Republican Senators May 'Go Nuclear' 323
expriest writes "In an attempt to confirm Bush's most conservative nominees to the federal bench, Senate Republican leaders are considering a nuclear option. Under this procedure, the person chairing the Senate rules that filibusters of judicial nominations are unconstitutional. Republicans claim a simple majority (51 senators) would be all that is necessary to uphold this ruling, and therefore give them the power to confirm judges. The problem with this procedure, however, is that the Supreme Court could still overrule the Senate, and the status of the then improperly confirmed judges would be unknown."
Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hispanic community (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sort of like Republicans and Clarence Thomas-- the Democrats can't fight his appointment without losing face, because he's black, even though underneath the skin he's about as conservative as your average white CEO.
Sneaky thing, that. And if you don't think the Republicans wanted that Hispanic judge so they could push the issue in the first place, you're pretty naive.
Re:At least it's evidence... (Score:3, Interesting)
What ever you think of same sex marriages, this is the wrong way to fight the battle. FUD on a political scale. I haven't investigated the story in any further detail, but in the interview with the lead of the "Family Rights" group, he was very open about the fact that the reason that he was starting the recall was because of the judge's decision. FUD! FUD! FUD! The next judge will think twice, not wanting to deal with a recall, before weighing an opinion or decision against this group. THIS BREAKS our checks and balance system.
Stacking the courts in a sneaky way is not new in our political system. Yes, it is questionable, but this group of Senators aren't the first to try it. The interesting thing about it, though, is they wouldn't be trying so hard now if they thought that Pres. Bush would be the Pres. for another term and that they would remain the majority in the Senate. Not exactly a vote of confidence.
Re:Simple solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it worth it? (Score:1, Interesting)
I think the main problem we have here is the judicial side of the house is getting too powerful. Look at Massachusettes for example, Gay marriages did not come due to any Legislative process, rather it came because the judges decided it should be so.
What I would like to see is less power for judges to "write" their own laws through edict. I'd like to see more of judges applying the law rather then deciding they don't like the law that was created by the representatives we elected. Additionally, a clear method of removal of judges from the lowest level up to the Supreme court via super-majority initiative vote should also be established. By doing this, it makes it less of a threat when an "extreme" judge is put in place. If they are causing a problem then kick them off the bench!
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
The Republicans realize that in todays society, that laws made by the states that limit peoples rights or take them away, are eventually going to go to court. If the Republicans stack the federal judges and supreme court with thier judges then suddenly they can take away people rights and the federal judges and supreme court with do nothing about it. The Democrates realize this too, which is why there is so much filubustering going on from BOTH sides.
The reality is that states should only be adding rights to people not taking them away. Also the states should be protecting the minority from the majority.
My problem with Republicans today is that they are more interested in using religion to justify hate and distruction of the environment. In 21 states it is unhealthy to eat the fish, because of the mercury levels. Bill Clinton was tring to pass an environment law ( which takes about 8 years to do ) to prevent the factories that dump mercury into the water supplies from doing this. This law ended up on GWB desk and he tossed it aside. If you live in one of those states then I hope you don't like fish or don't eat the fish from your state! This is just one example of what our Senators and Reps are doing to f*** over the common man ( me and you ) so that they can make more money.
Personally I hate both parties, however I see democrates as the lessor of two evils, but on some things I agree with the republicans thus I'm a registered independant.
Re:I don't accept your premises... (Score:3, Interesting)
I will agree that the economy could be worse, could be better, may not be bush's fault. He just hasn't shown any particular leadership in dealing w/ it. OK fair enough, i don't know what to do about it either.
The civil liberties is a big problem. I didn't say they all vanished overnight but they are going. The big problem w/ the patriot act was that it took away some of the checks and balances. It gave the "man on the ground" alot more power to decide if something needed to be done. Alot of these things could be done w/o judicial oversight. That is the main problem. The judicial oversight is necessary. You can't have the cop or fbi agent that is personally involved in a case making the judgement calls on civil liberties. This is why we ahve a judicial oversight, an impartial observer who is supposed to error on the side of personal liberties. (better to have 9 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man convicted and all that).
Bush was directly responsible for some of this. Well, let's say the Bush administration was. I was very happy when the supreme court finally told him that there is no way he can hold citizens w/o a phone call or a lawyer. (gitmo anyone)
Ack. there are plenty, the librarian not allowed to tell the patrons that she gave up their borrowing records. Anyway, we can debate that more if you wish. That right there is enough for me to vote against this administration though.
On to the war. I do agree that Clinton had no real opportunity to mount a real attack w/o an untenable amount of international backlash. We were attacked and we leveled Afganistan for it. This was expected. But we are still there and it is still a quagmire.
Around here is where I start really disagreeing w/ you though.
I do not in any way believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11 (nor has President Bush or his administration ever said so).
That is just not true. Where were you when the administration was presenting the "evidence" linking bin Laden to hussein. All the hubbub about Iraq sponsoring terrorist camps. The administration did it's damndest to show us that Iraq was the big problem and we had to do something about it. which brings us to:
he was a force of instability in a dangerously unstable region. He, like the Taliban, thumbed his nose at the international community and its very legitimate responses to his past and on-going horrific actions. His army routinely fired on United States pilots patrolling the No-Fly zones imposed by the United Nations itself.
OK, they fired upon planes dropping bombs on them. That isn't exactly surpising. He may have been a threat 10 years ago before we bombed him back to the 19th century and then blockaded him for the next 10 years. Iraq was not a threat. Iraq was a poster child for not fucking w/ the UN. But the Bush administration stood and led us to war. Powell was in front of the UN making his case w/ 27 8x10 glossy photographs and the president assured us there was not only weapons of mass destruction but the means to get them here.
None of this was true. He may have been looking to get them. He may have wanted them. But when "everybody said no, let's try diplomacy" it was largely b/c he wasn't a threat yet. Diplomacy didn't "not work", it was still going. That was the main EU objection to the war, There was no pressing issue demanding it. Other than bush.
I do not agree that there was any real danger in other countries following saddam's defiant stance. Iraq had been effectively cut off from the international community. He was chastized and his country suffered for it. I see nobody that could have looked at teh state of Iraq (pre-war) and think "Gee he really got away w/ it".
You speak of Bush's determination. I'll give you determination, stubborn, bullheaded determination. He decided he wanted a war and went for it. One of the big problems w/ that is... he didn't put nearly as much pla
Re:At least it's evidence... (Score:3, Interesting)
Which, btw, is exactly what happened here in Seattle. The County Commissioner (marriage licenses in Washington state are issued by the county, not the city) arranged to have a few carefully chosen gay and lesbian couples sue him for refusing to issue them marriage licenses. Then he gave a speech about how he thought that it was a very important civil rights issue, and he hoped that he lost, but that he was obligated to follow the law.
He took a lot of flak for that at the time from gay rights activists, but in retrospect they've very happy he did it that way, since they've been winning the court cases so far. (Still a long way to go before anything is settled of course.) Pretty amazing that he stuck to his guns, considering he's running for governor.
Re:Says who? (Score:2, Interesting)