Quote:
|
Originally Posted by superbelt
I don't like the fact that Bush renominated. When the elected oversight body denies them a position once it is the voice of the people who voted them in who say "These individuals are not acceptable" Bush chooses to disregard that voice and force people upon us.
|
The senate did not get to vote on the filibustered judges. Since there was no vote how can you say that it is the voice of the people? The laws were not written so that a few obstructionist senators can stop a judicial confirmation.
Getting back to the voice of the people...We've since had an election, where the democrats lost
four seats in the senate. The most noteable one being that of former senate minority leader Tom Daschle, who obstucted bush's judicial nominees as well as many policy objectives. The fact that daschle was voted out serves more to prove that the voice of the people was not heard the first time around, but it was heard in 2004.
Right now, the republicans need 60 votes to put an end to the debate and move on to the confirmation. But I'm rather confident that bush has the 51 votes needed to change the senate rules to ban the filibustering of judicial nominees. That's probably going to make a lot of you hot, but when the republicans need 60 votes to pass a judge and the democrats only need 51, something is not working. Like I said before, the constitution was not written so that a handful of senators, in the minority, can stop a judical confirmation. That is not how democracy works.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zeld2.0
Or this just goes to show that other people disagree with him because maybe, just maybe, they don't think they deserve to be federal judges. Oh and if they were shot down the first time, he should probably change to someone the rest of the people can agree on.
|
You might think that, but that is not how bush works. He is not going to change his mind on who he believes is qualified to be a federal judge, why should he? Why is it that bush needs to change his nominees for a few senators, when the few senators that are standing in the way can change their minds so that everyone can agree? These guys: kennedy, reid, leahy remind me more of the sunnis that didn't want to participate in the new iraqi democracy than elected american senators.
People complain about bush's ideology standing in the way of progress, what about these guys? Their too afraid that by letting judges on the bench that will interpret the law, rather than writing the law, the power of the democratic party will further be weakened, especially since these judges will likely be serving for the next 20-30 years.