NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, the Senate takes a break, and once again GW is off and making a whack of recess appointments to avoid the inconvenience of having to actually get aproval for his buddies ascent to power positions.

This batch of 20 includes a new head of the FTC, a manufacturing czar, and three ambassadors.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=6&u=/ap/20040731/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_recess_appointments

Why doesn't he just start skipping the process entirely and simply make all of his appointments by decree? Because clearly the Senate process is viewed only an inconvenience to him that he will override at the earliest possible convenient moment in virtually all cases.

HAHAHAHA!!!! Oh Zep your too much!

Under law, the US President CAN make recess appointments! He wouldn't have too do this if the US Senate would just give Bush's appointees the up or down vote.

However, A recess appointee is short term and doesn't have the life time garentee of his/her position!

FTC Commissioner--Deborah Majoras of Virginia to replace Timothy J. Muris, who is stepping down after three years. Majoras, a former Justice Department (news - web sites) deputy assistant attorney general, was one of the lead attorneys in the government's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. Majoras' nomination had been blocked in the Senate by Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., who said there was no evidence she would change FTC policies that benefit oil companies and hurt consumers.

How does Wyden know that she would not change FTC policy if she doesn't get confirmed? Anyway, she is only in there till the end 2005 just as all the rest of his recess appointments that have been mostly blocked by the Democratic party of the US Senate.

Zep, I suggest you take a look at who his recess appointments have been in the past! MOST of the ones he appointed have been filibustered in the US Senate by the Democratic Party for no other reason than that the appointees don't agree with their ideology. That is not how the US Senate acts. It acts to give the appointees an up or down vote.

Zep, I suggest you take a look at who his recess appointments have been in the past! MOST of the ones he appointed have been filibustered in the US Senate by the Democratic Party for no other reason than that the appointees don't agree with their ideology. That is not how the US Senate acts. It acts to give the appointees an up or down vote.

Actually, they were filibustered because the appointees used their own ideology and were, in fact, true "activist judges". It's just that no one called them that because they agree with the crap the Bush spews. That is not the job of a judge and and judge who is going to impose their own moral views, rather than interpreting the laws, should not be put on the bench. And because the Republicans have a the majority and are going to vote for anyone who they think is Republican, a fillibuster was the only way to keep these "activist judges" off the federal bench.

Actually, they were filibustered because the appointees used their own ideology and were, in fact, true "activist judges". It's just that no one called them that because they agree with the crap the Bush spews. That is not the job of a judge and and judge who is going to impose their own moral views, rather than interpreting the laws, should not be put on the bench. And because the Republicans have a the majority and are going to vote for anyone who they think is Republican, a fillibuster was the only way to keep these "activist judges" off the federal bench.

All of them do have their opinions, everyone does. These people, however, said that they would UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND! That includes R V W! Some where black, hispanic, White, etc etc and they filibustered them. They have IGNORED the ratings by the ABA, the American Bar Association, that gave them the HIGHEST RATING!

Many of these posts that where filibustered were appealent courts! They are very important posts and they needed to be filled. Because of the Filibustering, they weren't getting filled. That is why Bush did what he did and I praise him for doing it!

As for the Republican Party, they have approved most of the Clinton Appointees. They worked with the Dem Control Senate and voted FOR most of whom he appointed. Yea they did here too but when it came down to these presigous postings, its filibuster because we think your against R V W when they themselves said that they would uphold it!

All of them do have their opinions, everyone does. These people, however, said that they would UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND! That includes R V W! Some where black, hispanic, White, etc etc and they filibustered them. They have IGNORED the ratings by the ABA, the American Bar Association, that gave them the HIGHEST RATING!

Many of these posts that where filibustered were appealent courts! They are very important posts and they needed to be filled. Because of the Filibustering, they weren't getting filled. That is why Bush did what he did and I praise him for doing it!

As for the Republican Party, they have approved most of the Clinton Appointees. They worked with the Dem Control Senate and voted FOR most of whom he appointed. Yea they did here too but when it came down to these presigous postings, its filibuster because we think your against R V W when they themselves said that they would uphold it!
bull, those people are radical right wing idealists all of them. all bushl ooks to appoint is those people who hold the republican philosophy, whihc is if you interpret the law to disagree with the GOP you are an activist judge. we dont need any more judges like clarence thomas who believe the establishment clause should let the state government create and enforce official religions

we need people who will actually interpret the law in a progressive manner in accordance with the times, we dontr need to be living in some right wing created alternate reality like the vatican

bull, those people are radical right wing idealists all of them. all bushl ooks to appoint is those people who hold the republican philosophy, whihc is if you interpret the law to disagree with the GOP you are an activist judge. we dont need any more judges like clarence thomas who believe the establishment clause should let the state government create and enforce official religions

Thank you for confirming that your a left wing nut! Your intelligence has finally shown through! You obviously have not looked at the record of whom Bush has appointed. All of them are honorably men and women. Just because they do not agree with the liberal party line, that they are right wing nuts. They will do their judicial duty by upholding the law of the land. That is their job as judges. They will do this job even if that means going against their personal beliefs. I know that a few of them are against R V W but they said that they will uphold it.

we need people who will actually interpret the law in a progressive manner in accordance with the times, we dontr need to be living in some right wing created alternate reality like the vatican

Progressive as in socialist? Sorry CS but the law is the law and can be interpreted any which way from Sunday as can the Constitution of the USA! Most laws are subject to opinion but most have precedent and the Precedent wins most of the time. Very rare is precedent NOT upheld.

Clinton used the recess appointment just the same. And maybe if Daschle and the rest of the Democrats were not so insistent on hurting america by not allowing Bush's appointments to even come to a vote, he wouldn't have to use the recess.

Thank you for confirming that your a left wing nut! Your intelligence has finally shown through! You obviously have not looked at the record of whom Bush has appointed. All of them are honorably men and women. Just because they do not agree with the liberal party line, that they are right wing nuts. They will do their judicial duty by upholding the law of the land. That is their job as judges. They will do this job even if that means going against their personal beliefs. I know that a few of them are against R V W but they said that they will uphold it.
well i will admit not all of those people were right wing nuts, but im sure several were. and just because they made that oath doesnt mean they will. does the name roy moore ring a bell?



Progressive as in socialist? Sorry CS but the law is the law and can be interpreted any which way from Sunday as can the Constitution of the USA! Most laws are subject to opinion but most have precedent and the Precedent wins most of the time. Very rare is precedent NOT upheld.
yeah guaranteeing people's first amendment rightsa are protected is horrible. and so is giving them the right to privacy, horrible horrible liberals, how dare they give people the right to privacy oir right to free speach.

well i will admit not all of those people were right wing nuts, but im sure several were. and just because they made that oath doesnt mean they will. does the name roy moore ring a bell?


Roy Moore was coming from the Constitution side of the law. Under the US Constitution there is no Seperation of Church and State! ALl it states is that Congress shall make no law establishing nor prohibiting the worship there of. The Ten Commandments there where placed in the year 1999 I think it was. No one had a problem with it then. The Majority of the people wanted them to stay. Since when does minority rule? It doesn't! But I will concede the Roy Moore issue however but so far, he is the lone example.

[quote=Chess Squares]yeah guaranteeing people's first amendment rightsa are protected is horrible. and so is giving them the right to privacy, horrible horrible liberals, how dare they give people the right to privacy oir right to free speach.

Now that you brought up the 1st Amendment, how come pro-life groups can't protest outside of abortion clinics? Why can Pro-choice groups protest anywhere they want? Why were pro-life groups forbidden to protest outside the home of Kerry? Those violate their 1st amendment rights. I live the Right to privacy and that has been violated in the case of Jack Ryan in IL thanks to the Media suing. His Rights where ignored and the right of the press wheren't! As for free speech we still have that or in theory we do!

Now that you brought up the 1st Amendment, how come pro-life groups can't protest outside of abortion clinics? Why can Pro-choice groups protest anywhere they want? Why were pro-life groups forbidden to protest outside the home of Kerry? Those violate their 1st amendment rights. I live the Right to privacy and that has been violated in the case of Jack Ryan in IL thanks to the Media suing. His Rights where ignored and the right of the press wheren't! As for free speech we still have that or in theory we do!

im going to bump my roy moore history just for you because you obviously know nothing of it

All of them do have their opinions, everyone does. These people, however, said that they would UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND! That includes R V W! Some where black, hispanic, White, etc etc and they filibustered them. They have IGNORED the ratings by the ABA, the American Bar Association, that gave them the HIGHEST RATING!

I've looked up some of the records of these people, at least the top four that were being fillibustered. Regardless of what they said they will do, they have all refused to really uphold the law before, instead pushing their particular morality. If a convicted con told you he was going to uphold the law, would you just take it on faith that he would?

Remember, there is a difference between having your own opinions, which all people can, and using those opinions in a position of power, which a judge should not.

Many of these posts that where filibustered were appealent courts! They are very important posts and they needed to be filled. Because of the Filibustering, they weren't getting filled. That is why Bush did what he did and I praise him for doing it!

Yes, they should, and if Bush would stop nominating people who shouldn't be in the seats and would give up his neo-con litmus tests, I'm sure they would be filled. Do you realize what a small percentage have been fillibustered? When the Reps kept everyone up all night, it was about 4 out of something like 260 nominees. All of the rest had been confirmed already. Doesn't that say something, like, perhaps that those four were just a little too radical?

Yea they did here too but when it came down to these presigous postings, its filibuster because we think your against R V W when they themselves said that they would uphold it!

Again, saying and doing are two different things. The record on most of the filibustered positions says otherwise. And if you would actually look, you would see what a small percentage of nominees is being filibustered.

Yes, the Senate takes a break, and once again GW is off and making a whack of recess appointments to avoid the inconvenience of having to actually get aproval for his buddies ascent to power positions.

This batch of 20 includes a new head of the FTC, a manufacturing czar, and three ambassadors.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ss_appointments

Why doesn't he just start skipping the process entirely and simply make all of his appointments by decree? Because clearly the Senate process is viewed only an inconvenience to him that he will override at the earliest possible convenient moment in virtually all cases.

The recess appointment has been frequently used as a political tool by presidents of both parties to further their agendas, for better or worse.

JFK appointed the first black Supreme Court Justice, Thurgood Marshall, when Congress was in recess because he knew racist legislators from the South would normally prevent the appointment. I seriously doubt you question JFK's judgment in this case.

If you are dissatisfied with Bush's policies you should criticize the substance of these policies, not a legitimate political tactic that he uses.

Now that you brought up the 1st Amendment, how come pro-life groups can't protest outside of abortion clinics?

I've never heard that anti-choice protesters can't protest outside of abortion clinics. Although, I can't name a single "abortion clinic." They are actually women's health clinics that do all sorts of things, including abortion. However, if there has been some sort of ruling on this, it is probably because such protesters often can't keep their hands to themselves. Protesting is one thing, accosting doctors and patients (many of whom are not even there for the protested procedure) is not.

Why were pro-life groups forbidden to protest outside the home of Kerry?

It's called private property. Would you want pro-choice groups on your lawn protesting? Can they? Nope.

I suggest you take a look at who his recess appointments have been in the past! MOST of the ones he appointed have been filibustered in the US Senate by the Democratic Party for no other reason than that the appointees don't agree with their ideology. That is not how the US Senate acts. It acts to give the appointees an up or down vote.

Presidents from BOTH parties use recess appointments to get around the Senate. Clinton did that to force the appointment of James Hormel as the ambassador to Lichtenstein (I believe all that's correct) when the Republican-controlled Senate blocked his approval.

If you want to get rid of the practice because Bush uses it, you'll have to handcuff the Democrats similarly.

all bushl ooks to appoint is those people who hold the republican philosophy

How is this different from the left wing judges who 'hold the democratic parties philosophy'?

9th Circuit court of appeals? They have the distinction of being the most overturned court of the country.

Here's another example:

"The relevant constitutional issues are profound, but actually rather simple: Article 1 establishes the legislative branch to make laws; Article 2 the executive branch to handle administrative matters; and Article 3 the judicial branch to interpret laws. Article 4 assures that acts of one state will be recognized by every other state. And the 10th Amendment reserves to the states or the people all powers not delegated to the federal government. The Constitution says nothing about marriage or laws dealing with morality, which matters are historically left to the states.

But activist judges, unaccountable to the people, have changed all that. A slim majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas declared a state law proscribing sodomy to be unconstitutional, negating laws enacted by the Texas Legislature."

How can something that isnt even addressed in the Constitution (morality) be ruled unconstitutional? At best, it should have been dismissed back to the state, where the matter should have been rightfully handled.

What people forget is that the Legislature is the governmental body that is supposed to write the law. That is where we are a representative form of government. We elect our representatives who then are supposed to enact legislation according to his/her constituents. Since the Judiciary branch is largely unelected, having them "legislate from the bench" or as Chess Squares puts it "interpret the law in a progressive manner" removes the representative aspect of government and we become an oligarchy.

Now that you brought up the 1st Amendment, how come pro-life groups can't protest outside of abortion clinics?
Cos the protests were impeding the ability of the women who wanted to get to the clinics, obstructing their rights. My right to swing my fist stops where your nose starts etc.

Why can Pro-choice groups protest anywhere they want? Because no pro choice group has ever killed an abortion doctor.
Why were pro-life groups forbidden to protest outside the home of Kerry? Those violate their 1st amendment rights. Causing a public disturbance outside a private residence? I can't imagine why that would be prohibited.

Whats the big deal? The filibuster is the Senate's way of stopping an up and down vote, the recess appointment is the president's way of getting around it.

But activist judges, unaccountable to the people, have changed all that. A slim majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas declared a state law proscribing sodomy to be unconstitutional, negating laws enacted by the Texas Legislature."

How can something that isnt even addressed in the Constitution (morality) be ruled unconstitutional? At best, it should have been dismissed back to the state, where the matter should have been rightfully handled.

Because they weren't ruling on the morality of the practice, thus your objection means nothing. This was a ruling on due process. The state of Texas (or any state) can show no compelling reason to remove the right of two consenting humans to privacy. Thus, passing a law such as the sodomy laws is a violation of due process. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Sorry.

What people forget is that the Legislature is the governmental body that is supposed to write the law.

And the court is a check to interpret said law and to make sure that it does not cause unreasonable harm to those which it governs.

That is where we are a representative form of government. We elect our representatives who then are supposed to enact legislation according to his/her constituents.

Which they do. But if the constituents are largely in favor of discriminating against a minority, it is the court's place to step in and ensure that the minority is not harmed by the majority.

Since the Judiciary branch is largely unelected, having them "legislate from the bench" or as Chess Squares puts it "interpret the law in a progressive manner" removes the representative aspect of government and we become an oligarchy.

Maybe you have some better examples? Because the one you used was not "legislating from the bench." It was simply finding that a certain law violated due process. The legislature *could* pass a law saying that we could throw you in jail just because we wanted to. But the courts would rule that the law was a violation of due process.

if you people INSIST on quoting me, quote IN CONTEXT
i explained what i meant, you are taking it out of context and placing it in another snetence to change its meaning

Because they weren't ruling on the morality of the practice, thus your objection means nothing. This was a ruling on due process. The state of Texas (or any state) can show no compelling reason to remove the right of two consenting humans to privacy. Thus, passing a law such as the sodomy laws is a violation of due process. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Sorry.

No, this isnt a privacy issue. The Texas legislature didnt rule that police had the right to invade people's privacy to inforce the law. This was an issue of morality or decency and a person's actions. The people of Texas decided that they held sodomy as indecent and/or immoral and had the right to declare it illegal.


And the court is a check to interpret said law and to make sure that it does not cause unreasonable harm to those which it governs.

Again, no. It isnt the courts place to determine unreasonable harm. It is their place to interpret the law as it applies to the constitution.

Which they do. But if the constituents are largely in favor of discriminating against a minority, it is the court's place to step in and ensure that the minority is not harmed by the majority.

No. In the case you stated, it would be the court's place to step in and interpret the constitution. Specifically the 4th, 9th, 13rd, and the 14th amendments. Im sure there are others as well. It isnt the court's place to decide what's right. That is the primary mistake made by activist judges on both sides of the ideological aisle.

Maybe you have some better examples? Because the one you used was not "legislating from the bench." It was simply finding that a certain law violated due process. The legislature *could* pass a law saying that we could throw you in jail just because we wanted to. But the courts would rule that the law was a violation of due process.

Yes, this time you've got it. The courts wouldnt be deciding that it was 'wrong' to throw me in jail, but rather that said law violated the 4th and 6th amendments

bull, those people are radical right wing idealists all of them. all bushl ooks to appoint is those people who hold the republican philosophy, whihc is if you interpret the law to disagree with the GOP you are an activist judge. we dont need any more judges like clarence thomas who believe the establishment clause should let the state government create and enforce official religions

we need people who will actually interpret the law in a progressive manner in accordance with the times, we dontr need to be living in some right wing created alternate reality like the vatican

There.. I quoted you in your entirety. Still... what you accuse Bush of doing, and accuse 'those radical right wing idealists' of doing are the same thing that Democrates and liberal activist judges are doing as well. Can't think of how to put your quote more in context

No, this isnt a privacy issue. The Texas legislature didnt rule that police had the right to invade people's privacy to inforce the law. This was an issue of morality or decency and a person's actions. The people of Texas decided that they held sodomy as indecent and/or immoral and had the right to declare it illegal.

Taking away a person's right to have sex with their lover in whatever way they wish to do so is a violation of due process. Thus, every person but two in Texas may think it is an immoral act, but they have no compelling reason to force that moral view on others. This is what was ruled. As I stated before, the court decision had absolutely nothing to do with morality.

Again, no. It isnt the courts place to determine unreasonable harm. It is their place to interpret the law as it applies to the constitution.

And if that law causes unreasonable harm, it is violating the constitution and can be reviewed.

No. In the case you stated, it would be the court's place to step in and interpret the constitution. Specifically the 4th, 9th, 13rd, and the 14th amendments. Im sure there are others as well. It isnt the court's place to decide what's right. That is the primary mistake made by activist judges on both sides of the ideological aisle.

Again, give me a case in which the court "decided what was right" and I'll probably agree with you that they overstepped their bounds. However, in the Texas case, they found that the law violated the 14th amendment and thus should be overturned.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/scotus/lwrnctx62603opn.pdf

Yes, this time you've got it. The courts wouldnt be deciding that it was 'wrong' to throw me in jail, but rather that said law violated the 4th and 6th amendments

And in your sodomy case, they didn't rule that it was "wrong" to say sodomy was immoral, but instead ruled that the Due Process clause was violated. So I guess you agree with me.

No, this isnt a privacy issue. The Texas legislature didnt rule that police had the right to invade people's privacy to inforce the law. This was an issue of morality or decency and a person's actions. The people of Texas decided that they held sodomy as indecent and/or immoral and had the right to declare it illegal.
texas has no right to rule what people can or cant do based on their religious or moral beliefs, as long as it does not affect the society at large. sodomy doesnt effect jack shit, they have no place to decclare it illegal



Again, no. It isnt the courts place to determine unreasonable harm. It is their place to interpret the law as it applies to the constitution.
declaration of striking down of texas sodomy law was basis violation of the due process clause, people have the right to engage in private acts inside their home without government intervention


not to mention constitution overrules state laws. article 6 clause 2

Presidents from BOTH parties use recess appointments to get around the Senate. Clinton did that to force the appointment of James Hormel as the ambassador to Lichtenstein (I believe all that's correct) when the Republican-controlled Senate blocked his approval.

If you want to get rid of the practice because Bush uses it, you'll have to handcuff the Democrats similarly.

I don't want that! I support what Bush did! I know they can do it! Its their right actually. They are temporary anyway!

Under law, the US President CAN make recess appointments! He wouldn't have too do this if the US Senate would just give Bush's appointees the up or down vote.

Excuse me,but the "Advise and consent" clause does not necessarily mean that the Senate has to be a rubber-stamp for presidential appointments. But then,that never stopped the Republicans....

Excuse me,but the "Advise and consent" clause does not necessarily mean that the Senate has to be a rubber-stamp for presidential appointments. But then,that never stopped the Republicans....

Never said they had to approve them did I? An Up or down vote however, is the norm. You can filibuster all you want, but an up or down vote is courteos to the person being appointed.

And I loved the way you singled out republicans when the Dems do the exact samething.

As for the Republican Party, they have approved most of the Clinton Appointees. They worked with the Dem Control Senate and voted FOR most of whom he appointed.

Selective amnesia strikes again. The Republicans were actually far more hostile to Clinton appointees than the Dems have been to Bush's appointees. Jesse Helms (R-NC) was notorious for refusing to hold hearings for Clionton appointees,while other prominent Republicans blocked appointees from committee votes based on anonymous objections,and if Clinton ever dared appoint someone from a state with a Republican Senator on the relevant committee,that Senator would object,stalling the vote. The only thing the Dems have done is fillibuster (a tactic also used by the Republicans against Clinton appointees).

Furthermore,the sheer number of Clinton appointees stalled,blocked or defeated by Republicans far exceeds the number of Bush appointees stalled by Democrats.

Frankly,for you to complain about the Democrats (rather timidly) using tactics that Republicans never hesitated to employ (often with glee) strikes me as highly hypocritical.

Yes, the Senate takes a break, and once again GW is off and making a whack of recess appointments to avoid the inconvenience of having to actually get aproval for his buddies ascent to power positions.

This batch of 20 includes a new head of the FTC, a manufacturing czar, and three ambassadors.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=6&u=/ap/20040731/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_recess_appointments

Why doesn't he just start skipping the process entirely and simply make all of his appointments by decree? Because clearly the Senate process is viewed only an inconvenience to him that he will override at the earliest possible convenient moment in virtually all cases.were any of these appointees all ex-enron executives too?

HAHAHAHA!!!! Oh Zep your too much!

Under law, the US President CAN make recess appointments! He wouldn't have too do this if the US Senate would just give Bush's appointees the up or down vote.

However, A recess appointee is short term and doesn't have the life time garentee of his/her position!

FTC Commissioner--Deborah Majoras of Virginia to replace Timothy J. Muris, who is stepping down after three years. Majoras, a former Justice Department (news - web sites) deputy assistant attorney general, was one of the lead attorneys in the government's antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. Majoras' nomination had been blocked in the Senate by Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., who said there was no evidence she would change FTC policies that benefit oil companies and hurt consumers.

How does Wyden know that she would not change FTC policy if she doesn't get confirmed? Anyway, she is only in there till the end 2005 just as all the rest of his recess appointments that have been mostly blocked by the Democratic party of the US Senate.

Zep, I suggest you take a look at who his recess appointments have been in the past! MOST of the ones he appointed have been filibustered in the US Senate by the Democratic Party for no other reason than that the appointees don't agree with their ideology. That is not how the US Senate acts. It acts to give the appointees an up or down vote.
if thats not how the Senate acts then how do you explain republican Senators blocking thousands of Clinton judicial appointments for years? Cant republicans take their own medicine when its dished back to them?

All of them do have their opinions, everyone does. These people, however, said that they would UPHOLD THE LAW OF THE LAND! That includes R V W! Some where black, hispanic, White, etc etc and they filibustered them. They have IGNORED the ratings by the ABA, the American Bar Association, that gave them the HIGHEST RATING!

Many of these posts that where filibustered were appealent courts! They are very important posts and they needed to be filled. Because of the Filibustering, they weren't getting filled. That is why Bush did what he did and I praise him for doing it!

As for the Republican Party, they have approved most of the Clinton Appointees. They worked with the Dem Control Senate and voted FOR most of whom he appointed. Yea they did here too but when it came down to these presigous postings, its filibuster because we think your against R V W when they themselves said that they would uphold it!its not the Senates job to act like a rubber stamp for Bushs morally corrupt extremist appointees

Clinton used the recess appointment just the same. And maybe if Daschle and the rest of the Democrats were not so insistent on hurting america by not allowing Bush's appointments to even come to a vote, he wouldn't have to use the recess.
what goes around comes around--republicans started this precedent under Clinton now they should take a taste of their own medicine and shut their whiny mouths

were any of these appointees all ex-enron executives too?

Not a single one MKULTRA

if thats not how the Senate acts then how do you explain republican Senators blocking thousands of Clinton judicial appointments for years? Cant republicans take their own medicine when its dished back to them?

Dems do it to MKULTRA, make recess appointees that is!

its not the Senates job to act like a rubber stamp for Bushs morally corrupt extremist appointees

and if you bothered to read a post that I replied to what I said, I answered it. I guess you missed it so this is what I said.

Never said they had to approve them did I? An Up or down vote however, is the norm. You can filibuster all you want, but an up or down vote is courteos to the person being appointed.

And I loved the way you singled out republicans when the Dems do the exact samething.

I'll wait for your response to this though I have a feeling I know what you were going to say!

Never said they had to approve them did I? An Up or down vote however, is the norm. You can filibuster all you want, but an up or down vote is courteos to the person being appointed.

And I loved the way you singled out republicans when the Dems do the exact samething.
dems are just copying republican tactics towards Clinton appointees --If you dont like the strategy take it up with your own GOP leaders

Not a single one MKULTRA
well thats a first :)

dems are just copying republican tactics towards Clinton appointees --If you dont like the strategy take it up with your own GOP leaders

Call it ideology. They don't like the judges that Bush appointed because of their Ideolgy. Estrada should've been aproved but he was filibustered and he asked GWB to withdraw his nomination which he did. And that was to the DC Court of Appeals, used as a springboard to the SCOTUS if I remember that debate right. I could name a few others and for various ideological reasons, have not come up for an up or down vote. That is why he used recess appointees. All of them have the votes to pass but they weren't brought up for a vote.

As for Clinton, I'll have to look into why they weren't brought up or where defeated.

Call it ideology. They don't like the judges that Bush appointed because of their Ideolgy. Estrada should've been aproved but he was filibustered and he asked GWB to withdraw his nomination which he did. And that was to the DC Court of Appeals, used as a springboard to the SCOTUS if I remember that debate right. I could name a few others and for various ideological reasons, have not come up for an up or down vote. That is why he used recess appointees. All of them have the votes to pass but they weren't brought up for a vote.

As for Clinton, I'll have to look into why they weren't brought up or where defeated.
repubs blocked Clinton appointees for the exact same reason and in far greater numbers-Most of Bushs nominees are approved, its only when he tries to slip in the extremist activists that theres a problem

repubs blocked Clinton appointees for the exact same reason and in far greater numbers-Most of Bushs nominees are approved, its only when he tries to slip in the extremist activists that theres a problem

Im not going to blindly take your word for it because you've been discredited to many times. I'll look into it!

OH GOD

FD and TRA fighting?

This thread will never die.

OH GOD

FD and TRA fighting?

This thread will never die.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ok you have me there Goed. Thanks, I needed that laugh and your probably right too!

heh, I try ;)

Yes, the Senate takes a break, and once again GW is off and making a whack of recess appointments to avoid the inconvenience of having to actually get aproval for his buddies ascent to power positions.

This batch of 20 includes a new head of the FTC, a manufacturing czar, and three ambassadors.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=6&u=/ap/20040731/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_recess_appointments

Why doesn't he just start skipping the process entirely and simply make all of his appointments by decree? Because clearly the Senate process is viewed only an inconvenience to him that he will override at the earliest possible convenient moment in virtually all cases.
I don't seem how this is a problem. When the next Senate convenes, being next year, they'll confirm the nominations. But I sort of wonder why presidents don't do this type of thing more often. The federal judicial bench has a historically low number of vacant seats.

Never said they had to approve them did I? An Up or down vote however, is the norm. You can filibuster all you want, but an up or down vote is courteos to the person being appointed.

And I loved the way you singled out republicans when the Dems do the exact samething.

If people would ever vote based on ability to do the job, rather than party affiliation, this would be fine and filibusters were never needed. However, since the Republicans are gonna vote for these extremist judges just because Bush says so (and perhaps because they like the extremism on the basis that it is *Republican* extremism), rather than ability to do the job properly, the Democrats trying to keep them out have no option other than to filibuster.

If people would ever vote based on ability to do the job, rather than party affiliation, this would be fine and filibusters were never needed. However, since the Republicans are gonna vote for these extremist judges just because Bush says so (and perhaps because they like the extremism on the basis that it is *Republican* extremism), rather than ability to do the job properly, the Democrats trying to keep them out have no option other than to filibuster.

Use BOTH PARTIES dude. They all do the samething just on different sides of the spectrum. Stop leaving one party out over the other. It does nothing for the arguement!

If people would ever vote based on ability to do the job, rather than party affiliation, this would be fine and filibusters were never needed. However, since the Republicans are gonna vote for these extremist judges just because Bush says so (and perhaps because they like the extremism on the basis that it is *Republican* extremism), rather than ability to do the job properly, the Democrats trying to keep them out have no option other than to filibuster.
Well, from a Republican standpoint, that'd be fine. For years, the Democrats have been filling the bench with their appointees. In fact, it's probably the only branch of government they're still dominant in. Look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Use BOTH PARTIES dude. They all do the samething just on different sides of the spectrum. Stop leaving one party out over the other. It does nothing for the arguement!

I don't claim that both parties aren't full of idiots who vote soley based on party affiliation. After all I did say "If anyone would vote..." I think anyone, whether congressman or citizen, who votes this way should be disenfranchised, but oh well - that would only be slightly against the rules =)

However, in the current situation, it is a Republican president who is appointing extremists to the bench and it is a Republican majority in Senate who will vote them in without even thinking about it first and it is a Democratic minority who needs to block that from happening. So it's not wrong to discuss party names.

Believe me, if the situation called for it, I would switch every party name in the above statement to the opposite party.

Well, from a Republican standpoint, that'd be fine. For years, the Democrats have been filling the bench with their appointees. In fact, it's probably the only branch of government they're still dominant in. Look at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

This is the problem. Judges should not be Republican or Democrat and their personal ideologies should not affect their judgements. We are talking about interpreting the law, not making it. Now, I'll admit that I didn't really follow any of Clinton's appoinments to the bench, but I have looked into some of Bush's and they are extremists who wear their party affiliation on their sleeve, both in and out of court. They definitely do not need to be moved up in the judicial world. I don't care what party they are.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Ok you have me there Goed. Thanks, I needed that laugh and your probably right too!
Im making sure the little girl does her homework and then maybe she can educate her parents next ;)

This is the problem. Judges should not be Republican or Democrat and their personal ideologies should not affect their judgements. We are talking about interpreting the law, not making it. Now, I'll admit that I didn't really follow any of Clinton's appoinments to the bench, but I have looked into some of Bush's and they are extremists who wear their party affiliation on their sleeve, both in and out of court. They definitely do not need to be moved up in the judicial world. I don't care what party they are.
They are all interpreters of the law, but they also refer to their personal beliefs. The Burger Court, for example, is regarded as one of the most liberal in US history. That didn't mean that Chief Justice Burger was really a conservative.

They are all interpreters of the law, but they also refer to their personal beliefs. The Burger Court, for example, is regarded as one of the most liberal in US history. That didn't mean that Chief Justice Burger was really a conservative.

And again, I didn't say that this doesn't happen on both sides, I just said that the current problem is conservative appointees.

Im making sure the little girl does her homework and then maybe she can educate her parents next ;)

Funny and I thought it was the other way around. LOL

And again, I didn't say that this doesn't happen on both sides, I just said that the current problem is conservative appointees.

Why can't there be conservative appointees but liberal appointees? "Please, my hypocracy only goes so far." Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5

Why can't there be conservative appointees but liberal appointees? "Please, my hypocracy only goes so far." Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5

Maybe because liberals are known for protecting freedoms, if conservatives take over even the judiciary, we will see things like Roe vs. Wade over turned, civil rights go down the drain.. and the sun will set on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You may believe the Republicans offer you some thing, however you're young and don't realize what your country will look like if totally controlled by neo-cons. If this happens and you may not realize it now, hopefully you will later in life, it's people like me and others who are trying to protect your democracy and freedom even if you are to young to realize it right now. It's ok, you can thank us later by doing the same when you get older.

Maybe because liberals are known for protecting freedoms, if conservatives take over even the judiciary, we will see things like Roe vs. Wade over turned, civil rights go down the drain.. and the sun will set on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You may believe the Republicans offer you some thing, however you're young and don't realize what your country will look like if totally controlled by neo-cons. If this happens and you may not realize it now, hopefully you will later in life, it's people like me and others who are trying to protect your democracy and freedom even if you are to young to realize it right now. It's ok, you can thank us later by doing the same when you get older.

Oh steph stop using the Liberals are known for protecting freedom line! That is almost as old as some other lines that shall go unnamed. If you truelly believe that steph, then you REALLY do need to get out more. Liberals are Activist judges just like some Right Wing justices. However, the judges that Bush appointed WOULD UPHOLD the law of the land. They've stated it themselves. They just weren't liked because of Ideology just as I've stated before.

Liberals are Activist judges just like some Right Wing justices. However, the judges that Bush appointed WOULD UPHOLD the law of the land. They've stated it themselves. They just weren't liked because of Ideology just as I've stated before.

No they won't, they will change it in ways you have never imagined. Don't you want the right to choose? Don't you want to be free of Senator Joseph McCarthy type witch hunts? Think about what you're saying and what you're supporting.. I know you're only 15 Formal, but I also would like to believe you have a brain that is capable of free thought. I wouldn't waste so much time on you if I thought otherwise.

No they won't, they will change it in ways you have never imagined. Don't you want the right to choose? Don't you want to be free of Senator Joseph McCarthy type witch hunts? Think about what you're saying and what you're supporting.. I know you're only 15 Formal, but I also would like to believe you have a brain that is capable of free thought. I wouldn't waste so much time on you if I thought otherwise.

Steph, I know your a liberal so your biased against Conservatives! No matter what I say regarding this issue, you'll spout your liberal line. It is getting old. Your arguements, though some are good, are running circular. Until you can speak clearly Steph and without the bias, then maybe we can have a true debate here.

And I am capable of free thought. Just because I'm saying something that doesn't agree with your ideology doesn't make it so.

Steph, I know your a liberal so your biased against Conservatives! No matter what I say regarding this issue, you'll spout your liberal line. It is getting old. Your arguements, though some are good, are running circular. Until you can speak clearly Steph and without the bias, then maybe we can have a true debate here.

And I am capable of free thought. Just because I'm saying something that doesn't agree with your ideology doesn't make it so.

With all due respect Formal I don't debate much on this forum, this forum is mostly made up of teenagers. They probably wouldn't understand. What Zeppistan and I do try to do is inform.. debunk lies.. we are both highly educated. We wouldn't even attempt a real structured debate on NS, it would be pointless.

With all due respect Formal I don't debate much on this forum, this forum is mostly made up of teenagers. They probably wouldn't understand. What Zeppistan and I do try to do is inform.. debunk lies.. we are both highly educated. We wouldn't even attempt a real structured debate on NS, it would be pointless.

Well then why haven't you found the lies in Michael Moore's film? Sorry steph, but that has been debunked several times and you "claim" it to be truth! HAHA! Yea I know MM has no bearing here but alas, you said that you try to inform: You've done that and I appreciate it, Debunk lies: You've failed that on MM movie, and highly educated: you are that and I think that is half your problem on here.

As for the teenager bit, kids are becoming more and more conservative here. It is a trend. Liberal teachers have been having a difficult time teaching because of this.

But I do agree with you about the structured debate. On here it would be impossible!

With all due respect Formal I don't debate much on this forum, this forum is mostly made up of teenagers. They probably wouldn't understand. What Zeppistan and I do try to do is inform.. debunk lies.. we are both highly educated. We wouldn't even attempt a real structured debate on NS, it would be pointless.

Highly educated. Lol. This coming from someone who at a highly educated middle age believed Canada was the largest nation in the world. I haven't checked but I hope that thread was archived for future hilariety.

Highly educated. Lol. This coming from someone who at a highly educated middle age believed Canada was the largest nation in the world. I haven't checked but I hope that thread was archived for future hilariety.


Umm no, I believe Russia is, Canada is in fact the second largest land mass in the world. Feel free to try and prove me wrong :rolleyes:

As late as early this year you believed Canada was the largest nation in the world. I have a very clear recollection of when you mentioned this in a thread which probably was deleted in the move to the new server. Thus I can't "prove" it but I also can't believe you forgot about saying that.

Umm no, I believe Russia is, Canada is in fact the second largest land mass in the world. Feel free to try and prove me wrong :rolleyes:

Acording to the CIA World Fact Book, It goes Russia, Canada, China, USA, Brazil, Australia, Argentina, Kazakhstan, and Sudan that round out the top ten in Area

As late as early this year you believed Canada was the largest nation in the world. I have a very clear recollection of when you mentioned this in a thread which probably was deleted in the move to the new server. Thus I can't "prove" it but I also can't believe you forgot about saying that.

Umm, perhaps you have me mistaken with some one else? I have always known that the USSR then after they fell Russia was the largest country. Canada even has a beer commercial, a rather famous one that clearly says Canada is the second largest land mass. Sorry dude, I've always known that. I think you have me mixed up with some one else. That or perhaps you misunderstood some thing I said, misread or some thing. Hey, it's kewl,it happens.

Umm, perhaps you have me mistaken with some one else? I have always known that the USSR then after they fell Russia was the largest country. Canada even has a beer commercial, a rather famous one that clearly says Canada is the second largest land mass. Sorry dude, I've always known that. I think you have me mixed up with some one else. That or perhaps you misunderstood some thing I said, misread or some thing. Hey, it's kewl,it happens.
Alright I won't argue with you since I can't find the evidence... the thread in question was from the old php board and I have just run a search which turned up no results. But it was definitely you who said Canada was bigger than Russia... such a comment would be particularly memorable. The incident was reinforced in my head because you accidentally deleted the thread immediately thereafter and there was a new thread made to discuss the shoddy state of Canadian education in which you conceded that Russia was bigger. Some other Canadian in the same thread made some tortured argument about how Russia is the second largest country but the largest continent. Lol. Ah the good old days.

Alright I won't argue with you since I can't find the evidence... the thread in question was from the old php board and I have just run a search which turned up no results. But it was definitely you who said Canada was bigger than Russia... such a comment would be particularly memorable. The incident was reinforced in my head because you accidentally deleted the thread immediately thereafter and there was a new thread made to discuss the shoddy state of Canadian education in which you conceded that Russia was bigger. Some other Canadian in the same thread made some tortured argument about how Russia is the second largest country but the largest continent. Lol. Ah the good old days.

I think you probably took me out of context if you're so sure it was me. I have always known Canada is the second largest country, any way, it's not that big of a deal... believe as you wish.. but I assure, I live in Canada..lol I think I know where we stand in the world. Funny you would of thought that though, oh well, c'est la vie.

Steph, I know your a liberal so your biased against Conservatives! No matter what I say regarding this issue, you'll spout your liberal line. It is getting old. Your arguements, though some are good, are running circular. Until you can speak clearly Steph and without the bias, then maybe we can have a true debate here.

And I am capable of free thought. Just because I'm saying something that doesn't agree with your ideology doesn't make it so.
you set off the hypocrisy alarm

Why can't there be conservative appointees but liberal appointees? "Please, my hypocracy only goes so far." Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5

If you're not going to read what I post, then don't reply with your drivel. Seriously, I have said more than once that there are problems on both sides. However, we currently have a neo-con president who is appointing extremist conservative judges. So, the current problem is with conservatives. I never said that extremist liberals who push their own views rather than simply interpreting the law aren't just as bad. Stop trying to make everyone else out to be a bad guy.

And again, I didn't say that this doesn't happen on both sides, I just said that the current problem is conservative appointees.
My arguement, however, is that interpretation of laws can go only so far. Once that's used up, there are gray areas that judges must decide based on a mixture of both fact and personal opinion. When Bush appoints conservative judges, it merely means, with perhaps a few exceptions, that they'll rule with a conservative slant if it comes down to matters where laws and the Constitution are very fuzzy about. Liberal judges would do the same thing. So as long as human nature exists, and as long as laws aren't all-encompassing, biased judges will always exist.

My arguement, however, is that interpretation of laws can go only so far. Once that's used up, there are gray areas that judges must decide based on a mixture of both fact and personal opinion. When Bush appoints conservative judges, it merely means, with perhaps a few exceptions, that they'll rule with a conservative slant if it comes down to matters where laws and the Constitution are very fuzzy about. Liberal judges would do the same thing. So as long as human nature exists, and as long as laws aren't all-encompassing, biased judges will always exist.

This is why most of his appointees have been confirmed already - he's obviously going to appoint conservatives (although I think his litmus test is just a little too rigid) and everyone knows that. It is those that have shown in the past that they will go beyond interpretation where such is unnecessary, and that their personal opinions affect their decisions *more* than the law does, that are hotly debated.

This is why most of his appointees have been confirmed already - he's obviously going to appoint conservatives (although I think his litmus test is just a little too rigid) and everyone knows that. It is those that have shown in the past that they will go beyond interpretation where such is unnecessary, and that their personal opinions affect their decisions *more* than the law does, that are hotly debated.
That's the beauty of politics, baby. Of course, if he appointed someone just like Judge Bork, I'd have to argue that he values the law more than his opinion when he's on the bench. It's politics, and it's an election year. But don't worry too much. If Bush wins, we Republicans will scrutinize his choice of judges further, because Bush doesn't need to win any more elections.

Why doesn't he just start skipping the process entirely and simply make all of his appointments by decree?
I see we are back to the old King George conspiracy again *yawn*