dksuddeth

Here we go, first off there's former Interior Department Solicitor William Myers being nominated for the 9th circuit. Ok, we all know that the 9th circuit could certainly use some balance in it but what the hell are republicans thinking going around saying this guy is highly qualified? He's NEVER been a judge, NEVER participated in a jury trial, and has only a few appearances before non-jury proceedings or appeals. Ok, maybe that last part gives him SOME experience but certainly not enough for U.S. district court seat. Now, one of the things that this nominee has going for him is his position on private property rights as long as it goes against the federal governments position. Curiously, most of those positions were in direct opposition with laws passed under the clinton adminstration. Talk about judicial activism.

Soon after that we have U.S. District Judge Terrence Boyle. Talk about a piece of work. Even the conservative Fourth Circuit has chided Judge Boyle for going too far, repeatedly reversing or criticizing him for subverting basic procedural rules and misconstruing clear legal principles.
Judge Boyle has been reversed over 120 times by the Fourth Circuit, a rate far in excess of the average judge. In Ellis v. North Carolina, he threw out an employment discrimination case, saying that state employers were immune from suit. Because the Supreme Court had come to the opposite conclusion long before, the Fourth Circuit summarily reversed the decision in a three-paragraph, unpublished opinion. After restrictively applying procedural rules and again holding that the state enjoyed immunity, Judge Boyle dismissed another case where African Americans claimed that state officials were intentionally placing landfills in areas adversely affecting them. Again, the Fourth Circuit reversed, criticizing both Judge Boyle’s procedural and immunity rulings.

We'll see who's next in the circus lineup of questionably qualified nominees later.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

NCB

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was someone with no judicail experience either before being nominated to the CofA by peanut boy.

Robert H Jackson (see host's avatar and sig) did not have any judicial experience before being installed onto the US Supreme Court.

Stephen Breyer had no experience before being installed to the CofA, and now he's quoting Zimbabwe law to help him make decision here in the US!

__________________

host

"peanut boy" ???? wtf IS "peanut boy" ?

NCB

Jimmy Carter

__________________

Superbelt

Peanut boy is a disaffectionate term for one of the most intelligent and honest, yet passive and trusting to a fault Presidents this union has ever had.

This nation could do well with a few more "Peanut Boy's" in high places.

NCB

You weren't around in the 70's were you?

__________________

Superbelt

No, I was born three weeks after the Jelly Bean innauguration.

roachboy

i wonder if it is even possible for there to be a thread here that is not sent into some kind of spin by rightwing ad hominems. this one didnt escape.

i was around in the 1970s and have no idea what you are talking about with this "peanut boy" idiocy.
so far as i can tell, your "evaluation" of carter's presidency is nothing of the sort--just another instance of limbaugh-style name-calling.
if you have a coherent evaluation of carter, why not start another thread and actually spell it out, so that it can be taken on as such?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

NCB

Peanut boy is hardly a ad hominem attack. If you want to see real AH attacks, check out DU.

__________________

Superbelt

I prefer freerepublic for the well developed and baseless ad hominem attacks myself. They have it to an artform!

dksuddeth

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Superbelt

Sorry, I'll help get back on track.
NCB provided us with a list of justices who had no prior judicial experience. They have done a fine enough job that something like that would not matter to me for anyone else.

I'd like to see nominees be better representative of the american public, but that won't happen so some of the more out there guys will be filibustered, as they should be. I like seeing both parties weeding out the more extreme suggestions from the opposite party. It keeps judicial nominees mainstream. If the senate republicans remove the nomination rules, then you'll see a real circus.

NCB

What is extreme about Janice Rogers Brown? What is extreme about Miguel Estrada? What's sad is that you have no problems with Stephen Breyer, who looks to foreign law in order to justify his stances. Does that bother you at all? It would bother me if Scalia of Thomas did it.

__________________

stevo

What I like is the fact that Bush re-nominated all the judges that were shot down the first time around. That just goes to show that this guy knows who he believes deserve to be federal judges and that didn't change since the first time around.

dksuddeth

I see nothing extreme about Rogers Brown, although it seems that she may either not be as knowledgable as she should or she intends to rewrite some basic precedent and laws concerning hot political subjects.

As far as miguel estrada goes, he hasn't done enough or published enough to know whether he's extreme or not. Were it any other court but the DC circuit, it might not be that big of an issue.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

NCB

1. I hope you're not taking a racial shot at JRB when you question her intellect.

2. He's as qualified as any number of judges who have been nominated and confirmed by the Senate in the past. BTW, why do libs have such a hard on for the DC circuit court?

__________________

Superbelt

Miguel chooses not to divulge his opinions on subjects to the senate judicial committee. Why? We can only guess it is because he will reveal a set of opinions that does not gel with what the senate can confirm as an acceptable judge.

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.

NCB

FYI:

1. Estrada answered all the questions asked of him. In fact, he even offered to answer individual Dem Senators questions. He repeated that several times. Dems never asked or written any questions that they wanted answered.

2. Estrada was not rejected. He was never given the opportunity of a up or down vote, the first time in US history that a filibuster had been used on an appalete court nominee

__________________

Superbelt

individually, not in session.
In session he refused to answer questions about abortion and affirmative action. He and Bush also refused to share documents prepared by him while he was solicitor general. Things like this are important when you have no judicial record.

Senate rules simply allow for filibusters. Maybe Bush should nominate justices that can pass the muster. Most of them did. If they don't go find someone who does. Bush got a much higher percentage of his nominees through than Clinton ever did. With a Republican controlled Senate all of the nominees that Clinton wanted weren't even allowed consideration. They did it cause they knew they didn't have the votes to oppose them, so they did the same basic thing as a filibuster.

dksuddeth

What race is she?

With as little as he's released, how would we know? And the DC circuit is important because 3 of the current sitting supreme court justices came from the DC circuit. The DC circuit is unusual because it has the ability to influence a higher number of americans with each ruling.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

that is not correct.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

NCB

Sure it is.

__________________

dksuddeth

i stand corrected. but my question would then by WHY is it such a tragedy that its the first time against an appellate nominee when filibusters have been used for a variety of reasons too stupid to name?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

alansmithee

Apparently ad hominem attacks are to be reserved for sitting presidents, or maybe they are just the righful domain of liberals?

flstf

I don't know much about the nominees for the courts but IMHO their politics don't concern me nearly as much as whether they have activist tendencies. They are there to interpret law not make it and should interpret the Constitution and laws as close to the intent of the writers as possible. Whether they are liberal or conservative makes no difference to me. Liberal judges sometimes turn conservative and visa versa.

Zeld2.0

Or maybe getting on track is better?

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.

What judges do is often a funny thing at times...

dksuddeth

have you read the briefs on these 20 nominees?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

stevo

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.


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.

Superbelt

A few obstructionists? Try at least 40.
I think if over 40% of america, which is what those senators represent, don't like a judge, they shouldn't be a judge.

For Clinton, his nominees couldn't even make it into committee because 5 republican senators wouldn't even allow them to be heard. That is a SUPER MINORITY.

We aren't a democracy, we are a republic which is a democracy that gives the minority a weapon to prevent them from being overrun by a majority.

If the Republicans remove rules from the floor like the filibuster, you will see some real obstructionism as the dems stall all government work.

host

That is not what Bush "goes to show" to me..............