Marijuana.com

Stephanie S.

I'm optimistic that these judicial nominees won't be approved by the senate.


William Myers III has never been a judge and spent most of his career as a lobbyist for the cattle and mining industry.[1] He has written that all habitat conservation laws are unconstitutional because they interfere with potential profit.[2] In 2001, Bush appointed him as the chief lawyer for the Department of the Interior. In that role he continued as a champion of corporate interests, setting his agenda in meetings with former employers he promised not to speak with, and even illegally giving away sacred Native American land to be strip mined.[3]

I'm very curious as to the logic involved with nominating this guy. He's being nominated to the second highest court in the country and he's never been a judge?

Terrence Boyle was a legal aide to Jesse Helms. As a judge, his signature decisions have attempted to circumvent federal laws barring employment discrimination by race, gender, and disability.[4] His rulings have been overturned a staggering 120 times by the conservative 4th District Court of Appeals, either due to gross errors in judgment or simple incompetence.[5]

William Pryor Jr. served as Attorney General of Alabama, where he took money from Phillip Morris, fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit until it was almost over, and cost the people of Alabama billions in settlement money for their healthcare system as a result.[6] He called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and has consistently argued against the federal protections for the civil rights of minorities, lesbian and gay couples, women, and the disabled.[7]

Bush has re-nominated 20 partisan judges that were rejected last term.
Honestly, I don't think they were rejected because they are notably conservative. I think that they wer rejected because they aren't fit for the job based upon their records.

source As President of the Senate, Dick Cheney has even threatened to push these 20 through by using a parliamentary trick so abusive even he calls it the "nuclear option." If they can get away with it, the "nuclear option" would eliminate the right to filibuster -- a rule that has allowed 40 or more Senators to keep extremists from all sides off the courts for centuries.

If that happens, when Supreme Court vacancies begin to open up in a few months there will be no motivation for Bush to nominate justices acceptable to both parties, and no ability for Democrats to oppose even the most dangerous extremists.

So, just in case you didn't know, this process began yesterday and needs to be approached vigorously and quickly. Do you have your senators address, phone and fax?


peace

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)

 

Niteshift

Honestly, I don't think they were rejected because they are notably conservative. I think that they wer rejected because they aren't fit for the job based upon their records.

Point of FACT: They weren't rejected.

The Constitution requires 51 Senators vote for them. But a MINORITY of Democrats invoked a filibuster (which they didn't actually do, just said they were doing) and prevented the vote.

No vote means they couldn't possibly have been rejected by the Senate.


As President of the Senate, Dick Cheney has even threatened to push these 20 through by using a parliamentary trick so abusive even he calls it the "nuclear option." If they can get away with it, the "nuclear option" would eliminate the right to filibuster -- a rule that has allowed 40 or more Senators to keep extremists from all sides off the courts for centuries.

Trick?

The trick here is what the democrats are pulling., The Constitution CLEARLY states that presidential appointees only need 51 votes. The Democrats are pulling a trick by preventing the vote from happening.

If ANYONE is guilty of violating black letter law of the Constitution, it is the Democrats in the senate.


So, just in case you didn't know, this process began yesterday and needs to be approached vigorously and quickly. Do you have your senators address, phone and fax?

I let both my Senators and Majority leader Frist know already that they need to allow the vote to be put to the Senate for a simple up or down vote. Anything less is a violation of CLEAR Constitutional intent.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

jewishjake420

Ahh, you may call it a trick but filibusting can prevent many laws that shouldn't be passed not to be passed. Yes the Democrats are doing it now, but if you look back in history everyone has done it. Filibusting is a large part of how our system of checks and balances works.

__________________
awaa?
-S. Cooper

"There's a blaze of light in every word, it doesn't matter which you heard, the holy or the broken HALLELUJAH"

Niteshift

One difference.........they aren't actually doing the fillibuster.

Back in the day, they actually had to DO IT. Stand up there and talk and talk and talk. Now, these lazy asses just say "we're fillibustering" and go to lunch.

WTF? If it's so damned important, then work for it. Earn your freakin paycheck!


filibusting can prevent many laws that shouldn't be passed not to be passed.

Can you list some examples of where this has happened?


Filibusting is a large part of how our system of checks and balances works.

Not really.

The system of checks and balances is specifically laid out in the Constitution. Fillibustering is provided for solely by the rules the Senate adopted for themselves..........and those rules can be changed

Higher Logic

Well, off-topic, but I've come to the conclusion that the Constitution isn't "clearly" anything. If it were, well, we wouldn't argue about the legalization of cannabis, among other things.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

 

Niteshift

but I've come to the conclusion that the Constitution isn't "clearly" anything. If it were, well, we wouldn't argue about the legalization of cannabis, among other things.

The Constitution doesn't address pot specifically, so of course it's not clear.

But it DOES address the issue of presidential appointments:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:


Advice and CONSENT..........Consent, simple majority.

Higher Logic

If the Constitution was so clear, you wouldn't have people arguing about what it does or does not say. I mean damn, it's been interpreted as many times as the Bible and Shakespeare. Regarding your comment, however, the Constitution does say something about promoting general welfare; but I guess you could "clearly" see that as "corporate welfare" in this day and age. It also talks about how if something isn't mentioned in it, then let the people and/or States decide. Sure don't see that happening either. Anyways, I think the Constitution is outdated, it was written for a much different era; the whole "system" could use an overhaul.

Niteshift

You keep talking about other things.......the issue is juducial nominations and the Constitution is clear on the issue. Can you show otherwise?

You act as if because it's not clear on everything, it can't be clear on anything. Is there any doubt what it says about the age a person must be to be President? Or how many years a senator is elected for? Of course not....it is CLEAR, just as it is on this issue.

Higher Logic

And I quote: "Well, off-topic, but I've come to the conclusion that the Constitution isn't 'clearly' anything." You're a smart guy, of course I was talking about other things. I'm not the one who commented on my opinion though And I guess I stated my sentence wrong, it could have been worded better in that when I say the Constitution isn't "clear" I'm obviously not talking about what age you have to be to become President or anything similar. No one tries to figure out what "that" meant, I was talking about issues that are argued over.

Niteshift

Fine, do you have a convincing argument that the Constitution is somehow unclear on the issue of needing only a majority of senators to confirm judges?