Ah, how easily one can validate the idea of depriving people the right to appointments based on personal beliefs. If someone was denied a federal judge position because they were gay, there'd be hell to pay. If you are an evangelical Christian, though, you aren't worthy.

"Collegial commission" my ass. Liberals are all about the Constitution until it grants power to people they despise. Then to hell with it, lets rewrite. Gah, I'm sick of this hypocritical junk. If you want to deny people positions because of their personal beliefs, I suggest you NEVER take the high road around here again.

Moreover, it is ironic that lifetime appointments of a radical nature should not require a super majority when the Republicans perceive the courts as “legislators” indifferent to preferences of the “mainstream.”

Moreover judical nominees have never been required to have a "super majority" to be confirmed. And since GW was "voted" back into office, how do "you" figure that we don't know what the preferences of the "mainstream" are?

"...how do "you" figure that we don't know what the preferences of the "mainstream" are?"

Oh, didn't you know? Numbers are swell as long as they favor the opinion of anyone opposing a Republican. It's a new era of urban tyranny. Folks like steve have been bitten by the electoral college now. They demand mob rules as long as they are the mob.

Asinine that someone would count all Democrats constituants as opposing pro-Life appointees, but then what do you expect. What do you bet if someone suggested a referendum Steve would pop a gasket...

Oh puhleaaase!

Your party got beat at it's own game. Learn to live with it.

Frankly, regardless of who is in the White House, I'm against presidential nominees of federal judges.

Well, until & unless the Constitution is amended, you'd best get used to the idea, stevendedalus - didn't seem to bother Democrats when Roosevelt was "packing the Court" as I recall. And kudos to BakerStreet - that Steve doesn't see the irony in his charge of hypocrisy is apparent. Funny/sad how some on the left are so quick to abandon the Constitution when it suits them.

Frankly, I'm disgusted with the Republicans, too, but for "crafting" this silly "compromise" BS - really no compromise at all, just completely caving in to childish foot-stomping. All judge nominees should get a vote, but the Democrats don't have the guts to simply vote yea or nay, especially when the nominee is a woman, black or both, or, God forbid, disagrees with them on principle. They're such chicken-shit cowards they need the cover of this "compromise" to cast a yea vote, so they can explain it away later by claiming they had no choice, if political expediency demands it, or proudly claim credit for "keeping the promise" to blacks, women, whatever, should the political winds be blowing the other way. What pure unadulterated horseshit. They have their heads deeper in the sand than even I imagined. And to call these nominees "radical" is to simply parrot the party-line without bothering to learn the truth. They are anything but "radical" - Abbey Hoffman was a radical, not these judges.

Frist should just play the trump card & get it over with. Go nuclear, if you want to call it that (which is a silly characterization), no matter what John McCain says. And the arrogant SOB's like Harry Reid should be flogged for insulting us with all that "comity of the Senate" bullshit.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Whenever a democrat or a liberal posts anything, anything at all, the rightie nutjobs come out like pigs at a trough.

In fact, the repigs in Congress set themselves up for failure. They were damned if they "succeeded" and they were damned if they lost. Repigs have always been the biggest users of the filibuster provisions. But, they have become greedier than greedy. So, if they won, they would have eventually shot themselves in their proverbial foot, for obvious reasons. But, if I understand correctly, that option is still available to them, anyway. Kapowwwwwww!!!!

But, more to today's point, they lost. Does my heart good to see them lose at something. But, in fact, they didn't really lose. They....... oh no....... compromised (otherwise deemed a failure by the repigs) Anyway, now their repig supporters are foaming because their beloved greedy neocons have "caved". Life is good.

"Collegial commission" my ass. Liberals are all about the Constitution until it grants power to people they despise. Then to hell with it, lets rewrite. Gah, I'm sick of this hypocritical junk. If you want to deny people positions because of their personal beliefs, I suggest you NEVER take the high road around here again.

If that was such a great idea, why was it not proposed during the 8 years of clinton's terror , errr reign?

Me thinks Liberals are acting like spoiled brats, and want to take their marbles home now that someone else is winning more of them.

Reply By: dabe

Notice that the responses were civil until you showed up.  You are like Pigpen, leaving a cloud of dirt where ever you set type to screen.  You really are pathetic.  I would say another Peter Maxwell, but you have no where near his intelligence or wit.

Oh puhleaaase! Your party got beat at it's own game. Learn to live with it.

Oh please my butt. We got beat at "nothing"! We gave in but the nuke option is "still" there!

<.stupid double post.

I think BOTH parties are behaving like rotten spoiled children, period, the right behaving as bullies, making threats and the left behaving like the one child on the field that plays bad ball, but owns the ball and threatens to go home with his ball.

the entire senate should be ashamed.

I agree doc there is no civil discourse once dabe shows up.

"Collegial commission" my ass. Liberals are all about the Constitution until it grants power to people they despise. Then to hell with it, lets rewrite. Gah, I'm sick of this hypocritical junk. If you want to deny people positions because of their personal beliefs, I suggest you NEVER take the high road around here again.

This is civil?

I agree doc there is no civil discourse once dabe shows up.

Oh? Only Dabe and I are subversive?

Reply By: stevendedalusPosted: Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Oh? Only Dabe and I are subversive?

Did I mention your name steven??? no.....You are at least capable of having rational discourse wittout resorting to name calling.

do not read what is not there ok?

Sorry if I wasn't civil. I just get hives when people who wave the Constitution like a flag when it suits them abandon it when it cuts into their power. Lose an election? The electoral college must go. Need judges? Pfft, can't let the president appoint them, that would be that scary "checks and balances" stuff. Much better to create some comittee we can stuff covertly and let THEM decide who will appoint people to make life and death decisions...

Interesting article Stevendalus.

The major problem here though is, the Senate does not represent the people it represents the states, so your assertion that the 55 Republicans represent 30 million fewer constituents is wrong from the get go. Also, judges aren't supposed to be Legislators, but the actions of judges lately do seem to blur that line a lot.

The most interesting idea in your article is the "collegial commision on legal matters". While there is no Constitutional backing on the idea, it is food for thought on the subject.

To me, the problems with the system aren't that it isn't working in itself, but the players are forgetting (or trying to hedge) their parts in it. The Senate does not get to decide who should be nominated and who shouldn't, their role is to either agree or disagree with the president's choice. On the other hand, the president doesn't have the authority to tell senators how they will vote. The political parties should have no say whatsoever... but changing the House and Senate rules to change the focus from party, back to The People and The States respectively is a whole different problem.