POLITICS: Bush Unhappy over Rejected Judges

Democrats dismissed White House complaints over judges, calling the Senate votes nothing more than a political ploy to rally conservatives around the President. Bush suggested that the Democrats were using obstructionist tactics.



I'd vote these suckers down too. Conservative judges are not a problem, however the white house is attempting to stack the judiciary with appointments that hold right-wing fundamentalist moral views that are not consistent with the world of the 21st century. Now is not the time for the courts to return burning witches.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by Banshee]

So we should appoint judges that are all about Criminals Rights?...How many people do you know get locked up and actually serve time...Do you know that roughly 5% of the people arrested actually serve prison time....That most first time serious felony offenders usually get probation?...That illegal aliens who commit felonies DONT get deported in more then half the cases??...I think we need more conservative judges...

Did you know that the US has the largest proportion of it people (herd or flock is a better word for the suckers that emigrated) in jail.

Just imagine if the 5% was higher than that! You would have everyone in jail yaayy \0/ slave labour again (well as cheap as you'll get) \0/ yaay!

[edit on 23/7/2004 by Corinthas]

No, your supposed to appoint judges that uphold the law and constitution and have fair morals and the capability to make impartial judgements.

Rightwing religious driven cook judges are NEVER impartial, everything they do is based on theis religious beliefs.

Originally posted by BasementAddix
Do you know that roughly 5% of the people arrested actually serve prison time...

This is one heck of a strawman. What this tells me is that 95% of the people arrested are either found not guilty or were given a lesser sentence because the offense they committed does not merit jail time.

We do not need moral crusaders bent on repealing abortion laws, jailing drug use, jailing prostituion, blocking state gambling and or preventing other acts they find immoral. We do not have space in our prisions to handle the present prison population and I sure do not want to spend tax dollars to build more prisons to support the fundamentalist vision of morality.
.

This is a load of malarky. This vote wasn't for confirming these judges, but for just the right to have a yes or no vote for the aformation(sp).Every time the President try to nominate someone the senate fillibusters. If(God forbid) John "Flipper" Kerry wins the election, I bet all the left-wing, tree huggers will all be on the tube saying "it's not fair" They wont let us have a simple vote. The American people deserve a vote on these judges and the republicans are playin partisan politics.

It's no wonder President Bush appointed the judges that he did when the senate was out on break.

And lets not forget that Rockefeller memo about how the dem's were going hold up the nominations. They just hate President Bush so much that they are willing to do do everything in their power to see the country fail.

Originally posted by gfs4731
They just hate President Bush so much that they are willing to do do everything in their power to see the country fail.

Oh please, these judicial nominees are just bad judges that have only been nominated because of partisan politics designed to cater to the presidents fundamentalist righ-wing base. The evidence speaks for itself. Nominating these clowns is a disgrace to the presidency and the country.

Henry Saad has a long history of denying rights to injured workers. What a legal scholar, he wrote a two-sentence opinion, stating only that the trial judge was right to find in favor of the hospital.
www.now.org...
www.independentjudiciary.com...
www.independentjudiciary.com...

Richard Allen Griffin is no better than Saad, he routinely rules in favor of corporate interests.
www.independentjudiciary.com...

David McKeague doesnt even have the support of the senators from his state. Both Griffin and McKeague are often reversed by higher courts.
www.pfaw.org...
.

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by BasementAddix
Do you know that roughly 5% of the people arrested actually serve prison time...

This is one heck of a strawman. What this tells me is that 95% of the people arrested are either found not guilty or were given a lesser sentence because the offense they committed does not merit jail time.


.

No....that means that many people get off on BS technicalities....while many get a second chance...then a 3rd...etc....The main reason why people dont go to jail is because of lack of resources...lack of prisons...lack of DA's...lack of time...and thats 5% WHO GET CAUGHT...I personally think not enough go to jail...

Can you point me to the pertinant paragraph in the consitution where it says a vote to take a vote is specified when the president refers a judicial nominee to the senate?

I can't find it myself. The part I find says vote up or down, period.

If one party or the other has not enough senators to win a vote this would seem to be the peoples choice, is it not? To force any other action is a subversion of democracy is it not?

Reminds me of the childhood propensity to say "Best two out of three" after losing a simple game.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by Phoenix]

Perhaps another reason to have Saad in michingan is to have bush votes from the arab comunity in the state in his favor. Saad is from Arab background.

Of the 400,000 Arab-descendant Americans in Michigan, 150,000 are active voters, according to Nasser Beydoun, executive director of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce.
Those voters could prove crucial in a state where a poll recently published in the Detroit News found Mr. Bush's economic approval rating teetering at 47 percent.
Mr. Bush wants to reverse a trend of Republican presidential candidates doing poorly in the nation's eighth-largest state.
No Republican nominee has won the state in 15 years. Mr. Bush lost the state in 2000 by five percentage points.

This sound very funny to me.

Phoenix
Your right it is not in the constitution that you have to vote to take a vote, but in the senate rules for ending a fillabuster you need a cloture vote.
60 out of the 100 have to vote yea to bring the bill or nomination to a final vote.

My problem with the way it is that any senator or his/her minority party can block a bill or nomination by extending debate on the proposal indefinitely.

Without the 60 yea votes the bill or nomination can be stalled for good. How can this be good for the country? It shoudn't make a difference if your D or R we have to do whats best for the country. Yea i am a conservitive, but I also dont have a problem with Senators like Zel Miller.

Seems to me that people are scared to have people with good moral values in a place of authority. This country is so far left right now it's getting sickening. We are so scared of hurting someones feelings,or offending someone that we lost are abillity(sp) to take a stand on anything.

gfs4731,

it is nothing wrong with having good people with fair moral values that involve all groups of people in the nation, but when the appointees are chosen because of hidden agendas then the fairness of the appointees values will come into question.

You don't want to have people in "authority places" that favor one group over another group. The goverment is suppoused to be for everybody or nobody at all.

Originally posted by marg6043
gfs4731,
You don't want to have people in "authority places" that favor one group over another group. The goverment is suppoused to be for everybody or nobody at all.

So basically its OK to subvert the constitution as long as it serves an agenda.

I don't like that - it has to much room for abuse by either party. If you don't like a presidents appointees use your democratically provided vote to vote them out of office, same for a Senator that votes against your belief, thats how it is supposed to work and IS the reason we were provided the ability to directly vote for Senators.

If the party with a minority is the one you support - well do a better job of supporting them, subverting democracy is a slippery slope that we are falling into here and the shoe will be on the other foot eventually - one should remember that.

Originally posted by BasementAddixNo....that means that many people get off on BS technicalities...

Obviously you did not read the posted links. These judges are being objected to because of how they ruled on civil cases for the most part. It was typical for them to rule in favor of corporate interests over the interests of the individual in nearly every instance. The corporate powers can buy the best attorneys and apparently you think owning the judges is ok too.

I personally think not enough go to jail...

The freaking prisons are full of folks that were put there as a result of victimless laws and mandatory 3 strikes your out laws that do not take into consideration the nature of the crime or the threat risk to society of the individual. And you do not think we have enough people in prison. So I suppose that you have no problem building more prisons with our tax dollars to house and care for more prisoners. I'd much rather see those dollars spent on health care rather than as means to take punitive actions against people that have committed minor offenses.

Send the village of Crawford back its missing idiot, we can't afford 4 more years of this type of thinking.
.

[edit on 24-7-2004 by df1]

Posted by Phoenix
I don't like that - it has to much room for abuse by either party.

Well I am not the one questioning the constitution but rather questioning the integrity of the appointees.

And for abuse by either party, well that what politics are about now a days.

marg6043

I agree if their chosen because of hidden agenda's.
The courts now are out of balance. A lot of the courts are loaded with judges that are afraid to take a stand for fear of not being P/C. We have criminals being set free while victims are going to jail. Our courts are letting stupid lawsuits be heard and wasting tax dollars.

Our nation is so afraid of hurting someones feelings. Lets play this out
I dont agree with you and use caps in my whole post to show i'm yelling. You take offence and say i am only yelling at you because you are a man/woman,minority,red,yellow black white,fat slim,old young)whatever. Because you have accused me of discriminating against you, you take me to court because i violated your right to free speach because i didnt agree with you,and i commited a hate crime because I had to have done it because you were what ever you filled in the blank with.

The liberal judges love this, the money hungry trial lawers love it, you love it cause you win, and i am celled up with the mountain man from deliverance.

IMOP a judge with good moral values, a firm grip on reality, and a bit of common sence(sp) would see this as a joke, dismiss the case, and make a example of you for the wasting the courts time. (j/k)

We need to stop playing games (both parties) and put the country back where it belongs.

Originally posted by Phoenix
So basically its OK to subvert the constitution as long as it serves an agenda.

I find it outrageous that you have not complained in the least about the subversion of the constitution when congress abdicated its power to wage war to the executive branch which is clearly uncontitutional, but now you whine about a filibusters. Republicans had no problem using the filibusters to block democratic presidential budgets. Where were your complaints at that time?

Republicans have an unfair double standard all the time, from the highest ranking republican to the lowest voter.
.



[edit on 24-7-2004 by df1]

gfs4731, I agree with you in that one,

By the way I did that onces I mean the all caps to show yelling I got a warn and 50 point deductions so I been there and done that.

Mods are very good at watching how you behave in ATS.

df1
I'm not sure, but i thought due to the the agreement Saddam signed back after the gulf war, (which i believe had full congress aproval) that if hw went back on the deal we were back to finish.I didn't believe that the President need to get approval again, but he did. republican and democrates alike agreed we could do this again if we had to.

No double standard, I believe that both parties go for the fillabuster and i believe it is wrong. I dont believe its really constitional. there is a 100 senators and they should vote yea or nay.They need to quit playing these foolish partisan games and do whats right for the country. if there are 51D and 49R they should still vote and if the rep's dont like the outcome they need to try harder to win more seats in the next election. It should be the same way around also, but the lib's will always cry ITS NOT FAIR (boo hoo).

BasementAddix
I agree with you. If we started holding people accountable for their actions, maybe that would be a derturent(sp) to crime. You get so tired of criminals getting off easy because they wet the bed till they were 12, or daddy didnt tell him he loved him enough,or he couldnt have a pet squid as a kid, so you can see why i had to disembowel my mom.
Lock them up, and make life life. Conservitive judges would make 50 years mean 50 not 12 with good behavior.No 3 strikes, just 1. do the whole sentence, and their wont be a second.

Originally posted by gfs4731
I'm not sure, but i thought due to the the agreement Saddam signed

The last time I looked Saddam was never elected to any federal office in the US, so it really does not matter if he tattooed such an agreement on his butt and whistled the "battle hymn of the republic" while he signed it with the congress standing in a circle clapping.

Congress was required to vote Yes or No?

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, says "Congress shall have power... to declare war."

No war has been declared. Congress has not excercised its power to declared war. Ron Paul, the republican congressman from the 14th district of Texas, agrees. Ron Paul's Comments.

As you expected with the vote on judges, all that was required is a simple yes or no vote. Unlike the vote on judges, the congressional approval for war is a constitutional requirement and congress lacks the constitutional authority to abdicated power to anyone else. Why are you silent on this issue?

The vote on judges is light and transient compared to putting peoples lives on the line. I would have just liked to have seen the same constitutional fervor you are exhibiting over patronage jobs for these judges at the time war was not declared.

Where in the heck were you then? I know, practicing your double standard someplace else.
.