Pure Senate Comedy

[JMHX]

WASHINGTON - With humor, anger and a show of GOP unity, the Senate on Wednesday launched 30 hours of uninterrupted debate on President Bush (news - web sites)'s political nominees not making it to the federal appeals bench, setting up cots and preparing to cast blame at each other throughout the night.

Most of Republicans marched into the Senate together just before 6 p.m., sat down and listened to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., open the debate by condemning the filibusters.

"Tonight we embark upon an extraordinary session," Frist said. "For the next 30 hours Republicans and Democrats will debate the merits of three judicial nominees. We will be considering the meaning of our constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent on nominations. We will discuss whether there is a need to enact filibuster reform so that nominations taken to the floor can get a vote."

Democrats, some appearing amused by the pomp and circumstance, were already in the Senate chamber waiting for the beginning of the debates. The Senate had just finished a vote, and many of the GOP senators had to leave the chamber just to be in the group marching back in.

----

Oh, this may just be the greatest thing I've ever watched. I turned off the television about three hours ago, just turned it back on, and they're still going strong! I've never seen something as absolutely hilarious as Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, and Trent Lott pretending to argue with each other for the sake of continuing the filibuster while other senators recline on cots while eating sandwiches. Anyone else have similar views of the situation?

[karasz]

It's things like this that make me hate democracy.

30% of the US doesnt have health care and the Senate is filibustering over 4 fucking judicial nominations...

There are more important things than a judge that doesn't like abortion.

[JMHX]

At 11/13/03 10:36 AM, karasz wrote: It's things like this that make me hate democracy.

This is democracy in action, and I'm quite happy that it occured. Not so much that the appropriations bill was pushed to the side, but because all voices are heard. At once. It's loud.

There are more important things than a judge that doesn't like abortion.

Not when that judge issues the summary judgement against abortion and women are forced to be life support for the state.

[TimScheff]

At 11/13/03 10:36 AM, karasz wrote: It's things like this that make me hate democracy.

30% of the US doesnt have health care and the Senate is filibustering over 4 fucking judicial nominations...

There are more important things than a judge that doesn't like abortion.

You couldn't be more wrong about the purpose of these nominations. While people lacking healthcare is a serious problem, people tend to over look the importance of the judiciary. Plus the reasons for blocking the judges in question (Prior, Owens, Pickering) extend far beyond the issue of abortion. These judges have coninutally opposed civil rights, labor rights, and the environment. With these individuals being given the ability to decide cases for the rest of their lives, they have the capacity to do a tremendous amount of harm to a large number of individuals. Some highlights for each of them:

Owen
She delayed for over two years a ruling concerning a quadriplegic teenager who had been awarded $40 million in damages in his case against Ford Motor Company, leaving his destitute family unable to provide the specialized medical care he desperately needed. Her own colleagues were embarrassed by and apologized for the inexcusable delay. She eventually ruled on grounds neither briefed nor argued by any of the parties. While the case was pending, the plaintiff died for lack of care which the family could not afford. (http://www.nela.org/JudicialNominations/owen.htm)

Pryor
Mr. Pryor argued in amici briefs in Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey and Medical Board of California v. Hanson that Congress had exceeded its power under the Fourteenth Amendment by applying Title II of the ADA to state governments. Furthermore, Alabama was the only state to file an amicus brief in U.S. v. Morrison in support of the argument that Congress lacked the authority under the Commerce Clause to provide a civil remedy for sexual assault under the Violence Against Women Act. The attorneys general of 36 other states took the opposite position in the Supreme Court. (http://www.nela.org/JudicialNominations/pryor.htm)

Pickering
In 1993, Judge Pickering published an opinion that limited remedies for violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and characterized the "one person one vote" doctrine as "obtrusive". (http://capwiz.com/nela/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=3897521)

These are just small examples of why there is oppoistion to these judges. While all three are also opposed by pro-choice groups, this is not just a small issue. I'd really hate to see health care extended to all people only to have a judge like these stirke it down.

[blueloa13]

I'm just surprized the amount of Senators are actually are there. Usually when you turn on to C-SPAN or C-SPAN2, neither the senate or the house have over 20 or so members at any time. I'm actually glad that they have gotten together even if its for filibustering. Its nice but too bad its not for a better cuase (not saying this one is completely worthless).

[FUNKbrs]

Who else thinks the judiciary should have term limits like everyone else, let alone be elected? I bet weed would be legal by now if they were elected.....

[blueloa13]

At 11/13/03 01:14 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: Who else thinks the judiciary should have term limits like everyone else, let alone be elected? I bet weed would be legal by now if they were elected.....

I dont know about weed being legal by now, but i do think that the judiciary should both have a term limit and be elected. First of all becuase we do live in a democracy. and second becuase the same ideas wont get much accomplished. Having the same Supreme Court is like having the same President for so many years. It delays changes and becomes a dictatorship. Thats why i think that they should have term limits.

[karasz]

so Judge what you are saying is you support a lithmus test for judges based on politics and not based on them holding up the laws that are in place.

Abortion was just one of the issues. I know there are a bunch of issues that the dems dont like about these judges.

But either side holding the Senate up for 30 hours while other MORE IMPORTANT things are pushed away is horrible.

And yes these 4 judges will have real power... but the problem is the senate confirmed 168 judges...

so for 30 hours the senate is held up for 4 judges.... 7.5 hours per judge...

the senate gave themselves a pay-raise for doing their job... guess what THEY ARENT DOING THEIR JOB...

[Chaoslight]

At 11/13/03 10:36 AM, karasz wrote: It's things like this that make me hate democracy.

See below.

30% of the US doesnt have health care and the Senate is filibustering over 4 fucking judicial nominations...

...As well as the policies that keep 30% of Americans from having health care.
Less taxes = Less funding. Less funding = less social welfare such as health care.

There are more important things than a judge that doesn't like abortion.

<rant> Supreme court justices control every aspect of your life. Everything you do is affected by it. You can see what goes into your cheese dip because the supreme court decided that people have the right to know what they take into their bodies. You are free to hate the system because the Supreme court decided that freedom of speech does include speech against the government. This SITE is allowed because of a supreme court ruling. I can say that there is only ONE SMART SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, and he (Scalea) is a fasciest lunatic because of a supreme court ruling. As bad as our system is, it is the freest in the world.</rant>

There are more important issues then where a judge stands on abortion, but that's not the point. I can point to any ruing and say: "There are more important things to worry about then where they stand on that. It's what's known as an opinion. You might feel differently if you were a woman, and the government was reaching into your uterus and planting a flag there.

I knida got off on a tangent here, but the appointment of SCJ's is probably the single most important thing a president does while in office, and <opinion-rant>get ready, here comes an opinion* BUSH HAS FUCKED UP ROYALLY</opinion-rant>

Isn't freedom of speech fun?

[karasz]

Chaos, i read your post. Good points but here is my basic tenet for where i am on this issue. (also these arent supreme court justices just federal circuit judges)

But anyway, these judges aren't going to overturn abortion, they cant. Because just like the bill that Bush just signed into law about Partial-Birth Abortion it will not pass the Supreme Court, there is no clause for the mothers health. Its why others of the same belief didnt pass. And yes Clinton veteod the ones pertaining directly to partial birth abortion.

But still yes they will have powers, but nobody has gotten to the true underlying point of why i hate the filibustering:

4 judges... ISNT worth 30 hours of time that should be spent on more important things.

And just for the record i only chose abortion as the first thing that jumped into my head.

I am well aware that one of the judges was before this a lawyer and no one on the judicial committee knows where he stands on any issues, because he was a defense lawyer his job was to not lose the trial.

But yet 4 judges for the federal circuit courts are NOT more important than 30% of the US population... (90 million people) not having health care.

look its 30 hours of time that the Senate is wasting on something that wont even change. NOTHING NEW WILL HAPPEN after teh filibuster... cuz its not a filibuster there is nothing to filibust.... its the Senate Republicans yelling at the Senate Democrats for not giving Bush free reign on judicial nominees (but of course when clinton was in office senate repubs did the same thing, and senate dems did it to reagan and bush, and senate reps did it to carter and back and forth) its a joke...

instead of passing relatively important bills like medicare reform, or keeping social security from drying up in like 30 years, OR some sort of prescription drug plan so old people dont spend their social security on pills to stay alive and have to buy cat food to survive they can buy real food... but NO, they are wasting time on a uselesss practice in hopes of making the dems look bad... but the people that vote for dems arent going to mind they are stopping pro-life christian wingnuts... and people that vote reps wont mind that they are trying to make the dems looks bad

(if the roles were reversed the same thing would happen... the right would be happy that the reps are stopping pro-choice hippies, and the left happy they make the reps look bad...its all one big fucking cycle)

[Dagodevas]

[Tunes into C-SPAN 2]

Well, will you look at that.

[Commander-K25]

This is great. Go, Orrin Hatch, Go!

[heyitsjohn]

it is the republicans bitching. they control the government now, and were going down the toilet faster than a piece of shit. the repulicans want to protect thier interests by instituting republican judges, the democrats say no, and the only thing they can do is filibust to prevent the judges from being instated. the democrats dont want the judges in because they are nigh-incompetant. its foolish bickering between the two parties, nothing more. i find it disgraceful, but thats just me.

[Commander-K25]

At 11/13/03 09:16 PM, heyitsjohn wrote: it is the republicans bitching. they control the government now, and were going down the toilet faster than a piece of shit. the repulicans want to protect thier interests by instituting republican judges, the democrats say no, and the only thing they can do is filibust to prevent the judges from being instated.

Or maybe you're just bitching. Parties will of course nominate some of their own for positions. That's how politics works and the Democrats do just the same.

the democrats dont want the judges in because they are nigh-incompetant.

Anything to support that?

[JMHX]

At 11/13/03 09:16 PM, heyitsjohn wrote: the democrats dont want the judges in because they are nigh-incompetant.

The Democrats don't want the judges to be appointed because they were nominated because of their strong views towards using faith-based reasoning in judgements. As Bush said, he wanted "More like Scalia and Rehnquist." It's a simple equation: Republicans want to maintain power by appointing four Republican judges. Democrats say no. Republicans jump to filibuster. Democrats walk out in boredom.

[karasz]

just so we remember something

ITS NOT THE SUPREME COURT...

ok. just so we know where these guys would go. its the courts lower than the supreme court.

[TheWakingDeath]

At 11/13/03 01:14 PM, JudgeFUNK wrote: Who else thinks the judiciary should have term limits like everyone else, let alone be elected? I bet weed would be legal by now if they were elected.....

the judges sit and rot in their seats and become increasingly conservative as they age and the issues change. maybe you're on to something FUNK. if people could elect the justices after they served say, 10 years or whatever, then we would ave more say on what laws were to be passed. if the whole idea of democracy is to give power to the people, allowing us to elect the supreme court justices would be a good start. of course, this isn't really a democracy now is it?

[JMHX]

Two eight-year terms for Judges, just to make sure we aren't constantly replacing them.

[FUNKbrs]

At 11/15/03 05:54 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Two eight-year terms for Judges, just to make sure we aren't constantly replacing them.

Working on the party position for the Judgists again? I whole heartedly agree. 16 years is a good approximation of the "prime years" of a judge. We'll say a man has enough world experience to be a good judge at 35. at 51, he's starting to get out of it.

[Raptorman]

Lifetime appointments allow a judge to make rulings based on law, not popular sentiment. This allows for rulings such as the one that stated that buning the US flag was a protected right. A very constitutionally sound ruling but one that would have got him tossed right out.

[RedSkunk]

At 11/15/03 08:38 PM, Raptorman wrote: Lifetime appointments allow a judge to make rulings based on law, not popular sentiment. This allows for rulings such as the one that stated that buning the US flag was a protected right. A very constitutionally sound ruling but one that would have got him tossed right out.

yes. that's the reasoning behind it. And your example is a good one. I'd have to look at it more closely, for now I think i support a life-time appointment.

[JMHX]

If you appoint judges for life, the terrorists have won.

[Jimsween]

First they turn the 20 dollar bill into tiolet paper, and now THIS.

I just hope that these republican judges dont get in, that would be bad... veerrryy bad... *shudders*

[JMHX]

It's not that the Republican judges are Republican, it's that they lead so blatantly on faith-based judgements, and we don't want Pat Robertson to have any more grip on the government.