NationStates Jolt Archive

Chief Justice William Rehnquist has just died, which means Bush will get to nominate a replacement for him, but that doesn't mean Bush gets to choose his replacement all on his own. And the Senate shouldn't let him.

Let's look at Bush's track record on other political appointees. Mike Brown is doing an absolutely disastrous job as head of FEMA. Chertoff is at about the same level of incompetence as head of Homeland Security. Condi Rice had to be recalled from her Broadway vacation to act as though she gave a damn about Hurricane Katrina's victims. Don Rumsfeld has been a joke as far as Iraq is concerned. Stephen Hadley was a disaster before he was National Security Advisor, and I can't imagine he's made vast improvement since taking over that job. And John Bolton was so bad that the Senate leadership left Bush no option but to give him a recess appointment.

Based on that track record, and on the evidence that current Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has serious questions to answer about his stances on race, women's rights, gay rights and the right to privacy, I submit that the Senate should seriously limit Bush's choices as to Supreme Court nominees.

Some will no doubt argue that the Senate would be overstepping its bounds to do so. I disagree. The Senate is bound to advise and consent, which gives them, in effect, veto power over the President's choices as nominee, and the Senate has used that power a number of times in the past. As recently as 1994, when President Clinton was considering nominating Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to the court, he met with Senator Orrin Hatch about the nomination. Hatch told Clinton that Babbitt would be problematic and suggested some other names, both of whom eventually became Justices--Breyer and Ginsburg. The Senate has a vital role in this process.

But due to Bush's obvious incompetence, to his apparent inability to choose a qualified person for any job, and the long term effects this choice will have on the nation as a whole, I believe the Senate should be more pro-active this time around. The Republican and Democratic leadership should meet and put together a bi-partisan short list of acceptable nominees and present them to Bush with the ultimatum that any other nominee will be rejected by the Senate in a bipartisan manner.

You realize that congress has just rubber-stamped appointees for 200 years, right? Look at Ginsberg, easily the worst justice on the bench right now. She was just rubber-stamped by Republican officials because it was President Clinton's decission who to appoint.

You realize that congress has just rubber-stamped appointees for 200 years, right? Look at Ginsberg, easily the worst justice on the bench right now. She was just rubber-stamped by Republican officials because it was President Clinton's decission who to appoint.
You need to brush up on your history. Congress has a long history of denying Presidents their Supreme Court nominees--it goes all the way back to Washington.

But I'm not surprised at your reaction, what with your statement that Ginsburg is the worst jurist on the bench.

The Republican and Democratic leadership should meet and put together a bi-partisan short list of acceptable nominees and present them to Bush with the ultimatum that any other nominee will be rejected by the Senate in a bipartisan manner.

This is truly a work of fantasy...

The GOP party leadership toes the party line on everything, and will support his nominee. They view nominees simply: The more conservative, the better. Their is no "bipartisanism" when it comes to Supreme Court Justices because the stakes are to high, with one exception: Only when opposite parties control the white house and senate might one need to bow to political practicality. When you control the senate, you do not nominate "consensus" nominees... you nominate partisans. You don't nominate someone who could get confirmed 100 to 0, you nominate a rabid, foaming at the mouth partisan who will squeak by 67 to 33. That's the way it is.

The Dems did it (most egregious example is FDR who not only nominated committed new dealers, but sought to pack the court by adding extra justices to ensure his majority over fierce GOP objection) and now the GOP's doing it.


Based on that track record, and on the evidence that current Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has serious questions to answer about his stances on race, women's rights, gay rights and the right to privacy, I submit that the Senate should seriously limit Bush's choices as to Supreme Court nominees.
Just a note... inquiring about justices stances on issues which might come before the court is relatively new. And really came into vogue at the late date of 1987 with the Robert Bork nomination. Prior, most of the confirmation hearings rested on competency, not conviction of belief.

I know it's a work of fantasy, but hey, it's an editorial. Editorials are where you write about what you think should be done, not what's practical to do.

He will appoint two Supreme Court Justices.

Politically Democrats cannot block every Bush nominee just becuase they dont agree with thier views, just as Republicans cannot do the same if the situation were reversed. And in this case its two Supreme Court Justices
not just one.

I wonder, does anyone agree with this statement?

This is truly a work of fantasy...

The GOP party leadership toes the party line on everything, and will support his nominee. They view nominees simply: The more conservative, the better. Their is no "bipartisanism" when it comes to Supreme Court Justices because the stakes are to high, with one exception: Only when opposite parties control the white house and senate might one need to bow to political practicality. When you control the senate, you do not nominate "consensus" nominees... you nominate partisans. You don't nominate someone who could get confirmed 100 to 0, you nominate a rabid, foaming at the mouth partisan who will squeak by 67 to 33. That's the way it is.

The Dems did it (most egregious example is FDR who not only nominated committed new dealers, but sought to pack the court by adding extra justices to ensure his majority over fierce GOP objection) and now the GOP's doing it.
Seeing as how FDR's plan to expand the court was objected to by democrats, I don't think you've got a leg to stand upon there.

I don't think it will happen. Most of Bush's picks have, so far, been duds (save Condi, who I rather like, and John Roberts). But in all honesty, the senate realizes that they can't block all of his appointments, and I don't know where you got the notion that the GOP will want to as well. The dems simply won't be satisfied until Bush appoints a liberal (which will never, ever, happen), and the GOP will basically give whoever he appoints a free pass if conservative enough. Bush must pick a conservative to maintain the balance. The dems won't get a liberal, they can whine about it all they want, but they'll just have to deal with it.

I don't think it will happen. Most of Bush's picks have, so far, been duds (save Condi, who I rather like, and John Roberts). But in all honesty, the senate realizes that they can't block all of his appointments, and I don't know where you got the notion that the GOP will want to as well. The dems simply won't be satisfied until Bush appoints a liberal (which will never, ever, happen), and the GOP will basically give whoever he appoints a free pass if conservative enough. Bush must pick a conservative to maintain the balance. The dems won't get a liberal, they can whine about it all they want, but they'll just have to deal with it.
A moderate a la O'Conner is fine.

Did I hear what I think I heard? That the Senate should shut down the President's right to nominate someone because some citizens believe he's not able to make a 'wise' decision? You know what that means, don't you? That either the Supreme Court will be shut down, or by legislative process the number will have to be reduced to five judges on the court.

I don't think it will happen. Most of Bush's picks have, so far, been duds (save Condi, who I rather like, and John Roberts). But in all honesty, the senate realizes that they can't block all of his appointments, and I don't know where you got the notion that the GOP will want to as well. The dems simply won't be satisfied until Bush appoints a liberal (which will never, ever, happen), and the GOP will basically give whoever he appoints a free pass if conservative enough. Bush must pick a conservative to maintain the balance. The dems won't get a liberal, they can whine about it all they want, but they'll just have to deal with it.
Again, I don't think they will--I think they should. And the Democrats know they won't get a liberal and wouldn't expect one. What they should hope for, and should demand, is an intellectually honest justice who doesn't think ideology first and partisan gain second, like Thomas and Scalia do. An honest conservative is just fine--an idealogue isn't.

Did I hear what I think I heard? That the Senate should shut down the President's right to nominate someone because some citizens believe he's not able to make a 'wise' decision? You know what that means, don't you? That either the Supreme Court will be shut down, or by legislative process the number will have to be reduced to five judges on the court.
No, you didn't hear what you thought you heard. What I'm arguing for here is a more pro-active Senate. Bush can nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate can tell him to go to hell, and considering Bush's track record on appointments in general so far, I think the country would be served nicely by the Senate doing just that.

What this would result in, I believe, is first of all, a more moderate Supreme Court, because the Senate choices would be bipartisan. Secondly, you'd get away from all the wrangling over who's nominated because it would be a done deal from the beginning. Let me just add that I think this is a good idea no matter which party controls the White House.

No, you didn't hear what you thought you heard. What I'm arguing for here is a more pro-active Senate. Bush can nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate can tell him to go to hell, and considering Bush's track record on appointments in general so far, I think the country would be served nicely by the Senate doing just that.

What this would result in, I believe, is first of all, a more moderate Supreme Court, because the Senate choices would be bipartisan. Secondly, you'd get away from all the wrangling over who's nominated because it would be a done deal from the beginning. Let me just add that I think this is a good idea no matter which party controls the White House.

And if Bush doesn't back down what happens to the SCOTUS?

Again, I don't think they will--I think they should. And the Democrats know they won't get a liberal and wouldn't expect one. What they should hope for, and should demand, is an intellectually honest justice who doesn't think ideology first and partisan gain second, like Thomas and Scalia do. An honest conservative is just fine--an idealogue isn't.
Agreed, but why appoint the happy clown when you can appoint Stephen King's It? The GOP has the one ring and will use it.

No, you didn't hear what you thought you heard. What I'm arguing for here is a more pro-active Senate. Bush can nominate anyone he wants, and the Senate can tell him to go to hell, and considering Bush's track record on appointments in general so far, I think the country would be served nicely by the Senate doing just that.

What this would result in, I believe, is first of all, a more moderate Supreme Court, because the Senate choices would be bipartisan. Secondly, you'd get away from all the wrangling over who's nominated because it would be a done deal from the beginning. Let me just add that I think this is a good idea no matter which party controls the White House.

You realize your 'bad decisions' are bad decisions for you and people like you?? You view it as bad because it does what, it goes against your value systems? A Conserative like me kinda likes what he's doing.

With a Senate that is proative, Bush will have to go through people not by who he thinks is most effective to do what he wants to do, but with what the 'leftists' want to make it more bipolar.. I mean.. bipartisan. So with a Senate as proactive as you appear to be wanting it to be, we will be having the Senate choose the nominee instead of the President, which is what the Constitution decrees, with the Senate diciding whether the nominee is qualified or not.

Agreed, but why appoint the happy clown when you can appoint Stephen King's It? The GOP has the one ring and will use it.

LMAO You win this thread man.

You do realize you think Bush has a bad track record with appointees only because you disagree with him? What you seem to want is for him to appoint judges that disagree with his own conservative philosophy.

You do realize you think Bush has a bad track record with appointees only because you disagree with him? What you seem to want is for him to appoint judges that disagree with his own conservative philosophy.

Come on... you would have to be insane to agree with anything the shrub says.

You realize that congress has just rubber-stamped appointees for 200 years, right? Look at Ginsberg, easily the worst justice on the bench right now. She was just rubber-stamped by Republican officials because it was President Clinton's decission who to appoint.

Um.

Wow.

Not a single true sentence. And the first one is just laughable.

This is truly a work of fantasy...

The GOP party leadership toes the party line on everything, and will support his nominee. They view nominees simply: The more conservative, the better. Their is no "bipartisanism" when it comes to Supreme Court Justices because the stakes are to high, with one exception: Only when opposite parties control the white house and senate might one need to bow to political practicality. When you control the senate, you do not nominate "consensus" nominees... you nominate partisans. You don't nominate someone who could get confirmed 100 to 0, you nominate a rabid, foaming at the mouth partisan who will squeak by 67 to 33. That's the way it is.

The Dems did it (most egregious example is FDR who not only nominated committed new dealers, but sought to pack the court by adding extra justices to ensure his majority over fierce GOP objection) and now the GOP's doing it.

Speaking of works of fantasy ....

And you think this is true of every member of the current Court? Of every Justice that has ever sat?

Bullshit.

Just a note... inquiring about justices stances on issues which might come before the court is relatively new. And really came into vogue at the late date of 1987 with the Robert Bork nomination. Prior, most of the confirmation hearings rested on competency, not conviction of belief.

Bullshit II.

Look back to Abe Fortas, Thurgood Marshall, etc. This has been going on as long as there have been Supreme Court appointments. It is just something the Republicans like to bitch about when they are in the White House (but defended when Clinton was President).

All I know is, whoever gets the nomination, I PRAY TO WHATEVER GODS YOU ALL BELEIVE IN that they are pro-marijuana legalization. (Wishful thinking, I know :( )

A moderate a la O'Conner is fine.

He's already nominated a moderate in Roberts.

But he must pick a conservative to replace Rehnquist.

He's already nominated a moderate in Roberts.

ROTFLASTC.

Good one. You're funny.

Let's look at Bush's track record on other political appointees. Mike Brown is doing an absolutely disastrous job as head of FEMA. Chertoff is at about the same level of incompetence as head of Homeland Security. Condi Rice had to be recalled from her Broadway vacation to act as though she gave a damn about Hurricane Katrina's victims. Don Rumsfeld has been a joke as far as Iraq is concerned. Stephen Hadley was a disaster before he was National Security Advisor, and I can't imagine he's made vast improvement since taking over that job. And John Bolton was so bad that the Senate leadership left Bush no option but to give him a recess appointment.

I am not arguing that you are right or wrong, but I would like to see some supporting statements to each of your arguments.

Anyone can say "Mike Brown is doing an absolutely disastrous job as head of FEMA.", but not anyone can justify that statement with an example of fact. You would be much more persuasive in your argument if you would supply facts/examples with your statements, such as particular incidents that display the level of incompetence you are trying to convey them as having.

Of course, you can reply by saying "Go f#$k yourself, Emeroe", but this wouldn't do either of us much good. ;) I'm just trying to give some advice that I think would help you out in the course of your arguments. I'm giving this advice with the best of intentions.

I'm a conservative, but I would agree that most of the President's appointments are duds. I might agree with their ideology, but most of them simply don't seem to be very good at their jobs.

That said, the purpose of advise and consent is to determine if the canidate is qualified for the job. I agree that the Senate shouldn't just rubber stamp nominees. I don't believe the purpose of this is to block people based on ideology.

In summery I think the Senate should not ask about ideology, but simply should determine if the guy understands law and is able to make intelligent and rational decisions.

ROTFLASTC.

Good one. You're funny.

Do you really think Bush would appoint a liberal? Face it, Roberts is the most moderate of any candidate that he couldv'e picked, and I believe he's well qualified.

I'm a conservative, but I would agree that most of the President's appointments are duds. I might agree with their ideology, but most of them simply don't seem to be very good at their jobs.

That said, the purpose of advise and consent is to determine if the canidate is qualified for the job. I agree that the Senate shouldn't just rubber stamp nominees. I don't believe the purpose of this is to block people based on ideology.

In summery I think the Senate should not ask about ideology, but simply should determine if the guy understands law and is able to make intelligent and rational decisions.

I'd have to agree.

All I know is, whoever gets the nomination, I PRAY TO WHATEVER GODS YOU ALL BELEIVE IN that they are pro-marijuana legalization. (Wishful thinking, I know :( )
Nah, it isn't. A few more restrictions on the Commerce Clause and Raich would have gone through.

I'm a conservative, but I would agree that most of the President's appointments are duds. I might agree with their ideology, but most of them simply don't seem to be very good at their jobs.

That said, the purpose of advise and consent is to determine if the canidate is qualified for the job. I agree that the Senate shouldn't just rubber stamp nominees. I don't believe the purpose of this is to block people based on ideology.

In summery I think the Senate should not ask about ideology, but simply should determine if the guy understands law and is able to make intelligent and rational decisions.

And you base this opinion on what?

Nothing in the Constitution so limits the Senate's role?

If the President can nominate based on ideology, the Senate can also consider ideology.

Contrary to what you may think, this has been a common practice for at least several decades, if not for 200 years.

And you base this opinion on what?

Nothing in the Constitution so limits the Senate's role?

If the President can nominate based on ideology, the Senate can also consider ideology.

Contrary to what you may think, this has been a common practice for at least several decades, if not for 200 years.

And the Senate should consider ideology. That whole checks n balances thing we have going.

I'm just seeing more of a "Bush nominated him/her? Block them." attitude a la Schumer. Did Clinton even see this much w/ every single appointment?

Not saying it hasn't happened on the other side either.

aww... i'm pretty shure that william renquist was one of the only good people in your american's politics...
i'm not shure if he's the same person i'm thinking about, but i'm pretty shure.

And the Senate should consider ideology. That whole checks n balances thing we have going.

I'm just seeing more of a "Bush nominated him/her? Block them." attitude a la Schumer. Did Clinton even see this much w/ every single appointment?

Not saying it hasn't happened on the other side either.
Yes.

Bush will replace Renquist with a Conservative. This will maintain the balance of the court.

I will say this, this just made my Amercan Judiciary class thatmuch more interesting.

Bush will replace Renquist with a Conservative. This will maintain the balance of the court.

I will say this, this just made my Amercan Judiciary class thatmuch more interesting.
No, it won't. Roberts is a RoC person, which would most likely shift the balance far to the right, especially in cases related to the commerce clause, which at the moment is inches away from falling to shreads.

No, it won't. Roberts is a RoC person, which would most likely shift the balance far to the right, especially in cases related to the commerce clause, which at the moment is inches away from falling to shreads.

Supreme Court Justices aren't always what they appear to be. They could be one thing but then can be the polar opposite.

When Rehnquist was nominated and approved, he was the ONLY conservative voice on the court. Maintaining 'balance' is NOW a liberal slogan only because they need to try and stop the continual loss of liberal power in the courts (even though the judges serving on the bench throughout the system - I'm not talking about just the SCOTUS justices) lean towards liberal interpretation and were nominated by Clinton and they outnumber any other presidents nominations still serving. Conservative judges are becoming more prevalent though and the tide is turning. I don't recall a lot of 'balance' talk being used when the liberal judges were coming to the benches and the conservative were passing away, the liberals then said 'good riddence' and thought they had had won forever...

It's the conservative’s turn now though, they control the Presidency and the Senate, they are under no obligation whatsoever to maintain the current balance, I will be quite surprised if the conservatives do not out number the liberal judges in the next term and Bush may STILLl have yet another one or two supreme court positions to fill before he leaves office. There are other old and sick judges that may not last another two years.

The liberal’s only hope now is to try and get the Senate back under their control before more justices’ leave…

And if Bush doesn't back down what happens to the SCOTUS?
Good question--the short answer is "nothing." The current size of the court is more a matter of tradition than anything else, put into place after FDR tried to pack the court with New Deal supporters, but the court can and has functioned with a number of Justices other than nine. In the event of a tie vote--which occasionally happens--the lower court ruling stands.

So if my fantasy were to come true--and Roberts' nomination doesn't even have to go through for this to happen because O'Connor's retirement doesn't start until her successor is confirmed--the Senate would provide a list of names, Bush would nominate someone else, the nominee would be rejected, and the merry-go-round would continue until Bush left office in 2008 and the next President would get to make a new nomination, ostensibly from the same or from a new list, depending on any shifts in the Senate from the 2006 and 2008 elections.

There are a couple of reasons I'm enamored of this idea. The first I covered in my original editorial--Bush could be required to hire a flunky and he'd screw up the hire. Someone in the thread above said I ought to show proof that Mike Brown has been a horrible FEMA head in order to back up my argument--all I can say is look at the Katrina response. If you can't accept that Brown's an incompetent after that, then you're too far gone for help.

But my second point--and I admit to coming to this once the debate started--is that the Senate's role is at least as important in this debate as the President's, as long as the filibuster is in place. Extremists don't belong on the court, in my opinion, and the Senate is the one elected branch least prone to extremism--there are exceptions, but for the most part, moderation is the rule in the Senate, as compared to the House or the executive. A truly bipartisan agreement on acceptable candidates for the court would ensure that extremists aren't considered and that the rights of the minority are respected.

"Don't Let Bush Replace Rehnquist--an editorial"

You can't stop him. Too bad! So sad! Awwww! Poor little spoiled BRAT leftists! Someone else got elected President over your veto? Tsk! What a shame! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!

"Don't Let Bush Replace Rehnquist--an editorial"

You can't stop him. Too bad! So sad! Awwww! Poor little spoiled BRAT leftists! Someone else got elected President over your veto? Tsk! What a shame! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!


You have issues.

No, actually, more like entire subscriptions.

You have issues.

No, actually, more like entire subscriptions.
:D

If people REALLY want balance they will demand Bush put in someone from outside either dominant party - a LIBERTARIAN!!!

They'll be the dominant second party soon enouh anyway. Particularly with the liberals now espousing states rights over federal power. Soon enough the libs will be the advocates for small government! Then we can finally have a two party system that is functional instead of confrontational.

John Roberts nominated as Chief Justice to the US Supreme Court!

Beat ya! See my earlier thread . . . it's dying a slow, painful death.

"Don't Let Bush Replace Rehnquist--an editorial"

You can't stop him. Too bad! So sad! Awwww! Poor little spoiled BRAT leftists! Someone else got elected President over your veto? Tsk! What a shame! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Pardon? We've got a filibuster and we know how to use it. Don't like it? Too bad you rightist brat.

Pardon? We've got a filibuster and we know how to use it. Don't like it? Too bad you rightist brat.
No need for name-calling, or for responding in kind. You just make his case that he's being put upon by all the lefties and he's only defending himself.

No need for name-calling, or for responding in kind. You just make his case that he's being put upon by all the lefties and he's only defending himself.
Oh dear, poor old eutrusca is being attacked by all the lefties :rolleyes:

"Don't Let Bush Replace Rehnquist--an editorial"

You can't stop him. Too bad! So sad! Awwww! Poor little spoiled BRAT leftists! Someone else got elected President over your veto? Tsk! What a shame! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!
I will just go with the issues comment, because anything I can think up is bordering on insulting.

Pardon? We've got a filibuster and we know how to use it. Don't like it? Too bad you rightist brat.

Yep, you know how to use it and because of that, we have a back log in the courts at the appelant level.

Keep it up because people are getting rather tired of the filibuster on judicial nominees. If you continue on this course, you won't win in 2006!

Yep, you know how to use it and because of that, we have a back log in the courts at the appelant level.

Keep it up because people are getting rather tired of the filibuster on judicial nominees. If you continue on this course, you won't win in 2006!
We've had a backlog on the appeals courts for ages anyway. How about you stop renominating the same people and give us some reasonable candidates and we'll stop?

Brave words, by the way, considering the Republicans overall approval is in the toilet lately.

Yep, you know how to use it and because of that, we have a back log in the courts at the appelant level.

Keep it up because people are getting rather tired of the filibuster on judicial nominees. If you continue on this course, you won't win in 2006!
Look--don't try to play holier than thou on this subject. The backlog dates back to the Clinton administration when the Republican Senate bottled up hundreds of nominations in committee without ever even giving many of them a hearing. When Republicans cry about the handful of nominees that were thwarted in the last five years, they're engaging in hypocrisy on the highest level.

We've had a backlog on the appeals courts for ages anyway. How about you stop renominating the same people and give us some reasonable candidates and we'll stop?

Brave words, by the way, considering the Republicans overall approval is in the toilet lately.

All you have to do is listen to the words of Dean! Dean is pissing off:

1. Conservative Democrats
2. Independents
3. Republicans (and I know he's the DNC chair but he really is helping the republican base by riling it up)

All you have to do is listen to the words of Dean! Dean is pissing off:

1. Conservative Democrats
2. Independents
3. Republicans (and I know he's the DNC chair but he really is helping the republican base by riling it up)
What's the republican dominated congress got? A 28% approval rating?

All you have to do is listen to the words of Dean! Dean is pissing off:

1. Conservative Democrats
2. Independents
3. Republicans (and I know he's the DNC chair but he really is helping the republican base by riling it up)
Your obsession with Dean is remarkable. He's never in the news and yet he's managing to singlehandedly insult everyone in the Republican party. Jeez--get a grip, why don't you?

What's the republican dominated congress got? A 28% approval rating?Personally given the current state of affairs I would expect a 28% approval rating for the democrats in congress and a 0% rating for the republicans, but I guess Americans have lowered their standards considerably with the Bush reign. After all... nowhere in the constitution or declaration of independance of the united states does it say that Americans are entitled to "good government". Unlike another country I can think of. (read my nick)


*Runs for cover. :D

Yep, you know how to use it and because of that, we have a back log in the courts at the appelant level.

Keep it up because people are getting rather tired of the filibuster on judicial nominees. If you continue on this course, you won't win in 2006!
I think the Democrats can afford a few judicial fillibusters after the handling of Katrina..

Your obsession with Dean is remarkable. He's never in the news and yet he's managing to singlehandedly insult everyone in the Republican party. Jeez--get a grip, why don't you?

Never in the news? Boy I'm glad I don't listen to whatever you listen too because for awhile there, he has been in the news. For once, Dean is keeping his big yap shut and that's a good thing.

I think the Democrats can afford a few judicial fillibusters after the handling of Katrina..
Combined with the handling of Iraq, we ought to be able to handle as many filibusters as we want.

You realize that congress has just rubber-stamped appointees for 200 years, right? Look at Ginsberg, easily the worst justice on the bench right now. She was just rubber-stamped by Republican officials because it was President Clinton's decission who to appoint.

He's got a point.

I think the Democrats can afford a few judicial fillibusters after the handling of Katrina..
You know Democrats control both the lower and upper house of Louisiana's state government, a Democrat is governor, and a Democrat is mayor of New Orleans.

You know Democrats control both the lower and upper house of Louisiana's state government, a Democrat is governor, and a Democrat is mayor of New Orleans.
And the Republicans control the US Senate, Congress, Presidency and thus any subsequent organizations; FEMA for instance..

You know Democrats control both the lower and upper house of Louisiana's state government, a Democrat is governor, and a Democrat is mayor of New Orleans.
And they did what they could with the resources they had available, plus they asked for help well before the storm hit. Take your "blame the victims" attitude and your Bush apologism elsewhere, or put me on ignore, because you're not going to like what I have to say on this.

The fillibuster is a horrible concept. It basically allows a very small group of extremists to halt the affairs of government for as long as their extremism holds out.

One must remember that part of the reason that the President chooses and the senate confirms, rather than the other way around as Nazz is proposing, is for the expediency.

I really don't think it'll help the US any if Bush gets to appoint the nominees, but the system was set up the way it was for a reason. The President, a single person, is able to choose several candidates quickly. The Senate then has a limited pool to bicker about. Since the Senate is an elected body, and it was (probably) the voters who chose who they wanted on it, let the system work.

After all, in a democracy, you get exactly the government that the people deserve.

Hey, when O' Conner retired, Bush chose a pretty good person.

I feel it would be a better idea, to raise a current member of the Supreme Court (Scalia?), and then add another Supreme Court Justice.

Too late: Bush Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice Personally, I think it's a travesty that Rehnquist died. I wish the bastard could have held out until a Democrat was in office. After all, it was his descending vote that allowed for America to be screwed by Bush in the first place. (read up on Gore vs. Bush)

The fillibuster is a horrible concept. It basically allows a very small group of extremists to halt the affairs of government for as long as their extremism holds out.

One must remember that part of the reason that the President chooses and the senate confirms, rather than the other way around as Nazz is proposing, is for the expediency.

I really don't think it'll help the US any if Bush gets to appoint the nominees, but the system was set up the way it was for a reason. The President, a single person, is able to choose several candidates quickly. The Senate then has a limited pool to bicker about. Since the Senate is an elected body, and it was (probably) the voters who chose who they wanted on it, let the system work.

After all, in a democracy, you get exactly the government that the people deserve.40% of a body is hardly a very small group of extremists. If we were talking about 10% having that power, or even a third, you might have an argument, but not when we're talking about 40% of a body of legislators.

"Don't Let Bush Replace Rehnquist--an editorial"

You can't stop him. Too bad! So sad! Awwww! Poor little spoiled BRAT leftists! Someone else got elected President over your veto? Tsk! What a shame! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!

Eutrusca: Knock it off, now. You're treading on thin ice here.

The President, a single person, is able to choose several candidates quickly. deserve.

Lets be honest. Do you really think the President is bright enough to nominate anyone on his own. I'm not saying he's not smart, just that no decision he makes is a personal decision, they are party decisions that are given to him. He is given a list of possibilities by the Republican party and will choose whomever Richard Mellon Scaife suggests. Bush is a puppet.

Don't Let Bush Replace Rehnquist--an editorial

Dear editor,

The title of your editorial is misleading. Bush isn't trying to replace Rehnquist. Bush is president of the United States. I am pretty sure he would have to give up being president if he wanted to become Chief Justice.

That said, I read your editorial on an online forum, and I'm assuming that's not in the original context. I, however, am interested in reading what ever piece of literature you are the editor of. Could you tell me where you work as an editor, and whether or not there is a website where I can read content that you've edited?

Thanks,
-GG-

And John Bolton was so bad that the Senate leadership left Bush no option but to give him a recess appointment.

You were doing okay, not too bad, not too good, until you got to here. The reason they had to give him a recess appointment was because a certain faction wouldn't let it come to an up and down vote on the senate floor. The Senate itself never rejected him. It then peters off to purile drivel. As an aside, Hatch is a complete moron.

Dear editor,

The title of your editorial is misleading. Bush isn't trying to replace Rehnquist. Bush is president of the United States. I am pretty sure he would have to give up being president if he wanted to become Chief Justice.

That said, I read your editorial on an online forum, and I'm assuming that's not in the original context. I, however, am interested in reading what ever piece of literature you are the editor of. Could you tell me where you work as an editor, and whether or not there is a website where I can read content that you've edited?

Thanks,
-GG-
This is the original context--this is the only place online where I've written this piece. I do other writing, but it's not related to this forum, and I prefer to keep my personal and professional life as separated from here as possible.

And they did what they could with the resources they had available, plus they asked for help well before the storm hit. Take your "blame the victims" attitude and your Bush apologism elsewhere, or put me on ignore, because you're not going to like what I have to say on this.


Actually, I read someplace forgotten now that the mayor, governor and president met shortly after the storm. The mayor asked for help and the president was quite ready to provide. It took the governor 24 hours to decide to allow him to. (while the Governor appraised the situation and considered their options) Maybe someone else saw that too. I'd be interested in knowing more about it.

Actually, I read someplace forgotten now that the mayor, governor and president met shortly after the storm. The mayor asked for help and the president was quite ready to provide. It took the governor 24 hours to decide to allow him to. (while the Governor appraised the situation and considered their options) Maybe someone else saw that too. I'd be interested in knowing more about it.
It's been posted several places, but there are images of the letters Gov. Blanco sent to the federal government asking for help before the storm hit, and Bush declared a state of emergency before the storm hit as well---that's where it seems to have all gone to hell. FEMA didn't respond, and neither did DHS.

The fillibuster is a horrible concept. It basically allows a very small group of extremists to halt the affairs of government for as long as their extremism holds out.

One must remember that part of the reason that the President chooses and the senate confirms, rather than the other way around as Nazz is proposing, is for the expediency.

I really don't think it'll help the US any if Bush gets to appoint the nominees, but the system was set up the way it was for a reason. The President, a single person, is able to choose several candidates quickly. The Senate then has a limited pool to bicker about. Since the Senate is an elected body, and it was (probably) the voters who chose who they wanted on it, let the system work.

After all, in a democracy, you get exactly the government that the people deserve.

Yes, the fillibuster is so evil it has roots going back as long as the US Senate itself. :headbang:

In fact, it is only relatively recently that you could even stop a filibuster with a cloture vote.

Our Founding Parents believed in the filibuster. Why don't you?

And the (hypothetical) filibustering Senators are also elected. Why do you assume they aren't doing what their consituents want them to do? I know I want my Senators to filibuster if necessary.

This is one of those issues that comes up whenever one side as a large majority in the Senate and controls the White House. Suddenly the filibuster is seen as bad. The same people will defend the filibuster when they are in the minority.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist has just died, which means Bush will get to nominate a replacement for him, but that doesn't mean Bush gets to choose his replacement all on his own. And the Senate shouldn't let him.

Let's look at Bush's track record on other political appointees. Mike Brown is doing an absolutely disastrous job as head of FEMA. Chertoff is at about the same level of incompetence as head of Homeland Security. Condi Rice had to be recalled from her Broadway vacation to act as though she gave a damn about Hurricane Katrina's victims. Don Rumsfeld has been a joke as far as Iraq is concerned. Stephen Hadley was a disaster before he was National Security Advisor, and I can't imagine he's made vast improvement since taking over that job. And John Bolton was so bad that the Senate leadership left Bush no option but to give him a recess appointment.

Based on that track record, and on the evidence that current Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has serious questions to answer about his stances on race, women's rights, gay rights and the right to privacy, I submit that the Senate should seriously limit Bush's choices as to Supreme Court nominees.

Some will no doubt argue that the Senate would be overstepping its bounds to do so. I disagree. The Senate is bound to advise and consent, which gives them, in effect, veto power over the President's choices as nominee, and the Senate has used that power a number of times in the past. As recently as 1994, when President Clinton was considering nominating Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to the court, he met with Senator Orrin Hatch about the nomination. Hatch told Clinton that Babbitt would be problematic and suggested some other names, both of whom eventually became Justices--Breyer and Ginsburg. The Senate has a vital role in this process.

But due to Bush's obvious incompetence, to his apparent inability to choose a qualified person for any job, and the long term effects this choice will have on the nation as a whole, I believe the Senate should be more pro-active this time around. The Republican and Democratic leadership should meet and put together a bi-partisan short list of acceptable nominees and present them to Bush with the ultimatum that any other nominee will be rejected by the Senate in a bipartisan manner.

Ah, I love it when people want to change the system because they despise the person at the top. This is as absurd as the Ken Starr BS during the Clinton years.

Bush is the President. Get over it.

This is the original context--this is the only place online where I've written this piece. I do other writing, but it's not related to this forum, and I prefer to keep my personal and professional life as separated from here as possible.
So, despite missing my sarcasm, you still admitted that your original post isn't an editorial, right?

Yes, the fillibuster is so evil it has roots going back as long as the US Senate itself. :headbang:

In fact, it is only relatively recently that you could even stop a filibuster with a cloture vote.

Our Founding Parents believed in the filibuster. Why don't you?

And the (hypothetical) filibustering Senators are also elected. Why do you assume they aren't doing what their consituents want them to do? I know I want my Senators to filibuster if necessary.

This is one of those issues that comes up whenever one side as a large majority in the Senate and controls the White House. Suddenly the filibuster is seen as bad. The same people will defend the filibuster when they are in the minority.
The filibuster is perfectly fine. The problem is the way it happens now no filibuster actually occurs. Instead there is only the threat of filibuster which causes the repubs to back down because they think that their constituents are too stupid to see it's the dems who would be holding everything up. I want to see these old fogies get up and actually filibuster. Somehow I think they'd all run out of wind by the 4th hour.

So, despite missing my sarcasm, you still admitted that your original post isn't an editorial, right?
Obviously, I missed your point--are you actually arguing that if I'm not currently an editor, that I can't write an editorial? I don't know what world you live in, but if that's what you're saying, then it's not the one I've lived and worked in for the last twenty years.

Obviously, I missed your pont--are you actually arguing that if I'm not currently an editor, that I can't write an editorial? I don't know what world you live in, but if that's what you're saying, then it's not the one I've lived and worked in for the last twenty years.
You can write an opinion piece (which is what you've done).

You can write an opinion piece (which is what you've done).
Whatever--is that what you're griping about? Go waste someone else's time.

President Bush will appoint an idealogue, two even. The Republican party's ideals will be upheald for a long time to come. This is an extremely rare oppertunity for a president. If it was a liberal president, and the dems. controled the Senate, don't you think Republicans would be doing the same thing? They would be calling on the Democrats to nominate a bipartisan candidate, along the lines of O'Connor. And what would the Democrats do? Why of course, they would no doubt nominate the most liberal person(s) they could find!

President Bush will appoint an idealogue, two even. The Republican party's ideals will be upheald for a long time to come. This is an extremely rare oppertunity for a president. If it was a liberal president, and the dems. controled the Senate, don't you think Republicans would be doing the same thing? They would be calling on the Democrats to nominate a bipartisan candidate, along the lines of O'Connor. And what would the Democrats do? Why of course, they would no doubt nominate the most liberal person(s) they could find!
Didn't happen last time. Clinton went out of his way to find someone who was acceptable to both sides.

Didn't happen last time. Clinton went out of his way to find someone who was acceptable to both sides.
Twice, even.

Whatever--is that what you're griping about? Go waste someone else's time.
Either way, slightly redundant. You don't need to tell us that what you're posting on this thread is opinion. I'm pretty sure 99% of the content on this forum is opinion. Snazzing it up with "an editorial" doesn't make it a better opinion, nor does it make it more correct. It's an opinion.

The thing that annoys me, however, is that by adding "an editorial," I clicked on this thread assuming you had C&Ped an editorial from a prestigious journal by a prestigious writer, but was dissappointed to see that it was just another opinion thread, like every other thread on this forum.

Either way, slightly redundant. You don't need to tell us that what you're posting on this thread is opinion. I'm pretty sure 99% of the content on this forum is opinion. Snazzing it up with "an editorial" doesn't make it a better opinion, nor does it make it more correct. It's an opinion.

The thing that annoys me, however, is that by adding "an editorial," I clicked on this thread assuming you had C&Ped an editorial from a prestigious journal by a prestigious writer, but was dissappointed to see that it was just another opinion thread, like every other thread on this forum.
I tend to think of most of the original posts on topical threads on Nationstates as blog entries more than anything else--take a source, cite a part of it and add commentary. I titled my post as an editorial in order to differentiate it from that sort of typical thread starter--I wanted to make posters aware that this was just me, and not based on another's original work.

The notion that I intended to lend greater gravitas to the piece because of the way I titled it is something you brought to the table, not anything inherent in the title. The fact that you were annoyed by my title is also your problem, not a problem with the piece itself. Hell, I'd be a lot happier if more topical pieces here were individual arguments rather than c&p's from other sources with a dose of snark added in.

But due to Bush's obvious incompetence, to his apparent inability to choose a qualified person for any job, and the long term effects this choice will have on the nation as a whole, I believe the Senate should be more pro-active this time around. The Republican and Democratic leadership should meet and put together a bi-partisan short list of acceptable nominees and present them to Bush with the ultimatum that any other nominee will be rejected by the Senate in a bipartisan manner.
I'll second you on his incompetence in trying to further a conservative agenda. He hasn't done that very well and I really wonder if Roberts is the right justice to further that goal. We might end up with a liberal!

Didn't happen last time. Clinton went out of his way to find someone who was acceptable to both sides.
I wonder how it was possible for Ruth Bader Ginsburg nomination to sail through the Senate. I am an outside observer, of course, but she is considered left-wing liberal, isn't she?

I wonder how it was possible for Ruth Bader Ginsburg nomination to sail through the Senate. I am an outside observer, of course, but she is considered left-wing liberal, isn't she?

Yep. She also took the advice of a senate Judiciary person about answering certain types of questions. I doubt highly that Roberts will get the same treatment as well as whoever else Bush nominates.

Yes, the fillibuster is so evil it has roots going back as long as the US Senate itself. :headbang:

In fact, it is only relatively recently that you could even stop a filibuster with a cloture vote.

Our Founding Parents believed in the filibuster. Why don't you?

And the (hypothetical) filibustering Senators are also elected. Why do you assume they aren't doing what their consituents want them to do? I know I want my Senators to filibuster if necessary.

This is one of those issues that comes up whenever one side as a large majority in the Senate and controls the White House. Suddenly the filibuster is seen as bad. The same people will defend the filibuster when they are in the minority.

The problem isn't with the filibuster itself. The problem is that it is being overused. This is only my opinion and not a constitutionality thing, but I think the filibuster should only be used in extreme circumstances. It's not ment for a minority to stuburnly hold-up government until they get their way. It's to prevent tyranny of the majority over the minority. To demand appointments to the courts be liberal is silly. That's why I don't think issues of ideology should be considered. If one wants to factor in ideology it would be at least more reasonable to do so with a full vote of the senate. If fillibusters are used every time there is a dissagreement then government will never move, and judges will simply die off with no replacements.

I wonder how it was possible for Ruth Bader Ginsburg nomination to sail through the Senate. I am an outside observer, of course, but she is considered left-wing liberal, isn't she?
Not when she was up for nomination.

You can't get much worse than Rehnquist. Roberts is definitly up there with Rehnquist.

Now Bush gets a chance to appoint two church state Supreme Court not just one.

This is another disaster.

You can't get much worse than Rehnquist. Roberts is definitly up there with Rehnquist.

Now Bush gets a chance to appoint two church state Supreme Court not just one.

This is another disaster.

A disaster becauase the person nominated isnt your ideology?

A disaster becauase the person nominated isnt your ideology?

So you like ideologes on the court?

Roberts isn't going to be any liberal.

The shrub wouldn't allow for it. Might offend his Christian masters.

Corneliu siad: "A disaster becauase the person nominated isnt your ideology?"

You hit the nail on the head. I'm not into church governments. Look what it does to the Muslims. Look what it did to the heritics.

If you like church states you can have it. But I don't want it.

Roberts is probably the best anyone can hope for. Bush will not nominate a liberal and I also doubt he'll nominate a moderate so unless one can find solid evidence that Roberts is unqualified, it will be a waste of time to try and derail his nomination to Chief Justice

Well, that's what the whole confirmation process is supposed to deal with, right? Whether or not he's qualified?

Something else I'm finding interesting--since this seems to have moved on to Roberts himself--is that overwhelming majorities of Americans think it's important that Roberts answer specific questions about his views on issues like abortion. In a CBS poll (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/05.html#a4800) taken before Roberts was nominated, respondents said:
57% said a nominee’s opinions on issues should be considered, while 33% thought the Senate should consider only a nominee’s legal qualifications and background. Even more Americans said a nominee’s position on the issues should be considered than did so during the nomination processes of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork

Legal Qualifications only Now Last Month Thomas-1991 Bork-1987

33% 46% 39% 39%

Positions on Issues only 57% 46% 49% 52%

In addition, when asked specifically about John Roberts, nearly eight in 10 said it is important that the Senate know Roberts’ positions on issues such as abortion and affirmative action before confirming him, including 46% who say it is "very important." 64% of Democrats said it is "very important" to know his positions on these issues, compared to just 30% of Republicans. Women were also more likely than men to say knowing Roberts’ views on issues like abortion and affirmative action is "very important."Now, I suspect the differences in percentage between the Democrats who want to know the bolded part of that result and the Republicans comes from those Republicans who support Roe v Wade but don't want their more conservative brethren and sistren to know they do and secretly hope that Roberts is more moderate on the issue. They fear, however, that if he isn't a true believer on abortion, that their more radical partners will sink the nomination, and so they're willing to take their chances by not knowing.

My point is this--when it comes to ideological matters, people want to know where nominees stand these days, and since the Supreme Court has a tremendous reach over our lives, I think that's only right.

So you like ideologes on the court?

No I don't!

Roberts isn't going to be any liberal.

Thanks for the obvious.

The shrub wouldn't allow for it. Might offend his Christian masters.

:rolleyes:

*snip*

I think we should stick to the Ruth Bader Ginsburg style. Don't answer any questions because you don't want to be prejudging a case.

I think the Senate should realize this because if this turns into a flamefest in the Senate Judiciary Committee, its going to get ugly.

Heaven forbid it gets a filibuster. The people won't tolerate it.

The death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist on Saturday, and President Bush's subsequent nomination of Roberts for chief justice, raised the stakes.


Just pulled this off the headline news. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Why is it that Roberts has ' serious questions to answer about his stances on race, womens rights, gay rights and the right to privacy' when Ginsburg flatly refused to answer any question of the kind and was confirmed easily. When he was nominated and confirmed Rehnquist transformed the United States Supreme Court from the tool of Liberal politics it had been for two decades back into the court it was intended to be. From what i've heard ,that wasn't partisan motivated mud-slinging, I think Roberts would pick up where Rehnquist left off. Both seem to me to be legal scholars much more than ideologues.

Why is it that Roberts has ' serious questions to answer about his stances on race, womens rights, gay rights and the right to privacy' when Ginsburg flatly refused to answer any question of the kind and was confirmed easily. When he was nominated and confirmed Rehnquist transformed the United States Supreme Court from the tool of Liberal politics it had been for two decades back into the court it was intended to be. From what i've heard ,that wasn't partisan motivated mud-slinging, I think Roberts would pick up where Rehnquist left off. Both seem to me to be legal scholars much more than ideologues.
Because I don't give a damn about what Ginsberg answered or refused to answer--she's been confirmed a long time now. I would imagine that in the intervening 12 years, the American people have gotten a bit more interested in where judges stand on issues--the above poll numbers certainly show that they're interested now. Now, Roberts can't be forced to answer any questions, but I seriously doubt there will be any electoral fallout one way or the other if he's confirmed or filibustered. Voters just aren't all that concerned about this sort of thing--whether or not gas is five bucks a gallon will have far more of an effect on the 2006 elections than this fight.

Because I don't give a damn about what Ginsberg answered or refused to answer--she's been confirmed a long time now.
Proof of partisan garbage.

Thanks for bringing down democracy.

Bush will replace Renquist with a Conservative. This will maintain the balance of the court.

I will say this, this just made my Amercan Judiciary class thatmuch more interesting.
The homeschooling one or the online one? ;)

"Don't Let Bush Replace Rehnquist--an editorial"

You can't stop him. Too bad! So sad! Awwww! Poor little spoiled BRAT leftists! Someone else got elected President over your veto? Tsk! What a shame! ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!
Well, 'squatches ' post in response was keen. Your post quality's kinda diving of late. :(

The homeschooling one or the online one? ;)

My University American Judiciary Class. I can give you my professor's bio if you don't believe me.

Because I don't give a damn about what Ginsberg answered or refused to answer--she's been confirmed a long time now. I would imagine that in the intervening 12 years, the American people have gotten a bit more interested in where judges stand on issues--the above poll numbers certainly show that they're interested now. Now, Roberts can't be forced to answer any questions, but I seriously doubt there will be any electoral fallout one way or the other if he's confirmed or filibustered. Voters just aren't all that concerned about this sort of thing--whether or not gas is five bucks a gallon will have far more of an effect on the 2006 elections than this fight.
Seems more to me like Democrats want to conduct witch-hunts from thier ivory tower.

Never in the news? Boy I'm glad I don't listen to whatever you listen too because for awhile there, he has been in the news. For once, Dean is keeping his big yap shut and that's a good thing.
Limbaugh isn't news. :rolleyes:
I like to listen to this guy who bitches about Agnew a lot ... should i call it news because he's still bitching about him?

And they did what they could with the resources they had available, plus they asked for help well before the storm hit. Take your "blame the victims" attitude and your Bush apologism elsewhere, or put me on ignore, because you're not going to like what I have to say on this.
I gotta *bump* this since i came across a good pertinent article the other day ... i'll get it on tomorrow .... about how in 2002 most of the FEMA stuff was cut and redirected for Bush's idea of working against "terrorism" ... and how Bush/admin specifically denied much of what was requested to take care of the specific problem of the levees and defense .... much of which would have helped the current scenario considerably.

Limbaugh isn't news. :rolleyes:
I like to listen to this guy who bitches about Agnew a lot ... should i call it news because he's still bitching about him?

Joke is on you. I don't listen to Rush!

Proof of partisan garbage.

Thanks for bringing down democracy.

You can knock it off with the personal insults anytime now.

Seems more to me like Democrats want to conduct witch-hunts from thier ivory tower.
My point is that regardless of what happened in the past, polls show that now Americans want to know the answers to these sorts of questions, what a Supreme Court Justice's ideology is, or if he or she has one. I wouldn't ask Roberts how he would rule on a specific abortion case, not even Roe v Wade, but I would ask him if he believes that there is a right to privacy inherent in the Constitution, because that affects a lot of rights we exercise today. I don't think that's a witch hunt.

I also believe that the reasons so many Americans want to know Roberts' opinion on abortion in particular vary depending on who you ask. Abortion opponents want to make sure they're not getting another Souter, while pro-choice people want to make sure they're not getting another Scalia or Thomas. The ones who say they don't care are probably the people who like Roberts for his pro-business background and they're afraid that the abortion issue is going to screw it up for them.