Boxer on confirming judges

[drhark]

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?

 

[melon]

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

 

[deep]

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.

 

[drhark]

Re: Re: Boxer on confirming judges

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.

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[BVS]

All I see is bits and pieces, no context and your biased accusations of cluelessness and ignorance.

 

[deep]

Re: Re: Re: Boxer on confirming judges

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

 

[melon]

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

 

[cmb737]

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/2004/11/17/politics/main656324.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."

 

[drhark]

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."

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[drhark]

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.

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.

 

[melon]

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

 

[drhark]

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]

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".

 

[Irvine511]

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.

oh?

as always, The Simpsons has some wisdom to share, and while this isn't about Senate procedures, it is about the danger of changing the rules just because we can:



Lyrics for "Amendment-to-Be" (with Jack Sheldon, Pamela Hayden, and Harry Shearer)

Boy: [spoken] Hey, who left all this garbage lying on the steps of Congress?

Amendment: [spoken] I'm not garbage.

I'm an amendment to be
Yes, an amendment to be
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me
There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom
I wanna make it legal
For policemen
To beat 'em
'Cause there's limits to our liberties
'Least I hope and pray that there are
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

Boy: [spoken] But why can't we just make a law against flag burning?

Amendment: [spoken] Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we _changed_ the Constitution...

Boy: [spoken] Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!

Amendment: [spoken] Now you're catching on!

Boy: [spoken] But what if they say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution?

Amendment: Then I'll destroy all opposition to me
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay
If he fights back
I'll say that he's gay

Big Fat Guy: [running up] Good news, Amendment! They ratified 'ya. You're in the U.S. Constitution!

Amendment: Oh, yeah! Door's open, boys!
[many bills and amendments run in, guns a-shooting and bombs a-flying]

 

[A_Wanderer]

Amendment: Then I'll destroy all opposition to me
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay
If he fights back
I'll say that he's gay

That line is just hilarious. Just the drawn out gaaaay.

 

[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".

"Fascist" is probably inaccurate. They're more like "Christian mullahs."

Melon

 

[drhark]

"Fascist" is probably inaccurate. They're more like "Christian mullahs."

Melon

except, of course, the ones that aren't Christian.


BTW, I like the Simpsons too and it's a cute little jingle, but I believe lawmakers do take something like a Constitutional Amandment seriously, and if it ever got close to passing one, elected representatives know their ass would be on the line and would not pass it if a strong majority of the people were not behind it.

If the Constitution need changing, I prefer this method where I have some say as opposed to an unelected judge writing things into it that aren't there.

 

[melon]

except, of course, the ones that aren't Christian.

Does Bush appoint *anyone* who isn't an extremist Christian mullah?

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

Does Bush appoint *anyone* who isn't an extremist Christian mullah?

Melon

great point. it's been through judicial nominations that Bush has most been able to repay the far Christian Right, since things like the illegalization of abortion and the passage of the FMA aren't going to happen anytime soon. they demand payback for giving him 2 election victories, and this is the best way to go about it since it's much more under the radar than legislation.

you think you've got "activist" judges now? wait until these people climb up onto the bench.

 

[deep]

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.

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: The Senate rules, wait, I have to answer that. The Senate rules say you need a two-thirds vote to change the Senate rules. That wasn't just an arbitrary number. It's because the Senate is supposed to work by comity. You're supposed to have Democrats and Republicans working together; that's why the two-thirds was chosen.

 

[deep]

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER: Yeah. The bottom line is the judges we have blocked want to turn the clock back. They don't want to be narrow interpretation of the law. Their view of narrow interpretation of the law is to turn the clock back to the 1890s.

One of the judges that they nominated said, "God's gift to white people was slavery." A judge they nominated said the purpose of a man is to be subjugated to a woman. A judge we blocked, we blocked those two. A judge they nominated said there should be no zoning laws. If someone wanted to build a factory right next to your home, that's a taking of property. And a final one said there should be no labor laws, no minimum wage, no wages and hours, no worker protection laws, because those were all takings, unconstitutional takings.

The people we have blocked are extremists, and if they were to go forward, the America we know, the changes we have made to making America a more fair and humane place, would be gone; and we'd go back to the 1890s where those who had the power got their way completely. They can't do it in the Congress. They can't even do it when they elect a president. So they're trying in the courts. It's our job to block them.

Sessions and Shumer

 

[drhark]

See, this is what I'm talking about. We want to turn the clock back to the 1890s? Why should I believe anything that comes out of this guy's mouth? Enough with the over the top rhetoric already.


As long as we're quoting Schumer, here's more histrionics:

SEN CHARLES SCHUMER:
When I first started the campaign to keep right-wing judges off our federal courts, my friend Sen. John McCain came to me and said, "Chuck, I say this to you as a friend, not as a Republican or a conservative: Don't do this. When the right wing wants something, they will make your life miserable. Look at what they did to me in the South Carolina primary."
They forgot one thing, though. I'm from Brooklyn, and I love a fight.

Let the Senate Democrats know that they're not fighting George Bush and the reckless right wing of the Republican Party alone. Join us in this fight by signing our new petition today.

I will fight judges who pose a threat to our fundamental constitutional rights -- civil rights, women’s rights, labor rights, our right to a clean environment, and our right to basic civil liberties.
On Wednesday, a number of Senate Democrats, including me, spoke at a MoveOn PAC rally where hundreds of people gave up their lunch hour to join our efforts to stop George Bush's court-packing scheme. They are ready to join our fight against right-wing judges and I know you are too.

The radical right wing of the Republican Party thinks that their razor-thin election victory entitles them to a broad mandate. They want an America where the powerful get whatever they want and no one else has any rights. They are wrong.

The Senate Democrats are the last line of defense against their efforts to change the way America works. We have blocked their judges before and we won't let them succeed this time.

That's why the reckless right wing of the Republican Party is willing to resort to the so-called "nuclear option" -- another name for procedural tricks designed to prevent us from opposing their radical agenda. They are ready to turn the Senate -- what the founding fathers once called "the cooling saucer of democracy" -- into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. We won't let them wash away 200 years of checks and balances and you can be certain that we won't let them pack our courts with reactionary right-wing judges.
Join our fight today!

Reckless right-wing Republicans are willing to change the rules just because they don't like the score. We need your help today to protect our constitutional rights and to uphold our 200-year-old tradition of checks and balances.
Sincerely,

Senator Charles E. Schumer
Chairman, DSCC

I like this one:
"I will fight judges who pose a threat to our fundamental constitutional rights -- civil rights, women’s rights, labor rights, our right to a clean environment, and our right to basic civil liberties."
As if the constitution says anything about labor rights, rights to a clean environment, or a right to privacy (which he means when he says women's rights). I'm not saying there's no value in labor and environmental protections, they're just not rights guaranteed in the constitution.

I like this rhetoric too:
"On Wednesday, a number of Senate Democrats, including me, spoke at a MoveOn PAC rally where hundreds of people gave up their lunch hour to join our efforts to stop George Bush's court-packing scheme. They are ready to join our fight against right-wing judges and I know you are too. "

So now the executive responsibility of appointing federal judges is now a "court packing scheme". I see.

more:
"The radical right wing of the Republican Party thinks that their razor-thin election victory entitles them to a broad mandate. They want an America where the powerful get whatever they want and no one else has any rights. They are wrong."

Discussing the "radical" right wing with MoveOn.org. OK!

Razor thin election victory? Maybe the Bush victory, but not the 4 or 5 seats gained in the Senate, Chuck. You lost big time, you're in the minority, and that's why you're whining and making up BULLSHIT about no one having any rights.

And my favorite:
"That's why the reckless right wing of the Republican Party is willing to resort to the so-called "nuclear option" -- another name for procedural tricks designed to prevent us from opposing their radical agenda. They are ready to turn the Senate -- what the founding fathers once called "the cooling saucer of democracy" -- into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. We won't let them wash away 200 years of checks and balances and you can be certain that we won't let them pack our courts with reactionary right-wing judges. "

So the people elect a president and a Senate majority and that's what constitutes a dictatorship?

Who just washed away 200 years of non-filibustered Senate judicial confirmations?


Politicians suck. I'm sure there's plenty of Republican B.S. too but I think Bush hatred is fueling the production of huge steaming piles of BS from the Democrat side as of late.

 

[deep]

One of the judges that they nominated said,

"God's gift to white people was slavery."

A judge they nominated said the purpose of a man is to be subjugated to a woman.

A judge they nominated said there should be no zoning laws.
If someone wanted to build a factory right next to your home, that's a taking of property.

And a final one said there should be no labor laws, no minimum wage, no wages and hours, no worker protection laws, because those were all takings, unconstitutional takings.


Perhaps this appeals to you?

It does not appeal to me.

Keep blocking them!

 

[all_i_want]

if the responsibility of appointing federal judges is used to appoint right wingers exclusively, thats very much a scheme.

also, have you ever heard something called 'the tyranny of the majority'? if majority has the right to do whatever they want, including screwing over the minority, that is no democracy in my opinion

 

[drhark]

One of the judges that they nominated said,

"God's gift to white people was slavery."

Can you provide the name of this nominee, the complete quote, and the context?

If this is true, that nominee would not be able to garner 51 votes in the Senate. The system would work. No need to filibuster this guy.

That being said, how Robert Byrd keeps being elected is a mystery to me.

 

[drhark]

Did a MSN search on "God's gift to white people was slavery."

only 2 results, one was the Air America website.

I knew something was funny about this

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Gotta love Dr. Hark. Always stirring things up.

Have fun with all that, I'm going to enjoy this Frappacino.

 

[drhark]

I hereby extend this thread to commentary or criticism on any recent "heap of steaming B.S." quote from any politician.

If I feel statements are defensible, I will defend.