Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - One more judicial thread, though strictly confined.

Superbelt · 05-02-2005, 06:17 PM

Yeah, we have a couple running already. But this deserves it's own.

The current filibustering of several former and present nominees represents about 5% of Bush's total nominees to the bench. This is amazing as no President in modern history has enjoyed this level of judicial approval.

It's pretty clear that this is a run-up to the upcoming SC nomination(s).
What is so abhorrent about making sure that a judge appeals broadly to american values?
Why are conservatives, who are against these filibusters, so angry?
The rule is there for you to use and work with too. If you don't like how we use the filibuster, use it to fuel a drive to get 5 more legislators to beat it. I personally don't think you can do it and will end up losing ground when all the facts are laid out to america at large.

I think needing to beat the minority, which is what a filibuster is designed for, is a good test to hold back the judges who are just not acceptable to america at large. It should be cherished and it is a good tool that I hope is used to hold the President in line when he makes his choice. Let him play chicken by nominating someone out of the mainstream and see how america responds in 2006.

Voting is the ultimate Check on the balance of power. So use that, rather than bitch about the rules that have made america work for so many years already.

I would like to see a SC justice elected who votes with states who are trying to clean up their air and water of acid and mercury spewed out by grandfathered coal powerplants. A SC justice who understands that we can't stop gay couples from attaining the security of marriage and other socially liberal issues that I believe are right. But I know that if such a person is appointed now, he would get shot down. I'll work on winning the game, not throwing a tantrum when the rules keep me from doing all I want. It seems social conservatives today do just that when "God mode" doesn't work in community play.
(Wonder what y'all are like in Halflife)

Feel free to disagree with me here and try and explain to me why it isn't right.
If you do, please include an affirmation that with the tables turned, you wouldn't be happy that your side is trying to assert their rights.

05-02-2005, 06:17 PM	#1 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	One more judicial thread, though strictly confined. Yeah, we have a couple running already. But this deserves it's own. The current filibustering of several former and present nominees represents about 5% of Bush's total nominees to the bench. This is amazing as no President in modern history has enjoyed this level of judicial approval. It's pretty clear that this is a run-up to the upcoming SC nomination(s). What is so abhorrent about making sure that a judge appeals broadly to american values? Why are conservatives, who are against these filibusters, so angry? The rule is there for you to use and work with too. If you don't like how we use the filibuster, use it to fuel a drive to get 5 more legislators to beat it. I personally don't think you can do it and will end up losing ground when all the facts are laid out to america at large. I think needing to beat the minority, which is what a filibuster is designed for, is a good test to hold back the judges who are just not acceptable to america at large. It should be cherished and it is a good tool that I hope is used to hold the President in line when he makes his choice. Let him play chicken by nominating someone out of the mainstream and see how america responds in 2006. Voting is the ultimate Check on the balance of power. So use that, rather than bitch about the rules that have made america work for so many years already. I would like to see a SC justice elected who votes with states who are trying to clean up their air and water of acid and mercury spewed out by grandfathered coal powerplants. A SC justice who understands that we can't stop gay couples from attaining the security of marriage and other socially liberal issues that I believe are right. But I know that if such a person is appointed now, he would get shot down. I'll work on winning the game, not throwing a tantrum when the rules keep me from doing all I want. It seems social conservatives today do just that when "God mode" doesn't work in community play. (Wonder what y'all are like in Halflife) Feel free to disagree with me here and try and explain to me why it isn't right. If you do, please include an affirmation that with the tables turned, you wouldn't be happy that your side is trying to assert their rights.