BloodyWilliam
(665 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:11 PM
Original message |
"Do we really want have a system where judicial nominees need 60 votes?" |
|
Dick Shelbie (R-Alabama) asked that. All I can think is... YES!
These holes in the judicial system have always been political. That;'s not an issue. But a simple 51 vote should NOT appoint any judicial nominee to a position of potetially lifelong power and control over interpretation of the Constitution. There's too much room for abuse.
Much as I'd love liberal judges, it's much more reasonable and realistic to have moderate judges- moderate in every way. The problem is the Bush Corps aren't interested in that, only in squeezing their right-wing nominations past while they have the chance.
|
Timefortruth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:14 PM
Response to Original message |
1. If it ain't broke don't fix it. |
|
The current system works well at keeping extremeist candidates from life long positions.
Yes, 60 is a good number, for both sides.
|
msmcghee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas?
|
BadFaith
(53 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
25. Not good examples.... |
|
Rehnquist was confirmed as Associate Justice in 1972 by a vote of 68-26, and was later confirmed as Chief Justice in 1986 by a vote of 65-33. Antonin Scalia was confirmed by the Senate in 1986 with a *unanimous* vote, though this is largely due to the attention being focused on Rehnquist's nomination to Chief Justice.
Thomas, however, was confirmed 52-48 after a tie in the committee.
|
TennesseeWalker
(925 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:15 PM
Response to Original message |
BloodyWilliam
(665 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. Not even mob rule, but narrow mob rule. |
|
I'll get back to playing the Fillibuster Drinking Game. Every time you see an over-55 white guy complaining, you take a shot.
...actually, that's the Republican drinking game! :evilgrin:
And yes, I realize the same can be said for our side. But I feel damn nasty, and we've been playing nice for too long.
|
mlawson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:18 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Whenever repooks are in the WH, yes!!! n/t |
|
Otherwise, 51 will do for me. :-)
|
Adjoran
(650 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
We do it to them, they do it to us.
The real issue is to win back the White House and make the appointments. That power is devalued if payback is involved.
|
mlawson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. The 'smiley' face meant that I was being fecitious. n/t |
Uzybone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:19 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Yes and if i had my way |
|
it would be even higher. When 250,000 people in Wyoming have the same voice as 15 million people in California we have to make sure a real majority approves our judges.
|
aldian159
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
13. For more info on why the senate screws the people |
|
read "How Democratic is the American Constitution?" by Robert Dahl, professor emeritus at Yale. Good book, very intellectually stimulating.
|
Yupster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
26. Really we need a Constitutional Convention |
|
The Constitution was ratified by the states, not by the people.
Therefore, many safeguards were put in to protect the rights of the several states. These powers have been whittled away to the point where the state powers left don't make much sense.
We got rid of the major power of the states, but there are still some remnant powers that don't really fit in our revised system. Therefore, a pretty thorough rewriting is in order.
BTW - the biggest change in my opinion was not the Civil War, but was the 17th Amendment. Most people just pass over the Direct Election of Senators, but it was a huge change to our system of government. Before the 17th Amendment, the state legislatures elected their senators. This was the way the states were able to make sure nothing happened against their interests in Washington. Not only did they have a house of congress, but it was the house that could filibuster legislation they didn't like. It was a real power the states enjoyed and it gave the legislatures control not only of their own states, but a big chunk of control of Washington too. Once the 17th Amednment was ratified that balance flipped. Not only did Washington control the capital, but it could now exert its influence more into the states.
|
snippy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:19 PM
Response to Original message |
6. It has always been this way. Except when it used to require 67 votes. |
|
This country has prospered and progressed under the current rules. Only those who regret or resent that prosperity and progress see a need for change.
|
Racenut20
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:24 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Even with the 60 vote reqirement ?????? |
|
Something foul like Clarence Thomas can happen..
|
0007
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. I'll never never ever get over the Clarence Thomas thingy, |
gratuitous
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. Actually, Uncle Thomas only got 52 votes |
|
A shameful episode in the life of the Senate, and one that Arlen Specter should never be able to live down.
The "60" votes the Repubs are bitching about is the number needed to break a filibuster. Those Senate rules have served the U.S. well for over 200 years; there's no need to fiddle with them now. Go change your nappies, Pugs, and ask President Stupidhead to nominate some folks who are actually qualified to sit on the federal bench. Crybabies.
|
The Backlash Cometh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:25 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Is that Dick "We have Osama on the Run" Shelby? |
|
I don't listen to anything Shelby has to say since he made the statement "We have Osama on the Run" just a few months prior to 9/11.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:29 PM
Response to Original message |
15. I really do fear that the repukes will not even |
|
allow the new Democratic president next year to have a cabinet.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
17. The Senate can't do that... |
|
The government needs people to run it.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. Is there anything legally stopping them from doing it, or would it just |
|
not be prudent, if the case is the latter, I wouldnt put it past them.
They could easily find 40 votes to totally shut down the Senate when our guy gets in the WH.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:46 PM
Response to Original message |
16. Umm I don't see a real fundamental problem here... |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-13-03 09:56 PM by Hippo_Tron
Here's how this works. The Democrats blocked all of four judges with fillibusters that were really half-assed. Now I'm by no means calling the democrats weak but I'm saying that the majority did little to stop the fillibusters. Why? Because Bill Frist has the common sense to know that wasting several days of Senate time over four judges is not worth it. Then Karl Rove tells Frist that he needs to stand up the Democrats (It's fact that Frist is another Bush/Rove flunkee because even the Republicans admit that they got him his job). Frist decides to pull this little stunt as a half-assed attempt to break the fillibuster by demonizing the Democrats. The current system works perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. When we control the White House and the Senate I think we can deal with Republicans fillibustering our judges without too much trouble.
|
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #16 |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-13-03 09:50 PM by tritsofme
mistaken post
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
21. Are you referring to yours or mine? n/t |
tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
23. Mine, I replied to the wrong post |
The Backlash Cometh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:55 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Why don't we change the electoral college too? |
|
Why don't we do away with the separation of powers? (Oops, the Bushes do that all the time.)
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
22. Electoral College needs serious reform... |
|
If you live in a dominated state your vote doesn't count. That's such bullshit.
|
kodi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-13-03 10:16 PM
Response to Original message |
24. ronnie white ronnie white ronnie white ronnie white ronnie white |
|
least we forget the asscrack's disgusting lies about him.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 09:37 PM
Response to Original message |