Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Learn More - Click Here!

Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Thread Options
#362056 - 05/24/05 02:12 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Quote:

BTW: I am logged out until you log in.




That's okay Jman, we know who you are.




Why don't you log in? You are the only one who has been the least bit derisive. You called the Republicans Senators morons. Are you logged off because you are afraid of attacks? If no one has attacked you as an Anon, I doubt they'd attack you as a registered BOLr. Or are you logged off so you can call Republicans morons without anyone knowing who you are?

Return to Top
Chat! - BOL Watercooler
#362057 - 05/24/05 02:23 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

Quote:

I predict we'll have this same argument as soon as Justice Rhenquist announces his retirement.




If, and only if, Bush insists on nominating an extreme conservative to the bench.




Whatever. The three "extreme conservatives" that were supposedly the reason for all this consternation are the ones the Dems agreed to allow to go through. The ones they nixed weren't particularly conservative. It doesn't matter who the President nominates. If he or she won't genuflect before Roe, they'll filibuster, if they think they can get away with it.

Quote:

And, in past history, generally speaking, Presidents have been conscious of the need for moderate nominees. It seems that this President is not as conscious as most.




Yeah, I guess that's how we wound up with moderates like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Return to Top
#362058 - 05/24/05 02:24 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
[
Quote:

Quote:

BTW: I am logged out until you log in.




That's okay Jman, we know who you are.




Nope. Not me.

Return to Top
#362059 - 05/24/05 07:04 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Creditcop Offline
Diamond Poster
Creditcop
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,685
Indiana
Those wimpy republicans. The question will be: how long before the dems break this agreement?

Return to Top
#362060 - 05/24/05 08:03 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
When Bush nominates the next Robert Bork.

Return to Top
#362061 - 05/24/05 08:18 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

If he nominates a "Robert Bork," yes I would agree with you. If he's reasonable with his selection, I do not agree with you.

Return to Top
#362062 - 05/24/05 08:33 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
zaibatsu Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 6,153
Quote:

When Bush nominates the next Robert Bork.




You mean this Robert Bork:

Robert Bork was unanimously confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 1982. President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1987. Despite having participated in hundreds of rulings and opinions over six years on the D.C. appellate court, not one of which was overturned by the Supreme Court, Judge Bork was nonetheless considered by 52 of 54 Democratic senators to be "outside the judicial mainstream.
_________________________
Better a patient man than a warrior, a man who controls his temper than one who takes a city

Return to Top
#362063 - 05/24/05 08:44 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Quote:

When Bush nominates the next Robert Bork.




The horror! A nominee that believes in the constitution as it was written!

Return to Top
#362064 - 05/24/05 09:07 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
So, Conn.'s contraception law (Griswold v. Conn.) is constitutional and any state can outlaw use of contraception.

FCC act and indecency statute must be unconstitutional since I don't believe the constitution enumarates a power to the federal government to regulate the public airwaves, since those airwaves did not exist in 1787.

This and a host of other modern statutes would have required a constitutional amendment if you take Bork's arguments to their logical conclusions.

Strict construction (Scalia) versus literal construction (Bork) is slightly different by degrees in theory. However, in practice, the differences can have profound impact.

Return to Top
#362065 - 05/24/05 09:14 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
What Judge Bork believes is that we were provided a federal republic - that one state can have one law about contraception or abortion, and another can have a different law. The most similar recent ruling on which Justice Scalia has opined is the Texas sodomy law, in which case he ruled exactly as Judge Bork would have.

As to the FCC, considering that the regulated transmissions cross state lines, I would imagine that Judge Bork would rule that this was acceptable since Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. But that's just a guess, and I'm not sure why you mention it. It certainly wasn't anything that Ted Kennedy used to smear him.

Return to Top
#362066 - 05/24/05 09:51 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
I was using it to extrapolate how modern issues must be interpreted against the constitution; how these issues did not exist back then.

Why do you bring up Ted Kennedy? I don't care what he said.

Return to Top
#362067 - 05/24/05 10:15 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Interstate commerce existed back then. And regulation of it was a power Congress was granted. Are there occassions when the people want to grant an additional power to the federal government? Sure. The power to levy an income tax, for example. But those are fairly few and far between.

In one respect, you're right - Judge Bork would require an amendment to be passed in order for the federal government to be granted the power to prevent a state from prohibiting the use of contraception (Griswold). But the real question is, if that was such an onerous law, why did the people of Connecticut not demand that their elected representatives change it? Why was it the business of the Supreme Court?

I mention Ted Kennedy because he was the lead slanderer of this fine man. And even he didn't come up with the FCC criticism.

Return to Top
#362068 - 05/25/05 12:04 AM Re: Senate Filibuster
straw Offline
Power Poster
straw
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,121
I was just trying to show how Bork's reasoning could create interesting constitutional issues with some things we take for granted and television was the first thing that popped into my head.

The interesting thing with natural law is how the same facts lead to such different interpretations. The founding fathers clearly had natural law in mind, since many referenced it in various writings.

Modern conservative jurists interpret the Constitution's silence regarding natural law to mean that the founding fathers did not consider this to be part of the social compact between the government and citizens.

Modern liberal jurists take that silence to mean that natural law was such an integral part of the founders thinking, they assumed natural law did not need to be referenced.

Bork is a lightining rod on this because he was the only nominee in recent times who actually engaged the judiciary committee in an intelligent conversation regarding this issue. Or course, it killed his nomination and subsequent nominees learned not to discuss anything substantive with during the nomination hearings.

I remember discussing the hearings in Con Law I and defending him against the ultra-liberal instructor.

Return to Top
#362069 - 05/25/05 01:00 AM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Bork's hostility to the principle of judicial review by itself makes him unfit for the bench. It is hard to imagine what little there would be left of our individual rights if there were not the check and balance of the courts on the executive and legislative branches.

Our government has survived as well as it has for as long as it has because there is a balance among the branches of government. We desperately need our individual rights as Americans to be upheld. Bork would put too much power in the hands of the legislative and executive branches.

Return to Top
#362070 - 05/25/05 01:27 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Bork was almost hostile during his hearings. I understand his distaste for the process but the process is what it is. And, to show no patience or tolerance for it had as much to do with his failure as his ideology.

Return to Top
#362071 - 05/25/05 01:32 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

Quote:

Bork was almost hostile during his hearings. I understand his distaste for the process but the process is what it is. And, to show no patience or tolerance for it had as much to do with his failure as his ideology.




It wasn't that he had a distaste for the process. He had a distaste for the inquisition the Dems put him through. How'd you like it if a bunch of politicians, including Ted Kennedy, hammered you. You wouldn't like it. Now, imagine how much you'd like it if you were one of the foremost scholars in your field. It was pathetic and his reaction was not out of line.

Return to Top
#362072 - 05/25/05 01:33 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Jokerman Offline
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
Twenty years later, we're still having this argument?

Look, Bork's position is that the branches are equal, that the Supreme Court is not the all-powerful branch. The idea that it is has led to our Congress and even this President approving legislation that they believe to be unconstitutional! Why? Because that's for the Supreme Court to decide. Judicial review has led to an abdication of responsibility by the other branches of government.

I'm not saying I have decided one way or the other on judicial review. But let's be honest about its consequences.

Return to Top
#362073 - 05/25/05 06:40 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
°X° Offline
Power Poster
°X°
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,332
WOOHOO
James Taranto's take in "Best of the Web" on OpinionJournal.com yesterday --

The most crucial passage in the agreement may prove to be this one: "Each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such ['extraordinary'] circumstances exist." As a practical matter, this applies only to the Democratic signatories, since no Republican has ever voted to filibuster a Bush judicial nominee.
The seven signatories, that is, have now declared that they will decide how to vote on judicial filibusters rather than take directions from the party. Two of them, Robert Byrd and Daniel Inoyue, probably did so largely to preserve "Senate tradition"; but the other five--Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor and Ken Salazar--are all generally moderate, and all from red states except Lieberman. Their inclinations and political interests diverge from those of Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and other far-left blue-staters.

If left-wing Democrats want to filibuster another nominee, they will have to persuade Minority Leader Harry Reid to risk another nuclear confrontation and persuade at least one of the moderate compromising five, plus Byrd, Inoyue and every single uncompromising Dem, that it's worth it. It could happen, but we're not betting on it.
_______

Return to Top
#362074 - 05/25/05 06:47 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

OWENS CONFIRMED!!

Return to Top
#362075 - 05/25/05 06:56 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Blade Scrapper Offline
Power Poster
Blade Scrapper
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,912
Outside A Garage
Quote:

OWENS CONFIRMED!!


Its about time.
_________________________
...you guys, I'm going home

Return to Top
#362076 - 05/25/05 07:06 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Anonymous
Unregistered

What do you possibly mean Swimware? It only took 4 years to assure that she was a worthy candidate.

Return to Top
#362077 - 05/25/05 08:16 PM Re: Senate Filibuster
Quadspapa Offline
Power Poster
Quadspapa
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,275
Quadrupletville, Texas
Priscilla Owen will make a great 5th Circuit Court of Appeals judge. She is the sister-in-law of the president of our bank and is a fine, smart, and popular lady from Texas.
_________________________
"I don''t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." - - Will Rogers (still relevant today)

Return to Top
Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5