I base that comment on the use of activist judges in undermining the will of the people. The way the left (Democrat Senators) desire to block every judicial appointee that doesn’t agree with their agenda from a Senate Vote is pathetic! They really don’t need to win elections with their legal lap dogs sitting on the bench.
I also think that this lack of respect for the will of the people is why the Democrats are continually losing elections. Ultimately, they will lose the power to block appointees in the Senate. I also think that would be tragic for our country. A "Loyal" minority is vital to our system. The president deserves, no matter which party he represents, at the very least and up or down vote on his judicial appointments.
I have a question for you Zed, how can you continue to support a party that has been on the wrong side in fighting the two greatest evils in our lifetimes, Communism and Islamic Fascism? Not to mention a party that would turn their backs on Israel in a Heart Beat?
Listening to the responses of Nancy Pelosi, Senator Reid, Ron (not junior) Reagan, Chris Matthews, and the worst, Dan Rather last night, it just has to resonate with the American people just how "Anti-Everything-American" these sorry asses are, and how they ache for Bush and America to fail. Look for the off year elections to displace large numbers of democrat incumbents. And watch a shitload of them support Bush’s agenda in order to save their seats.
Bush kicked ass and took no prisoners last night, calling out Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and all but calling for an outright revolution in Iran! He revealed what nobody wants to hear about Social Security with facts, suggested a solution and Senator Reid has the audacity and arrogance to say "We won't accept anything from Bush concerning Social Security! Here's a prediction for you, a whole shitload of Democratic Senators will, to protect their fucking jobs! Most likely even Hillary Clinton, not to protect her job, but because she is smarter than about 85% of the Democratic Senators now in office, fuck Barbara Boxer makes her look like fucking Einstein!
Once again Zed, how can you support a party whose leadership has the type of retirement security Bush is suggesting, and they think you are too fucking dumb to manage it for yourself?
For the life of me, I cannot understand how any thinking Jew in this Country could be a member of the Democratic Party!
P.S. My vote is down for fucking with the Constitution!
Geez, maybe we should have a one party system, appoint GWB King George the Second, and live happily ever after...
... it's good advice that you gave me earlier. Go outside & take a walk and things will feol better when you come in.
All the best today. Harry
I'm not really sure that you want the Democrats to treat the President's judicial nominees the way they treated Clinton's. During W's first term 219 out of his 229 nominees were approved. The only ones that were rejected were the most radical right wingers, you know the activists. During Clinton's second term when Republicans controlled the Congress, 35 percent of his appeals court nominees wre rejected without even receiving a vote. Some Clinton-nominated judges waited as long as four years without receiving a hearing.
Your complaints about activist judges are a bit hollow when you consider that more than 60 percent of all federal judges including the majority of judges in 11 of the 13 federal District Courts and seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents. And don't forget that is was only because of the activist judges on the Supreme Court and their creative interpretation of the 14th Amendment that Bush accidentially became President.
"activist judges" into interesting perspective.
Tusayan claims that the "only ones that were rejected were the most radical right wingers, you know the activists."
Actually, they were not rejected. Votes on their nominations were blocked by filibuster, with virtually everyone agreeing that they would have been confirmed --- albeit by thin margins --- had a vote been held.
That was a mistake. Of course, it's just a lie when you misrepresent the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore. But if you don't understand it by now, there's no use trying to explain it to you. AGAIN.
You're correct that Democrats filibustered to defeat the 10 radical Bush nominees by not bringing the nominations to a vote, the same tactic used by the Republicans to stop Clinton's nominees. I'll stand by by argument that these nominees were rejected by the Democrats and as a result by the Senate, regardless of the methods used.
I guess I am a little bit slow (a liberal after all, so you understand) but maybe you can explain the correctness of the decision in Bush v. Gore for us.
Republicans did not filibuster Clinton's radical nominees. They did not move them along in the process. There's a difference.
As for Bush v. Gore, the issue was Democrats who want to count, recount, apply different standards, and divine voter intent (with the "right" people, i.e., Democrats, doin' the divinin')from incompetently completed ballots until they obtain their partisanly desired result, the same strategy followed to obtain the desired result in the Washington gubernatorial race this year. Bush v. Gore stopped an obviously corrupt and partisan Florida Supreme Court from permitting changes in election law after election day.
It once again demonstates the corruption of the far Left, which fails to understand that the Constitution mainly protects process, rather than guarantees outcomes.
and it has been properly used as such in the case of these judges, who were nominated strictly on their ideology, rather than competence.
Fillibuster is a tool designed to get the majority to work WITH the substantial minority, rather than impose it's will on them. If Bush recognized this, he would compromize and work WITH the opposition party, as only EXTREMIST positions are unable to overcome fillibusters.
As a citizen of Massachusetts, I refer you to Brown Vs. Board of Education in Kansas. I am absolutely sure that the majority of the citizens in that state were on the side of Board of Education in that segregation was the correct thing to have.
Does that mean that since a majority of the public wanted segregation, the judges should not have made the decision that they made?
If you follow the law of the constitution, and read it literally, there is no ban for same-sex marriage, therefore same-sex marriage is perfectly legal in this state. A strict constitutionalist would agree with this. A Neocon or religious conservative of course disagrees with that decision not based on constitutional law, but on religious beliefs, which have no place in secular law.
might well say that there is no provision associated wth marriage in the document. Gay marriage, therefore, is a states right issue. However, the question arises, if a marriage is legal in one state, yet not in another, what happens when the "happy couple" cross state lines? Does the marriage become null & void?
According, again, to the constitution, states must recognize the soveriegnty of each other's laws. The Federal government jumps in to settle disputes between states.
A "strict" constitutionist might well argue that some of the basic "rights" (as in Roe v. Wade) are not guaranteed in the constitution. The decision about womens choice was an admitted broadening of the meaning, as is the sacred "seperation of church and state" that so many protest about.
Essentially what is happeneing is the judiciary is expanding it's power base (you can call them activist judges if you choose), beyond the original philosphical expectations of the court system. The original Supreme Court was anticipated to meet for short terms and deal primarily with minor disputes between states, as well as a legal overseer for the fledgling nation. The original court was seen as the least important of the three branches of government.