority to control the process.
Just as the Senate is protected by fadish whims of the populace by its 6 year terms with staggered expirations there was much wisdom in only requiring a simple majority vote. The nation changes and forcing a new requirement of a super majority will artificially prevent the affected entities of this nation from changing with it.
The current system used to work until it was abused by the Democrats who are using parlimentary tricks to thwart the process as designed. By denial they in effect become the ones in control. How ridiculous?
What the real travesty is that most people ignore is that Courts are abusing their authority and MAKING laws. No where in their design were the supposed to CREATE law, they are only supposed to adminster or refute. The term for this abuse was coined as "Activist Judges". Meaning, those who prefer to usurp the role of the legislature.
Finally ask yourself this, if the situation was reveresed do you think the press would take notice?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Definition:
t e_majority_leader.html
"A time-delaying tactic associated with the Senate and used by a minority in an effort to delay, modify or defeat a bill or amendment that probably would pass if voted on directly. The most common method is to take advantage of the Senate's rules permitting unlimited debate."
From http://www.acpa.nche.edu/govrel/terms.htm
The GOP used the same tactic against Clinton, but now it's the Dems who came up with this "crazy idea"?
This is the first time the filibuster has been used to block judicial appointments. The filibuster is used by the minority. During Clinton's second term, the Republicans were in the majority. No need to filibuster.
During Clinton's first term Democrats were the majority. I don't recall Republicans using a filibuster to block judicial nominations. I could be wrong. If someone could prove me wrong I would be glad to look at a source with the information.
Majority leaders:
http://www.fact-index.com/u/un/united_states_sena
No, obviously not. You've been listening to Rush or some other crackpot.
... be careful of what you wish for. Corporations came to be considered almost as individuals with rights due to a court decision based on the 14th (?) amendment. I doubt very much that the right wingers who hate liberal interpretations of laws would want that particular interpretation overturned by so-called constitutional purists.
Laws by definition are CREATED by legislatures.
Our legal system is common law, meaning that most actual legal usage comes from court cases clarifying the rather vague laws passed by legislatures. If the constituion guarantees privacy, then laws which violate that right are unconstitutional. This is not creating law, it is sharpening the definition, fine tuning it.
I dare you -- show just one single LAW which a court has CREATED. Don't reference some judgement and call it a law. It's not. It's a precedent, or a judgement, not a law.
And a word of advice
Infuriate left and right
Government, at least the creation of laws, should be inefficient. It's another check against governmental power. Some of the worst legislation was very efficiently passed--right after some crisis prompted it (the PATRIOT act is the obvious example).
Can you say, CAN SPAM Act? I knew you could. Yep, just take away those states' rights, and let the federal gov't mandate spam. Good job, go get re-elected, moron.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
But I like the current activist judges! You know, the ones that suddenly decided the Pledge of Allegiance should be changed because, like, it's a prayer or something since those two words are in it. And the ones that decided to go against what the law states, and let gays marry anyway--rather than let the laws be changed first.
Yeah, those are great. We don't need some stupid Conservatives (with a capital C) to come in and keep things in line!
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
Maybe the Democrats are also against appointing activist judges, with views that are way out of the mainstream! :)
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The ads were a beautiful moment for McCain standing up for his conscience. He knows how it feels after having his war record attacked while running against Bush. Lately he has been on perfect behavior though, kissing up to Bush on command. It seems he is already campaigning for 2008.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
Oh yes, quite right. Indeed, I've already deselected both "Politics", but since it's new, I felt it deserved comment. However, just to let you know, I'd most certainly give up on this life in order to to defend your right to waste your time discussing which particular megalomanical plutocrat is currently spending enough to win America's allegiance.
Please, carry on.
Words to men, as air to birds.
But that Hispanic judge was spectacularly conservative, and thus not especially representative of the Hispanic community.
It's sort of like Republicans and Clarence Thomas-- the Democrats can't fight his appointment without losing face, because he's black, even though underneath the skin he's about as conservative as your average white CEO.
Well, that's the most racists and prejudiced thing I've read in a while.
Basically, you're saying that a conservative hispanic isn't really conservative at all, because hispanics are liberal.
So race determines thought and behavior. Nope, no free will or independant thinking here.
Same things for blacks. Clarence thomas isn't black because he isn't liberal.
So, are all the pasty, patchouli wearing liberal protestor types at my college not really white because they're not conservative? Or maybe since it's white males who have all the power, they must be conservatives. So the liberals holding up those idiotic signs drawn with their mother's markers must be some other skin color or gender, right?
YOU are stating that SKIN COLOR DETERMINES BEHAVIOR AND THOUGHT.
You may be right that the republicans intentionally sought out a hispanic conservative judge, but only to show that the democrats are full of shit when they claim to have the moral high ground on race.
They can't stand having a black (Thomas) or a hispanic in a very prominent position that isn't in their camp. The slaves are escaping the plantation! Pull out the filibuster!
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
The problem is that increasingly, the D Party has viewed Originalists as "ideologues" or "right-wing."
In other words, if a judge says that the Constitution means what it says, and not whetever "penumbras" or "interpretations" current fashion implies, the D party filibusters them.
Falling back on the Constitution when you're working to subvert it is poor taste.
I'm not saying the R party doesn't have its ideologues and poor taste as well. But the fight is basically two people hitting each other with sticks and then declaring each other cheaters because the other guy is using a weapon.
As I understand it, domestic partner status in California is available to any couple, regardless of the gender mix thereof. If so, it's legal. Stupid, perhaps redundant with marriage for heterosexuals, but legal.
The question of whether marriage is legal as it is presently described remains up for grabs. And, if I'm wrong about DP being open to both straights and gays, you're probably completely right. However, the DP law might provide enough of a safety valve and dissipation of political focus to delay the final resolution of this issue for a decade or two, since it provides the majority of what the majority of gay couples want-- the substance, if not the name, from the state, and nothing precluding them from using the name with their church, themselves, or their unbigoted neighbors. The current trend is that the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be tollerant to the idea of gay marriage. A two-decade delaying half measure might allow the political tide in this country to turn, and get rid of the half-measure by simplifying to one institution, open to all.
Myself, I think the state doesn't belong in the marriage business, merely in the "civil union"/"domestic partnership" business, but I'm a little strange, even for a Catholic; I believe that cases involving whether something is a marriage, or merely a domestic partnership, is something that may be decided by no mortal court. Religious authorities merely express advisory opinions as to what the ruling of that Final Court is thought likely to be.
Anyway, the current strange demographic trend (more conservative in personal behavior, but more liberal in tolerance of others) in the younger crowd may be one reason why the Republicans are using such desperate measures to pack the federal bench, and are drooling so hard over the prospects of putting up to three justices on the Supreme Court next term. I believe (as I have stated elsewhere in this discussion) that the Republicans have lost their sense of history. Though it might take a tremendous expendature of political capital, an extremist Supreme Court can be bludgeoned to a more moderate position if both President and Congress are united and sufficiently motivated. (Whether this is a good thing is questionable.)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
There are too many examples to cite, essentially what the Courts have done by expanding what constitutes Commerce has circumvented the 10th. The courts just keep coming up with new interpetations of just what Commerce is thereby giving Congress all sorts of new powers.
The recent big one of course is the Campaign finance reform bill. The courts have already had ample cases to throw the damn thing out. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." doesn't the court understand?
How dare they permit Congress to set limits on how much I can contribute, to whom I can give it, and when I can give it! How dare the courts permit this just because they like it! It is clearly written in the First Amendment that this law is illegal.
That is an effect of activist judges. What gets scary is when people basically assume that courts trample the rights of states to set their own laws, which is essence the people exercising the rights given to them by the 10th.
Having trampled on the 1st was relatively easy as some seemed to think trampling on the 2nd was OK. Pretty soon we could just lose the rest of the 1st and what will we do? Throw spitballs at them?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Congress does, however, have a duty to "advice" the President. This can reasonably be interpreted to a duty to actually take a vote, not filibuster, not lock the damn thing up in committee.
Vote, Yea or Nay and lets move on.
I really have been waiting for someone to sue the Congress for not taking a vote, as required by the Consitution.
Filibusters are not a Consitutional right.
They are a Senate rule. And as easily changed (in theory) as the amount of staff a Senator is allowed to have.
If you don't understand what is in the Consitution (and what isn't) "please don't post in this section."
And if you think they are "in the Consitution" start citing which Article & Section demands them.
I think the #1 problem that the Republicans are facing right now is the fact that the Filibuster is now just a mere procedural issue. If the debate form were enforced like it was done in the past with the Senate, they would effectively shut down the Senate until the appointments came up for a vote.
As a citizen, I wouldn't mind that the Senate would be shut down between now and mid-November (aka the elections). As the soldiers in Iraq run out of bullets and federal workers stop getting paychecks, it would be real nice to simply point to the Democrats and simply say "If you would just shut up and vote, we can move on to more important matters"
I think pure constituant political pressure would eventually come up and force the issue to be resolved, and keep the concept of a filibuster for exactly what it was meant to be: Something that you use in an extreame circumstance when you are in the minority on an issue but feel you want to make a major political point about, potentially getting others to agree with your or cementing the opinion of the opposition. The filibuster by the late Sen. Strom Thurmond back in the 1960's is still ledgendary, and the points he made were instrumental in keeping him in office back elsewhen, at least for his local constituants.
If this issue were really that important to the Democrats (I don't think it is), they would pull out all the stops and make it a fundimental strategy for their congressional campaigns for Senate and keep the filibuster going. I would also be incredibly impressed if John Kerry spent several hours a week on the floor of the Senate involved with such an issue with a major filibuster. As it currently stands, I doubt Kerry will even make it to the floor of the Senate to even vote against any of these judges.
Roosevelt got exactly what he wanted.
... Roosevelt (a Democrat I may add) decided he could get a majority on the Supreme Court, not be removing "bad" judges (which he would have to impeach them to do), but by ADDING "good" judges. All he needed to do was get Congress to sign off on it. And in 1937 he tried.
The Constitution doesn't say _how many_ judges are on the Supreme Court. The number of judges is set by Congress. The Constitution is very vague on many areas where the Judiciary is concerned (Article 3). The Founding Fathers just assumed Congress would fill in the details. And, they were right.
So, in 1935, the judges wouldn't sign off on the New Deal. Fine
Now remember FDR was amazingly powerful. The only way they got him out of office was by him dying a natural death. In fact, he so scared them that even then they passed the 22nd Amendment (1951, which term limits Presidents) to keep another FDR from happening again.
So, Congress was pretty likely to do what FDR wanted and raise the number of judges in the SC to give FDR a majority. FDR was going to "pack the court."
Then 1 SC Judge (and I forget which one), who cared more about the traditions of the US then the current New Deal laws, went to FDR and said he'd vote for the New Deal laws if FDR backed off. Hence the phrase "A switch in time, saved 9". Nine being the then (and now) number of judges on the SC. FDR would have raised that to at least 11.
So, in the end the tradition of a 9 member Supreme Court was saved, but FDR got his way, and that was what he really wanted.
you might as well have a "supreme judge" instead of a "supreme court" in that case
:)
Some in the legal field would argue that Sandra Day O'Connor is the "supreme judge" - that the court is often balanced in the 'conservative' half and the 'liberal' half she often breaks the tie, being called a mathematical moderate (just about 50/50).
Some cynics suggest controversial laws just be taken straight to her.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I didn't say that they were. Try rereading:That's what I wrote.
See the "and" in that sentence? The Constitution sets up the basic system of checks and balances and, while not specifically called out in the Constitution, filibusters are an example of some of the checks and balances that have evolved over the years.
Democrats are tired of Republican destruction of Democracy with media collusion. Bush's judicial nominees have been much more rightwing than any prior Republican appointments, even Nixon or Reagan's - so much for objective justice. Our democratic experiment has been spiked by Republicans gaming the system at every turn. Just last Fall, the Secret Service and FBI confiscated the computer of Bill Frist, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, as evidence of his office's cracking the Democatic email server to spy on their strategies for opposing the last round of Republican rightwing judicial nominees. Those were installed during the Congressional recess, an unprecedented cheat of the system. All these antidemocratic implants are disgraceful events on their own. Cumulatively they're crushing the backbone of our great nation. Compare all that to the centuries old technique of filibuster, which the Republicans used to block Clinton nominees.
Politicians aren't like companies. They gain monopoly power in our "winner takes all" system once their opposition is barely smaller than them, much easier than in the real market. So voting "third party" just makes it easier for Republicans to win, by rigging a smaller relevant electorate. Vote Democrat. Then go to work putting reforms like "instant runoffs" and "auditable ballots", as well as "corporations are second class citizens", on the Democrat agenda. It's not easy, but it's at least possible. With Republicans, you won't get access until you've got your first million dollars, or million viewers of your prayer show. Don't waste your vote, and don't leave the rest of us to fend for you ourselves.
"couldn't help but be ashamed to live in a land
where justice is a game"
- "Hurricane", Bob Dylan
--
make install -not war
The current system used to work until it was abused by the Democrats who are using parlimentary tricks to thwart the process as designed. By denial they in effect become the ones in control. How ridiculous?
This is a joke, right? Where were you when Senate Republicans blocked 22 of President Clinton's nominees from even coming up for a committe vote? Gimme a break.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
...kind of situation that makes me wonder about the legitimacy of any political party that would even attempt such a disservice to the populous. If the GOP trys this tactic, I say we boot them all out.
Uh, yes- that's why the loss of morality would be hard to replace, where we can always get another economic system after solidifying our borders.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.ht ml?id=110004305
My blog