One more judicial thread, though strictly confined.

[Superbelt]

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.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by Superbelt

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.

But his percentage of high-level appointments being approved is lower than most previous presidents. Sure, his lower court judges are getting appointed at a high rate now (mainly because they were woefully understaffed) but his higher circuit court and appeals court choices are being blocked at a higher rate than previously seen.

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.

This could be reversed to say why can't Dems just convince 5 Senators to shoot down the nominations. Then you wouldn't have to worry, because they went for a vote and lost. And if it was improtant that a judge appeals to American values, they would be elected with a popular vote. And we don't know if these judges aren't acceptable to America at large, because they aren't elected by a popular vote. But that's all irrelevant, what's important is that judges correctly interpret the law.

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.

Those rules have also done harm to America in the past. Also, you can't just vote out legislators that you don't like, you can only vote on those that represent your state. And with the highly divided nature of the states in general, there really isn't that many seats up for grabs. If you live in Kansas, chances are your Senator will be Republican; live in California and you probably will be dealing with a democrat.

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)

A judge shouldn't be judged by his ideological views, they should be judged by their willingness to adhere to law. It's not about if their views are right or wrong, it's about how they adhere to the law. And that's why many conservatives have problems with current judges: they aren't making rulings on law but on what they think is right. But that's now how things work, if something's wrong you get the laws changed through the legislative branch, not the judicial.

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.

I'll try to address this and the "God Mode" comment at the same time, because I think they deal with the same issue. Right after the election, I asked what people thought it meant to win an election. Is it "to the winner go the spoils", or should the minority party have some say in policy? Because I saw then that there were quite a few Repubs that seemed to be thinking that they should get the "spoils" of victory. I could see their thinking-it's harder to get something off the books once it's already on, so get as much of their adjenda in place while they had the opportunity. But that inevitably will lead to times when the Repubs are out and the Dems will try to do the same thing, while simultaneously undoing the previous admin's work. This hasn't happened previously, but looking across the history of the US this form of gov't is only around 250 years old, and this is the longest period with the two same parties duking it out, so maybe it's just the inevitable concequence of a two party system. To my knowledge (and what i've been taught in my earlier poly sci classes) in most Euro countries everything is proportional, and elections focus more on parties than people. And compromise is inbuilt as the larger parties will negotiate with smaller ones to gain seats in whatever legislative branch they are using, or the smaller parties will just have their own reps to negotiate. But in America, anyone not (R) or (D) is an extreme rarity, especially on the national level. And the system itself seems to encourage a winner take all mentality, as no matter what the percentage of actual votes either party gets, only the one with the most matters.

And that's why you get Repubs throwing a fit. They feel they won, they have dual control, and they should get their adjenda through. They see Dems as obstructing their right. And they aren't worried about the future concequences of eliminating judicial filibuster because they feel that it's better to have as many judges put in now, and worry about future appointments later because a) there might not be another instance where a single party controls the executive branch and both houses of congress, and b) if there is a time when dems have the same control, there might not be the same amount of posts during the window they have control. And when you are talking about lifetime appointments, there is a great deal of lasting impact to be had from getting your appointments on.

As to where I stand, I would side with taking as much as you can now and worry about concequences later. I personally don't trust that the other side wouldn't attempt the same thing, so if you show compromise now and there's a big change in 2006 and 2008, you could be S.O.L. and have 6 years of control and nothing to show for it. To me, it seems like a variation of the classic prisoners dilema, and the only logical thing to do is to screw the other guy.

[Manx]

Originally Posted by alansmithee

As to where I stand, I would side with taking as much as you can now and worry about concequences later. I personally don't trust that the other side wouldn't attempt the same thing, so if you show compromise now and there's a big change in 2006 and 2008, you could be S.O.L. and have 6 years of control and nothing to show for it. To me, it seems like a variation of the classic prisoners dilema, and the only logical thing to do is to screw the other guy.

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

That mentality right there is the single most significant flaw of the conservative mind.

Unfortunately, it is also infectious. As illogical as it is, I would gladly sacrifice conservatives, the other guy.

It is also why this statement:

It's not about if their views are right or wrong, it's about how they adhere to the law. And that's why many conservatives have problems with current judges: they aren't making rulings on law but on what they think is right.

is meaningless. There is no such thing as an objective judge - yet the right wants to claim that the present judiciary is somehow overly subjective and the only remedy is to place judges who are "not overly subjective", and surpise suprise, those supposedly not-overly-objective appointments also happen to have political philosophies that align quite well with those complaining about this so-called failure of the judiciary to act as it should.

Either you're grabbing everything you can because you feel the ultimate desire to sacrifice the other guy, or you're trying to correct an actual problem. You're certainly not doing both. And it's very obvious you're not doing the latter - particularly when you spend two sentences describing a logical justification (if it were true) and 3 paragraphs describing the power-grab justification.

[raveneye]

I think the general public perceives that the current Republican strategy is indeed to "screw the other guy," and to do it through right-wing judicial activism. And the general perception is that there are three goals to this judicial activism: (1) to overturn Roe v. Wade; (2) to eliminate the separation of church and state; and (3) to dismantle the welfare state (the Constitution in Exile movement).

I don't think it's any secret that the "other guy" here is the vast majority of voters. So the strategy amounts to "screwing yourself" in the next election, in return for some judges who may or may not decide the way you want them to.

[raveneye]

And if the tables were turned, I don't think there's any chance that the Dems would be doing the same thing (eg. going nuclear, changing ethics rules) because the Dems don't have the same fundamental disagreements with the way American government works that religious conservatives do.

[Yakk]

I don't think you understand. You speak of democracy and the opinions of the minority as if it matters to those who have hijacked the republican party.

The religious zealots believes they are right and everyone else is going to hell. If your opinion on any subject they consider important is different, that means you are hell-bound. So your opinion, any opinion that is not in lock-step with them, does not matter, unless they can use it to get what they want.

They don't view democracy as an ideal, they view it as a tool to get what they want. If democracy gets in their way, they should dismantle it, because what they decide the will of God is makes the ends justify the means.

Their alliance with the "we beat communism, so lets put the screws on the underclass" and the "bombs and guns are fun -- lets use them!" squads has given them the marketing, ideological, and monitary muscle needed to take control of the Republican party. They are willing to kill brown-skinned people and give away the American economy because those things aren't important to them, and their allies are willing to bow to the Zealots social policy.

When you hear talk of the "nuclear option", I think it makes sense. The option of "mutually assured destruction" exists in most social, political and economic situations. If two forces cannot aggree upon the rules of the game, or one breaks the rules of the game enough, the other one feels forced to go "extra-legal", and destroy the game rather than continue to play.

Our modern peaceful societes have "mutually assured destruction" hiding under the surface. This is why we have the trappings of a civil society, why comprimise is a virtue, and why you only push so far.

It is possible that, as far as the fundies go, the "gay marriage" and "pledge of allegance" and "abortion" statements where already acts outside the game's rules. To one side, they look like a continuation of the emancipation proclaimation. To the other, they might be signs that the game has become no holes barred... And we are now seeing what happens when religious zealots decide the American system of government is something to be undermined and destroyed.