Boxer on confirming judges - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-22-2005, 03:41 PM   #1
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Boxer on confirming judges

OK it's been a nice break from politics on this board but unfortunately that's what I like to discuss!
This is my representative in the US Senate, at a MoveOn.org rally, appalling me with her cluelessness and political pandering which she isn't even good at.
I'll critique her statement point by point and you can feel free to rebut me

Barbara Boxer: "Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to 200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote?"

Are you playing the class warfare card, Barbara? What does salary have to do with the constitutional procedure of judicial confirmations? Weak, Sen. Boxer.



Barbara Boxer: "So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask. For such a super-important position, there ought to be a super vote, don't you think so?"

Think we ought to? Isn't too much to ask? Don't you think so?
If this isn't trampling the Constitution, nothing is, Barbara. The Constitution provides for a simple majority, 51 votes, end of story.



Barbara Boxer:"It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life."

Barbara, unless you're really, really stupid, you know full well that Constitutional checks and balances are not for one party keeping the other party in check. They are for the three branches of government to keep each other in check. It's not about the Democrats having a say and it's not supposed to. If they want a say, they can elect more senators.

Barbara Boxer:"They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary. "

Scary? Why is the Constitutional provision for lifelong appointment of judges scary? It is what it is: Part of the system of checks and balances. it's that way for good reason, Sen. Boxer. You and I learned that in the 6th grade. It's only scary to you because you're out of power.

Is Sen. Boxer stupid, ignorant, or just a bad politician? Or does she just think we're all stupid? Or are MoveOn.org supporters stupid?

Am I stupid for this critique?
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 03:46 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:13 PM
I find it interesting that Democrats here are criticizing the lifetime appointment of judges. That's because Republicans have currently been assaulting judicial independence by labelling every judge that disagrees with them as "activist judges."

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 03:48 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Re: Boxer on confirming judges

Quote:
Originally posted by drhark


Am I stupid for this critique?

I can not conclude that.


But I can conclude that you are bias and wrote a poor portrayal of how the system works and has worked in the past.
It sounds like something I could hear from a caller on Hannity or Limbaugh’s program.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 03:56 PM   #4
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Re: Re: Boxer on confirming judges

Quote:
Originally posted by deep



I can not conclude that.


But I can conclude that you are bias and wrote a poor portrayal of how the system works and has worked in the past.
It sounds like something I could hear from a caller on Hannity or Limbaugh’s program.
Of course I'm biased. It sounds like you're acusing me of ignorance. Please explain and in the meantime I'll check my copy of the Constitution to see if I missed something.

Also please explain how Sen. Boxer's comments are not ignorant, as she is the elected official and not me.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 04:03 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:13 PM
What is the context of her statements? It appears she wants to change the confirmation requirement for judicial appointments.

Boxer knows her seat is safe for a while, so she is free to challenge the checks and balances of other positions.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 04:44 PM   #6
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:13 PM
All I see is bits and pieces, no context and your biased accusations of cluelessness and ignorance.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-22-2005, 06:12 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:13 PM
Re: Re: Re: Boxer on confirming judges

Quote:
Originally posted by drhark


Of course I'm biased.
It sounds like you're acusing me of ignorance. Please explain and in the meantime I'll check my copy of the Constitution to see if I missed something.



The GOP played hardball on appointments in the 90s with Clinton.

Clinton appointees were held up and not permitted to go for an up or down vote when the Democrats controlled the Senate in the 90s.

The nuclear option was not considered then by Clinton and the Dems. They had vacancies or they compromised.

Bush should do the same.

and stop appointing klan sympathisers
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 06:21 PM   #8
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:13 PM
The GOP held up 60 Clinton judge appointees, while the Democrats have held up maybe 10, at most.

It's about as hypocritical as Bush pushing to save Terri Shiavo, but signing a bill as Texas governor that allows the state to unplug any "hopeless case" they want without their guardian's consent.

Maybe a month or two ago, this happened to a Texas woman whose child was born with severe birth defects that are always fatal and unrecoverable. She, like Terri's parents, believed her baby could get better, even though the science, in both cases, says otherwise. But that Texas law meant the child could and was unplugged. I most always err on the side of science, so I'm not saying he shouldn't have been unplugged. I just can't stand hypocrites--and the GOP is a party full of them.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 08:23 PM   #9
Refugee
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Denver,CO
Posts: 1,388
Local Time: 02:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The GOP held up 60 Clinton judge appointees, while the Democrats have held up maybe 10, at most.
Under President Bush, 201 federal judges were approved. Ten others were blocked by Democrats. But for the GOP and their emboldened social conservative wing, that’s ten too many.

The percent of federal judicial nominees confirmed under Jimmy Carter was 93 percent; under Ronald Reagan(*2 terms*), 89 percent; under George H.W. Bush, 78 percent; under Bill Clinton (*2 terms*), 74 percent; and in President Bush’s first term it was 69 percent, according to Lott’s research.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in656324.shtml

For arguing the letter of the law debate, what is your feeling on Senate rules regarding filibuster? I think the GOP changes the rules when they don't like the results. "No where in the constitution does it allow a woman a right to choose to have an abortion, but we should add language to stipulate a specific definition of marriage."
__________________
cmb737 is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 09:53 PM   #10
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
All I see is bits and pieces, no context and your biased accusations of cluelessness and ignorance.
I'll put it all together for you, unedited. This is a soundbyte from a recent MoveOn.org rally. The context is within the current Senate battle over judicial confirmations. The 45 or so Democrats don't have the votes (51) to deny confirmation so they invoke the filibuster which doesn't allow the vote to even come to the floor. The filibuster has never been used in the history of the US to deny a vote on judicial nominees. The filibuster can be broken with a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. The Rebublicans are debating whether or not to use the so called "nuclear option" which would clarify the Senate rules to disallow filibustering on judicial nominees.

Sen. Barbara Boxer"Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to 200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote? So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask. For such a super-important position, there ought to be a super vote, don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary."
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-23-2005, 11:29 AM   #11
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 03:13 PM
Well I don't see it as "trampling" over the constitution. Let's see how or if the filibuster takes place. Come on, filibusters have been used throughout history, just because it hasn't been used for an appointment of a judge doesn't make it unconstitutional.

And for the record lifetime appointment is scary for any judge and there isn't enough check and balance for them. But as a Senator she should already know that.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 03-23-2005, 11:59 AM   #12
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The GOP held up 60 Clinton judge appointees, while the Democrats have held up maybe 10, at most.
I don't see it as a matter of who held up how many of which president's nominees. It's a function of who controls the Senate at any given time. If the people elect a majority of one party to the Senate, that party will have more power over confirmations. The greater the majority, the more the power. Democrats are currently in the minority so unless they can convince some Republicans that certain judges are not fit to serve, 100% of Bush's nominees should be brought to a vote and 100% should be confirmed with the simple majority vote. The President was given the power to appoint judges, the Senate the power to advise and consent.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
It's about as hypocritical as Bush pushing to save Terri Shiavo, but signing a bill as Texas governor that allows the state to unplug any "hopeless case" they want without their guardian's consent.

Maybe a month or two ago, this happened to a Texas woman whose child was born with severe birth defects that are always fatal and unrecoverable. She, like Terri's parents, believed her baby could get better, even though the science, in both cases, says otherwise. But that Texas law meant the child could and was unplugged. I most always err on the side of science, so I'm not saying he shouldn't have been unplugged. I just can't stand hypocrites--and the GOP is a party full of them.

Melon
Unplug what? Feeding tube? or assisted breathing machine? kidney dialysis? there's a difference. The Schiavo case is off topic for this thread and a very difficult case. I don't feel like I know all the facts from either side but I do know that her two parents and brother and sister want to care for her so they should be given that right as opposed to hearsay evidence by the husband, who is only her husband in the legal sense. Nobody blames him for starting another relationship but if he wanted that he should have given Terri to her parents. If she's truly in a strictly vegetative state she's not thinking or feeling anyway so why the push to "let her go?" Something doesn't add up.

Please don't reply to these comments in this thread as it is off topic.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-23-2005, 12:04 PM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark
I don't see it as a matter of who held up how many of which president's nominees. It's a function of who controls the Senate at any given time. If the people elect a majority of one party to the Senate, that party will have more power over confirmations. The greater the majority, the more the power. Democrats are currently in the minority so unless they can convince some Republicans that certain judges are not fit to serve, 100% of Bush's nominees should be brought to a vote and 100% should be confirmed with the simple majority vote. The President was given the power to appoint judges, the Senate the power to advise and consent.
Then maybe Bush should stop appointing fascists. The filibuster is to prevent extremists from being appointed by "the majority."

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 03-23-2005, 12:24 PM   #14
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by cmb737


For arguing the letter of the law debate, what is your feeling on Senate rules regarding filibuster? I think the GOP changes the rules when they don't like the results. "No where in the constitution does it allow a woman a right to choose to have an abortion, but we should add language to stipulate a specific definition of marriage."
Nothing wrong with changing the rules if the votes are there. Senators or political parties doing anything egregious against the will of the people will be held accountable.

The Democrats didn't change the "rules" by filibustering nominees, (because it was an unwritten rule); they only broke with 200 years of tradition. That's fine, Tom Daschle was held accountable by the people.

If the GOP wants to change the Senate rules, or basically clarify the unwritten rule that filibusters are not allowed on judicial nominees, that's fine if they have the votes and the will to do it. Changing Senate procedures is not changing the Constitution, or as another (completely out of line) Democratic Senator Shumer put it: giving the "rubber stamp of dictatorship". Ridiculous. It's called majority rules. Live with it. The beautiful thing about this country is that every two years the people have the opportunity to change their government.

Sorry to single out Sen. Boxer but I've heard so many whiny over the top statements lately from the likes of Byrd, Kennedy, Corzine et. al. regarding these judicial nominees I felt this subject deserved a post.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 03-23-2005, 12:27 PM   #15
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 09:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Then maybe Bush should stop appointing fascists. The filibuster is to prevent extremists from being appointed by "the majority."

Melon
If you want to start with the ridiculous labels, (we should be beyond that) then I'll say that we need some more "fascists" to balance out the "communists".
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com