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

[brennan]

Russ, two things:

First, to the best of my knowledge, Clarence Thomas is not an example of the Dems trying to fundamentally alter the process by which nominees are evaluated, but rather using proper, established procedures to object to the particular nominee. If you can find any proof to the contrary, please provide it. However, the Republicans are indeed trying to fundamentally alter the process in a number of ways, specifically in order to make it easier to push their president's nominees through quickly. This is nakedly self-serving, and is below even the likes of Trent Lott.

Second, you may not want to cite Clarence Thomas as an example of a good nominee getting railroaded:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/politics/27THOM.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/27/opinion/27DOWD.html

One of Anita Hill's main detractors, David Brock, has recanted much of what he said and wrote about her, and admitted that engaged in lying and witness intimidation in an effort to help Thomas's confirmation. Thomas, by extension, lied as well. I can only assume that we won't see pushes by Republicans for an investigation, because Thomas isn't a Democrat.

-brennan

 

[glenn1]

<< 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. >>



Exactly. Parlimentarian rules would, as far as i know, not allow such a change to be put into place before the next Congress at least. I wouldn't see where waiting until after the next Presidential election would be an undue burden. Therefore, in 2004, we change the rules, make the change permanent, and let the chips fall where they may.

There is absolutely no negatives to requiring a full Senate vote for upper-level government appointees, IMHO. In fact, i think it in every way preferrable. That way, any vote to oppose or support a particular nominee will be public record, and the voters can judge appropriately.

 

[351Cleveland]

<< Thinking back, it seems strange that nobody screamed about how GWB removed the ABA recommendation from the process... >>



It is an informal courtesy extended to the ABA established by the Democrats... NOT a part of the formal process. There is no written rule requiring the ABA to approve of nominees.

 

[351Cleveland]

Also keep in mind that the Democrats, when they were the minority in the house, wanted to give home state senators the ability to DENY a nominee ANY consideration.

The point is that if the nominees went to the vote of the full Senate, most would probably pass... but in a small committee where the CC can manipulate and coerce, it is easier to kill a nomination.

EDIT: That post is more about Ashcroft's religion than the judicial process. All they do is refer to the &quot;religious right.&quot; THis process has nothing to do with religion, yet the liberal moron who wrote this decided that inflaming his readers by using the term &quot;Religious Right&quot; was a more effective tactic than just stating the facts. I give that crap no consideration as even a distant cousin to objective or accurate information.

 

[jjm]

351Cleveland - I guess that's like the &quot;blue slip&quot; tradition that Republicans enforced like a statute during Clinton's tenure, wanted to abolish during GWB's first few months, and then hastened to backtrack after Senate control changed? Right?

 

[glenn1]

<< It is an informal courtesy extended to the ABA established by the Democrats... NOT a part of the formal process. There is no written rule requiring the ABA to approve of nominees. >>



And rather unnecessary as well. The President can submit anyone he so desires for an appointment to the Supreme Court. There is nothing saying or even implying that person needs to be a lawyer, attended law school, or even having ever seen the inside of a courtroom. The President could nominate a school teacher, truck driver, fast-food employee, or ditch digger to the Supreme Court if desired.

Considering nominees don't need to be lawyers, of what benefit is it for the ABA to review a nominee? What possible input could they provide, &quot;we oppose this nominee because he dresses funny&quot; ?

 

[351Cleveland]

Eh, I dunno if it was teh &quot;blue slip&quot; thing or not. If I recall, a blue slip was issued if a home state senator objected to a nominee, but did not completely disqualify a nominee (although it carried a good deal of weight). Democrats wanted complete dismissal of the nominee IIRC.

Why would the Republicans really NEED that? Their party (GWB) is selecting the nominees... unless one of them is HORRENDOUS, there is no real use for the Republicans.

 

[Double Trouble]

<<GWB removed the ABA recommendation>>

The ABA recommendation is not required by law and never was. It was an idea by the dems to get the lawyers some imput. And.... lest we forget, which political party do you think the ABA supports? Hmmmm.. the party that creates opportunities for &quot;lottery&quot; lawsuits, and that would be the Dems. Hence, Bush correctly removed them from the process since they are not objective.

 

[jjm]

351Cleveland - GWB is still selecting the nominees. But now Republicans in the senate want the blue slip protocal back full force. But they did not change their tune until after the Jeffords fiasco. And why is that?

 

If GWB can fast track justices to the seat, then this country is SCREWED for the next 40-50 years.

 

[351Cleveland]

My brain is pretty well fried right now jjm.. help me out. Answer your question for me

 

[NovaTerra]

<< And.... lest we forget, which political party do you think the ABA supports? Hmmmm.. the party that creates opportunities for &quot;lottery&quot; lawsuits, and that would be the Dems. Hence, Bush correctly removed them from the process since they are not objective. >>



Hmmm. Seem to be catching you telling lies all over tonight...

Number one contributor to the GWB election campaign? Big Oil (correct me if I am wrong)

Number two contributor to the GWB election campaign? Lawyers! The lawyers give money to both parties, just to make sure they can have a hand in our pockets no matter who runs the country. Amazing how you love to point out that the Dems are beholden to lawyers, and conveniently forget that they own Republicans as well.

Frankly I see nothing wrong with allowing the ABA have a say in which persons become judges...they should have an information relevant to each nominee.

 

[AndrewR]

It's understandable that Senate Republicans want to bring nominees out of committee when ANY nominee who is REMOTELY conservative is branded a reactionary Nazi and are considered &quot;dangerous&quot;. On the contrary, any liberal nominee is called &quot;progressive&quot;, and any attacks on said nominee are &quot;partisan&quot;.

 

[Ferocious]

Just a note for newbies:

Right-wingers have no desire for reduced or small government. In contrast, they want extreme government that they control. They actually think they know what's best for the people and that people shouldn't have a collective voice. History is full of examples.

Shame on Bush! :|

 

[Double Trouble]

<<Hmmm. Seem to be catching you telling lies all over tonight...>>

Oh sure ... 'lies' as defined to mean anything you don't agree with right? Perhaps you would keep your petty insults to a minimum when you run out of legitimate arguments?

<<Number two contributor to the GWB election campaign? Lawyers! The lawyers give money to both parties, just to make sure they can have a hand in our pockets no matter who runs the country. >>

You must be smoking something again. The ATLA (American Trial Lawyers Association) contributes more than 10 times as much to the dems than they do to the repubs. Yes, they donate to both, but the totals are overwhelmingly for the dems. Take a peek here at the LA Times article (not exactly a conservative paper).

 

[ElFenix]

<< Also keep in mind that the Democrats, when they were the minority in the house, wanted to give home state senators the ability to DENY a nominee ANY consideration. >>


actually, thats a senate tradition, if the senator from that state doesn't like him they vote against him. been that way pretty much forever. i forget what its called, though.

 

[SuperTool]

I don't care what the Republicans say, no way the Democrats will give them a blank check to stuff the U.S. Supreme court. Not after this election, and Clarence Thomas.
The ultra-conservatives say that there are consequences to losing the white house, and that Bush has mandate to stuff the USSC. Well guess what:
There are consequences to losing control of the Senate too. One of them is that your nominees get stuck in commitee.
So get over it.