f00sion

Did anybody else see the prez get his ass handed to him this morning? Apparently because of the filibustering going on for 2 of his nominees he thinks its unfair and the system needs to be changed. Shortly after the speech Daschle responded. He illustrated, very simply and eloquently, the fact that 124 of Bush's judicial nominees have been confirmed (some sort of crazy world record) and only 2 have been blocked. He then brought up the fact that during the Clinton administration 60 nominees were blocked, 50 of those never even got a hearing?

"The obstructionist tactics of a small group of senators are setting a pattern that threatens judicial independence,"

Talk amongst yourselves.

Liquor Dealer

One of those blocked was considered by many to be the next Supreme Court nominee - I think this is what is causing the most concern.

This is probably what is causing a lot of what is going on:

With the next presidential election about 18 months away, many Americans today think President Bush will be re-elected to a second term and, in head-to-head matchups, Bush bests the top Democratic contenders.

In the latest FOX News nationwide poll of registered voters, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation May 6-7, a majority (61 percent) predicts Bush will be re-elected, while 20 percent think he will be a one-term president.

Republicans are confident in their party leader retaining his office, as fully 85 percent think Bush will be re-elected compared to only 38 percent of Democrats. Independents fall in between with 57 percent thinking Bush will win in 2004.

Who is the opponent Bush is expected to defeat? The Democratic Party officially kicked off its primary season last week with a debate among nine candidates in South Carolina. Among Democrats nationally, the poll finds Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman (search) edges out the others to capture the top spot of those looking for that party’s nomination.

Lieberman leads the group with 19 percent, followed by Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt (search) (14 percent) and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (search) (12 percent). The most recent candidate to enter the race officially, Florida Sen. Bob Graham (search), receives four percent — about the same as former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (search) (five percent), North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (search) (five percent) and New York Minister Al Sharpton (search) (five percent). Former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (search) receives two percent followed by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich (search) at one percent.

"People should remember that a year is a lifetime in politics," comments Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman. "At this stage in 1992, Bill Clinton was barely a blip on the Democratic primary screen and then-President Bush was regarded as unbeatable because of his war victory. Things can change and change rapidly."

In hypothetical matchups, all of the Democratic candidates tested achieve about the same level of backing, with President Bush coming out on top by almost two-to-one.

Some Key Matchups
Bush 58% v. Kerry 29
Bush 57% v. Lieberman 31
Bush 56% v. Gephardt 30

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86357,00.html

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Simple_Min

Speaking of Supreme Court, anyone know who, if anybody is retiring?

__________________
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

Liquor Dealer

Why is it so widely expected that President Bush will nominate one or more justices to the High Court?
This is one of the longest periods of stability, without a vacancy on the Court, in history. It has been nearly 8 years since the a justice stepped down - it has been 180 years since the court has gone this long with a new member.

The speculation also arises from the number of justices near what is generally thought of as retirement age: Chief Justice William Rehnquist (76), Justice John Paul Stevens (80), and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (70). Justices Ginsburg, O'Connor, and Stevens have battled cancer, while Chief Justice Rehnquist has struggled with back problems. The more cynical political analysis posits that several of the Justices who were appointed by Republican presidents have awaited the return of the White House to G.O.P. hands before thinking of offering resignations.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/mentions.htm

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

The_Dude

he's going to pack the court w/ far right conservatives.

next thing you know, we'll be reciting god's prayer in schools, roe vs wade is out the window, habeas corpus is out the window and a whole lot of things.


our liberties are really at jeopardy in the hands of gwb.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Liquor Dealer

Dude - You'll learn to love him befor the next six years are finished - you might even get an idea of how stuff realy works by then.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

Mr. Mojo

The dems are holding up the <b>Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals</b> nominees. They are letting other minor judges pass. Federal circuit courts of appeals is one below SCOTUS.

The democrats are changing the rules, I’ll have to look it up. But basically the nominee only has to have the majority of the senate vote (51) and he/she is confirmed. But the democrats are holding this process up. Estrada has over 51 votes, but the vote is still held up in filibuster.
I’m not up all the “law talking type guy” stuff.
So forgive if I am not clear- but golly law is hard!

The Constitution is clear: A majority is required to confirm judicial nominees. A minority of Senate Democrats is effectively changing the law... So the democrats are Unconstitutional?

__________________
When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

Liquor Dealer

What they are actually doing is not even a fillibuster by the rules -
They are attempting to hijack the government. If Republican leadership responds in the manner they should, and I believe this is coming soon, then I have a feeling that things are going to get really nasty in the Senate before this is finished. I can guarantee that the Democrats better hope they lose the presidential election because paybacks are gonna be hell for the next Democratic president.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

The_Dude

you have to be kidding me.

y'all are talking like the republicans never fillabustered!!


they fillabustered and won 2 of clinton's hispanic nominees to the fed courts!! the exact same thing is happening now.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

smooth

Mr. Mojo,

Don't believe all the rhetoric you hear. The Constitution has provisions for this activity for a very important reason. Our founding fathers were adament against a pure democracy because they felt government affairs should not be run by the masses. This idea permeates the entire structure of our government--even down to the Senate and House rules. If you notice, many things require more than a mere majority.

The reason behind this is the belief that the majority can always protect itself--they always have more of the votes, by definition. The minority can only protect its interests (and the interests of the people it represents) by resorting various tactics. One of those tactics is the fillibuster and is outlined very specifically in the laws. A fillibuster requires a consensus--not a majority--vote. A consensus is formed when the vast majority of people agree--usually occurring as a result of compromise. These are important components of our Congressional apparatus--unless you desire our legislative branch to just become a rubber stamp for the executive branch. Of course, placed in that context you can see how that would undermine the basic reasoning for having seperate branches in the first place--to seperate the powers. Usually, one group has control of the House or Senate to counteract the group in control of the presidency. This time, however, the republicans have majority control over all three branches of government. The founding fathers explicitly wrote a final "check" in case this happens--the fillibuster.

Whether you agree with the republican agenda or not the fact remains that millions of US citizens affiliate themselves with the democratic agenda. The argument that everything should be decided by majority vote ignores the fact that when repbulicans possess the majority of the votes (and vice versa for the democrats) those millions of people would not be represented in the Congress. This idea is illustrated throughout the government structure even down to the voting process. Notice, there is only one place this doesn't occur (presumably to avoid gridlock), the Supreme Law of The Land--the Supreme Court--which has an uneven number of justices and where majority does rule. Of course, the genius of the system is that these justices are not elected--they are appointed and not subject to the whims of the masses (which the founding fathers viewed as the uneducated and easily swayed by appeal to emotions).

The_Dude

exactly, cloture was designed for instances of need.

and this is not one.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

smooth

Yep, my bad. Cloture is outlined specifically in the law--the only procedure to set a time limit on debate of a bill but can only be invoked by three-fifths of the senate. Fillibustering is the informal term for debating a bill (there are no rules regarding fillibustering).

oh yeah, and last I checked in Oregon, the courts were shutting down due to lack of money--not judges.

MSD

Hearing that frightens me. Answer this question and you'll know why.

Can anyone tell me what the last line of 1984 was? The one summing up what happened to Winston after he was tortured for questioning The Party?

And my other comment: Of the 61% who think that Bush will be re-elected, at least one person is praying that he won't be.

Easytiger

"He loved Big Brother."