Red White & Blue Hens

College students in Delaware who think right is right, and left is wrong. We study hard, party hard, and play hardball.

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Bob Dole on the Democrats Obstruction

Hey Conservatives, want to argue your point and win when is comes to the President's Judicial Nominations? Read this letter to the editor of the NYtimes by Senator Bob Dole.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/27/opinion/27dole.html?hp

4 Comments:

  • At 2:03 AM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    First off, most of Clinton's nominees that did not make it to the bench were crushed in committee, which the Republicans controlled. That was easy; the public didn't see the judges that were not approved; the so-called "obstruction" was to a large degree behind closed doors. Those that did make it out of committee could be voted down on the floor by the Republican majority in the Senate. Of course Dole voted to end filibuster: the Republican majority could just block the nominees in an up and down vote. The situation now is completely different. The Republicans were not fighting for minority rights because they were not in the minority during a vast majority of Clinton's term.

    Dole realizes the danger in changing this rule, and has urged caution. He also urges compromise. Yesterday, Sen. Reid offered exactly that, and Frist rejected it outright. Apparently the Republicans would rather work to attain absolute power by using their existing power to alter the current rules. If these judges aren't so bad, why can't they find a few Dems to break ranks and end the filibuster?

    The Constitution calls for "advice and consent." At no point did Bush seek the advice of his rival party (of course, he's not really expected to do so). Consent is the critical aspect here. The Democrats are merely representing and fighting hard for their constituency (remember that 49% that didn't vote for Bush?). I truly believe that if you put these judges up to a general vote, a majority of Americans would not "consent" to their radicalism, just as a majority (66% - hey, that’s enough to end a filibuster!) of Americans do not approve of this most recent attempt by Senate Republicans to expand and abuse their power. But then again, why let a little thing like the voice of the American people get in the way of your agenda?

     
  • At 12:11 PM, Blogger Ryan S. said…

    Actually, I would think that a majority of people would disagree more with those who are already on the bench. Most of those I know that call themselves moderates are regularly horrified at the 9th Circuit Court descisions.

     
  • At 12:52 PM, Blogger M. McKain said…

    A majority of judges currently on the bench were actually appointed by Republicans; Clinton appointed 346 judges, or 39.5% of the total; Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II together appointed 445, or 50.7% of the total. In the 9th Circuit, Clinton appointed 46 judges, while Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II appointed 65; again, a majority of Republican appointments.
    (source: http://www.allianceforjustice.org/judicial/judicial_selection_resources/selection_database/byCourtAndAppPres.asp )

    Certainly various decisions coming out of particular courts have been unpopular, but recent polls show a majority of Americans (52%) think the courts are "about right" ideologically, with 26% claiming they are "too liberal" and 18% claiming they are "too conservative." Even those numbers are close enough to indicate a fairly balanced judiciary overall and a general satisfaction with their performance, even if some rulings have been controversial or unpopular.
    (Source: ABC News/Washington Post Poll Apr. 21-24, 2005).

     
  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Ryan S. said…

    Appointment does not dictate behavior for judges. That's fact. Either way, the judicairy needs to be rescued by common sense. International law...BOGUS!

     

Post a Comment

<< Home