Right Wing Nuts want to subvert Supreme Court Justice nomination process...film at 11!

[WordSmith2000]

From the Oppose Ashcroft foundation:



<< Alert Date: June 25, 2001 -- Circulate Until: June 29, 2001

REPUBLICANS TRY TO FAST-TRACK FAR-RIGHT SUPREME COURT NOMINEES
________________________________________________________________

ACTION:

Call your senators and urge them to OPPOSE changing the Senate
rules for consideration of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court.

ACTION PLAN:

Senate Republicans are demanding a radical change in the
Senate rules -- a change that would weaken the role of the
Judiciary Committee in the consideration of Supreme Court
nominees. This change would allow the Bush administration to
get Supreme Court nominees to the Senate floor even after a
negative vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee and would
encourage President Bush to select far-right nominees. DON'T
LET THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT SHORT-CIRCUIT THE PROCESS THAT HAS
GUARDED YOUR FREEDOMS FOR TWO CENTURIES!

Call your senators TODAY and tell them to OPPOSE any rules
resolution that limits the Senate Judiciary Committee's ability
to evaluate potential Supreme Court justices!

FOLLOW THIS LINK FOR COMPLETE CONTACT INFORMATION:

Senate Contact info
________________________________________________________________

*** RELIGIOUS RIGHT SEEKS &quot;FAIRNESS&quot;...FOR RIGHT-WING JUDGES ***

--Christian Coalition of America Action Alert, June 21, 2001--
&quot;Please provide basic fairness and vote next week to allow
President Bush's future Supreme Court nominees to come to the
Senate floor for a vote.&quot;

The Christian Coalition and their right-wing allies in the
Senate are insisting that anyone nominated to the Supreme Court
by President Bush be given a vote on the Senate floor regardless
of the Judiciary Committee's recommendation. Although this
procedure has been allowed on an individual basis in the past,
never before in our history has such a rule been in place -- and
for good reason.

The Judiciary Committee offers senators and their constituents
an opportunity to publicly scrutinize and review candidates for
LIFE-TIME appointments to the federal bench. The Bush
administration has already tried to minimize such scrutiny by
removing the American Bar Association from the official process
of evaluating nominees. Under the proposed rule change, a
Supreme Court nominee who did not receive even one vote of
support in the Judiciary Committee could still automatically
move on to the Senate floor for a vote.

THIS IS NOT &quot;BASIC FAIRNESS&quot;! THIS IS COURTING DISASTER!!!

A vote on this matter could occur as early as this week.

Call your senators and stand up for true fairness with Supreme
Court nominees! As you can see above, Religious Right activists
are already taking action. Your calls will make a difference!
>>



Thinking back, it seems strange that nobody screamed about how GWB removed the ABA recommendation from the process...now he is manuevering to allow his nominations to go to the Senate floor without a judicial review or a commitee review...sounds pretty fishy to me.

Of course, the nuts shoot themselves in the foot with this kind of legal manuever; when the Dems control the Senate and the White House (in '04) there will be no stopping the president from packing the Supreme court with left wing lunatics...haha.

 

[glenn1]

What am i missing here? So we should hold the opinion of the limited number of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in higher regard than we would the ON-RECORD votes of the entire Senate? More accountability, not less, what's the flaw in that plan?



<< there will be no stopping the president from packing the Supreme court with left wing lunatics...haha. >>



So be it... what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... and it should work both ways. I don't think that fringe candidates of either left or right political views would make it through a full Senate vote, so what's the difference?

 

[WordSmith2000]

The difference is that every president prior to this one thought that they should not mess with the way the Senate does things in regards to passing judgment on Supreme court nominees. Senate commitees exist for a very good reason: filtering out all the crap that should not make it to a full Senate vote. The right wing nutz did not think that the commitees were a problem when Republicans controlled the Senate.

If you did not have commitees in Congress, both houses would be flooded with legislation for votes and nothing would get done.

 

[Amused]

<< If you did not have commitees in Congress, both houses would be flooded with legislation for votes and nothing would get done. >>



If ONLY!! :::sigh:::

 

[Helpless]

>Senate commitees exist for a very good reason: filtering out all the crap that should not make it<


I would argue that they do, in fact, &quot;filter out all the crap that should not make it to the full Senate,&quot; but that is not what they are for, sir.

 

[glenn1]

<< If you did not have commitees in Congress, both houses would be flooded with legislation for votes and nothing would get done. >>



We're not talking about legislation, we're talking about Supreme Court nominees. How often do those take place, one or two every 5-10 years? I hardly see how that will overwhelm the Senate.. .

 

[Double Trouble]

Yeah, I attach all sorts of high values to anything coming from the &quot;Oppose Ashcroft Foundation&quot; LOL

 

[WordSmith2000]

<< Yeah, I attach all sorts of high values to anything coming from the &quot;Oppose Ashcroft Foundation&quot; LOL >>


Wow it took 6 posts before we got this response...people are slipping here.

Actually, OA is just the vehicle for this...the Christian Coalition alert is real.

Even left wing lunatics can be right sometimes.

 

[Helpless]

Did you receive that by email? ...looks like the stuff GOPAC sends me from time to time

 

[Optimus]

Ah, the Christian Coalition of America: Giving Real Christians a Bad Name Since 1958.

 

[Double Trouble]

<<Actually, OA is just the vehicle for this...the Christian Coalition alert is real.>>
<<Even left wing lunatics can be right sometimes.>>

Any lunitic can be right from time to time, but that's not the issue.

The article you pasted was just a hysterical reaction by the loonies at the Oppose Ashcroft foundation to something that's perfectly ok.

It's not like they are trying to ram-rod through some evil dastardly logical conservative judge, the full senate still has to confirm the judge. On top of that, the senate is controlled by the dems right now, so they could nix any Bush nominee. What's the problem?

 

[WordSmith2000]

I really do not know what they are thinking...except that maybe they think they have the votes in the full senate to allow RW nuts to get onto the court that would never make it out of commitee.

 

[glenn1]

Or perhaps it's the realization dawning on all parties concerned that a Committee chairman, regardless of his party affiliation, can essentially bring the appointment process to a grinding halt with minimal difficulty, seeking a reciprocal political favor in return for allowing the process to continue. The temptation is too great to do otherwise. Why not hold up the confirmation process if you have the ability, especially if you might buy yourself a concession in return, some bacon to bring back to the folks at home? Both parties have used this tactic, and Chairman Jesse Helms brought the form to the level of an art during his tenure. It's time for the Senate to get back to performing its proper &quot;advise and consent&quot; role, rather than using it at every turn as an opportunity to shake down the Executive branch for bribes just to allow the process to be played out...

 

[Phokus]

<< Ah, the Christian Coalition of America: Giving Real Christians a Bad Name Since 1958. >>



Yes very unfortunate they exist. Being a christian (ok not a very good one, but still), i find these idiots actually hurt the cause than help.

 

[WordSmith2000]

<< Or perhaps it's the realization dawning on all parties concerned that a Committee chairman... >>


No, it is at attempt by a &quot;fringe&quot; group to use the president to make an end run around a process that has worked since it's inception.

Look at it this way:
They did not try this when Nixon was president...
They did not try this when Ford was president...
They did not try this when Carter was president...
They did not try this when Reagan, Bush, or Clinton was president...

With a couple of exceptions, this process has worked quite well and served the people of this country properly.

Why do you reallythink the CC are trying to change it now?

 

[glenn1]

<< No, it is at attempt by a &quot;fringe&quot; group to use the president to make an end run around a process that has worked since it's inception. >>



No, to me it seems like a suggestion to streamline the process. I daresay that it's not worked well, considering that there are how many hundreds of open judgeships right now, awaiting Senate confirmation, because a single Senator on a committee has the ability to try to use this as leverage to shake down pork for the folks back home.

Again, how exactly would this drastically influence the outcomes of controversial appointments? Here's a news flash scoop - the Dems lead the full Senate now, so they could nix any potential nominee anyway, they don't have to do it in committee. Which is preferrable, 10 Senators to make such a decision, or the full Senate? Maybe both parties would be a bit more reasonable about blocking otherwise good nominees for political reasons, if they realized that they would have to submit to voting on record against the nominee, rather than simply effectively killing it in committee...

Or are the members of both parties in the Senate afraid to actually have to be on record, where they might be held accountable? I don't get it, if it doesn't change the results, what difference does it make?

 

[WordSmith2000]

<< Or are the members of both parties in the Senate afraid to actually have to be on record, where they might be held accountable? I don't get it, if it doesn't change the results, what difference does it make? >>



Why don't we just put all the judges on a ballot and have the American people vote for them? After all, it is just hundreds of nominees!

The full senate simply does not have the time to go thru the process of vetting the applicants for judgships; that is why they look for the approval of the commitee.

Also, you know as well as I that there are enough &quot;conservative&quot; democrats to swing votes the way Republicans want them...

 

[glenn1]

<< Also, you know as well as I that there are enough &quot;conservative&quot; democrats to swing votes the way Republicans want them... >>



Bingo. Thanks for cutting through your BS and admitting your true reason.

 

[brennan]

It's interesting that this wasn't a high priority for the Christian Coalition (or especially the Republican Senate) when Clinton was president. Heh, they weren't even pushing for this a couple of weeks ago before Jeffords switched. But now that the Senate is Democratic, it's all &quot;ohhh, the pain. The pain! The current procedures are so INTOLERABLY unfair to the nominees and the president!&quot;

Straight up, this has nothing to do with fairness; it's politics and power, pure and simple. They believe that they'll have a better chance to push through right-wingers this way. They want less scrutiny, a shorter review, and a rush to judgement (no pun intended). Should committee chairpersons be able to single-handedly halt the process? No. Should committees scrutinize candidates prior to a floor vote? In my opinion, yes, in the interest of a full and fair review, whether the candidate is liberal, conservative, or in between.

It's just really really funny how transparently self-serving this is. Is it even possible that some people out there *don't* see through these tactics?

-brennan

 

[Lalakai]

If they wanted to be fair and consistant, use the same process that was implimented for the presidential line item veto. Allow it to become law after the current president has left office. That way no one can claim partisianship.

But from my evaluation of the Republican methodology, they'll want it right now, but only on a temporary basis that will be re-evaluated and possibily discontinued,.............in 2004.

 

[jjm]

Why change anything?

There are already rules allowing Senators to push a full floor vote, even without committee approval. It takes a larger number of votes to do it, but it can be done.

Looks like the Christian Coalition just wants to short circuit a process that has been in place for decades.

The real reason is that the Coalition is still desperately trying to advance its legislation targeted at reducing freedom.

More curbs on abortion, more censorship of books and the internet, active support of prayers in schools, etc.

You may agree or disagree with these positions, but the fact is that personal freedoms will be more limited if this agenda is advanced.

 

[Russ]

<< every president prior to this one thought that they should not mess with the way the Senate does things in regards to passing judgment on Supreme court nominees. >>



Just like all the democrat Senates thought they shouldn't try to mess with Republican Judiciary nominees in the past. <Cough>Clarence Thomas</cough>

Suck it up, bunky. Politics is a two-way street.

Russ, NCNE

 

[charrison]

jjm,

What books/internet sites do the republicans/conservatives want censored?

 

[Linflas]

<< Just like all the democrat Senates thought they shouldn't try to mess with Republican Judiciary nominees in the past. <Cough>Clarence Thomas</cough> >>


lol they did it so well with Robert Bork that the whole process is now called &quot;Borking&quot; a nomineee. No different than how special prosecutors were viewed when they were going after Nixon or Reagan as opposed to when there was one going after Clinton. As always those whose ox is being gored at any particular moment will yell the loudest.

 

[jjm]

charrison - At the local level, they are pushing lists of &quot;approved&quot; books in school districts. In some districts, where Coalition members make up a majority of the school board, they have banned books that teach evolution but approved books that teach creationism.

For the internet (and other media), the Coalition is pushing to outlaw pornography (not such a bad thing, but still a limit on freedom) and other material it deems offensive.

I guess we all know their position on abortion.

Russ - Exactly where did the Democrats change the rules during the Clarence Thomas hearings? I thought those hearings were in committee?