i've heard of legal affairs, its not well known, but those that do, know it as the far right "legal" magazine, and those mags have as much credence in the legal community as Maxim does in the journalism community. as for the judicial nominations, you could say that dems are more judgemental, but then you're ignoring the other valid side of the argument that george has been nominating judges on the far right. Traditionally, presidents at least try to nominate guys that have a chance. Sam- how is epstein as a prof? I wasn't a big fan of his casebook, too much commentary, but I always wonder how these "celebrity" legal scholars perform as an actual teacher.
As I said before, the criticism from the left isn't the same as type as from the right. I'm the only one other than Justice Scalia who hinted that Thomas was an activist. I would also disagree that the liberal criticism is as unfounded. I believe these people are basing their criticsm on a pattern of rulings, not just one or two high profile cases which the conservatives are doing. There is a difference. Also again the point comes out the rulings that so upset those conservatives now complaining, came from predominantly republican appointed judges. Those conservatives don't really have a leg to stand on.
Really? Our circuit courts are in a state of crisis because Bush has had 10 of his 35 circuit court nominees filibustered with the Senate exercising its constitutionally appointed powers? (which amounts to 10 of his 200 nominees total)? What is broken is what Bush & the federalist society have been doing with judicial appointments - by systematically choosing young, intellectually rigid right wing jurists on account of ideology rather than suitability in order to exert dead hand control for years and years to come. It goes both ways, when you nominate former segregationist jurists you're asking for trouble. nyquil - epstein puts on a great show in class and can be alternatively annoying and brilliant as he's kind of a savant - there were times that I loved him and times that I hated him.
When my brother was in law school (almost went to chicago, went to harvard instead), he also had a lot of those 'celebrity' profs. I figure that if you're going to make your mark on history by making a casebook, you have to be a little strange. Side story, one of my profs is a 'celebrity' prof in con law, and is a super-liberal (even too liberal for me), but more in the media as he has a john stewart personality. Once he was on the O'reilly factor and they were discussing the "God" in the pledge of allegiance. When Bill asked what he would rather have instead of "Under God," he replied, "how about "under Canada"? it's at least geographically accurate." he later said it should be "under the constitution" but it was too late, and Bill hasn't asked him back.
it is an excellent point, but by the same token, during the last three elections, judicial nominees have been major issues, particularly during the last election, and in each the country has voted for one particular party, and president. his nominees deserve at least an up or down vote.
His nominees deserve to go through the process outlined in our constitution. If the congress uses powers granted by that constitution, and procedures regulating their legislation and duties.
So you have no interest in maintaining comity, and generations of Senate tradition designed to insure that the minority party has a voice that can't be ignored, so that your party can ram through their judicial nominations? You obviously care not whether your own party is excluded, as you, Frist and his cohorts in the Senate and the Administration would see happen to the Democratic Party, when they again become the minority. Myopia run amok. Keep D&D Civil!!
That would be allowed, and that is why it is an option. If the GOP used that option out of spite, then I hope the voters will remember it.
i was really just asking whether FB would support it, since it is allowed under the rules, which he says above he supports. and speaking of comity, and generations of tradition, democratic tactics here are also in violation of generations of tradition. i'm not saying whether i support or don't support a particular nominee, but the process is completely corrupted, and the nominees deserve at least a vote. democratic tactics have created a new standard for the confirmation of judges, requiring now a super majority to defeat a filibuster. this is clearly not what the framers intended. but i guess you care not a whit about that, since it's democratcs taking the questionable action. your protests would ring much truer if you applied the same standards to all parties.
I am applying the same standard to all parties. Your myopia has you blind, with all due respect. Keep D&D Civil!!
if you were truly applying the same standards you would not be defending reid. and i may have presbyopia, but otherwise my sight's fine.
What Reid said is not comparable to what Delay, Frist, and others have said. They aren't in the same league.
SHUT UP!!!! Jesus H. Christ, i come in here thinking that i'll find a reasonable debate regarding the outlandish comments made by a few politcos regarding our judiciary, but instead you complete HIJACK your own thread to fulfill some vendetta you have against FB. i literally got progressively more enraged the longer you inanely went on about FB's (and reids) OPINION about justice thomas. I had no prior knowledge of what reid had said until i came to this thread, and, IN MY OPINION, his comments aren't nearly as absurd as that of delays. and don't expect any "proof." (FB already said it)
Am I misunderstanding things here? I'm not defending Reid, because, in my opinion, he needs no defending. I said I agreed with the quote I saw. I still do. What I am doing, basso, is attacking what Frist, his cohorts, and the White House are attempting to do with the filibuster rules in the Senate. I think it is incredibly stupid, shortsighted, and will turn the Senate into a purely partisan chamber, which, whether you believe it or not, is not what it is today. It will also hurt your own party when they are no longer in the majority. That is the myopia I see... you just don't see how getting a gain for your party in the short run is going to damage that party, and the country, in the long run. And it will damage the country. Make no mistake about it. The last thing we need is for the Senate to toss comity and tradition out the window. Using this so-called "nuclear option" will do just that.
IIRC, the US had a "nuclear option" for dealing with the Soviet Union, but we didn't use it because it would have destroyed the world, just as the "nuclear option" you are in support of would destroy the Senate as we know it today. The reason that the filibuster rule has stayed in effect for so long is that it gives the minority some say in the process. The majority SHOULD NOT be able to run roughshod over the minority no matter what party enjoys that majority. If a nominee cannot gain the approval of even five Democratic Senators, then they do not deserve to be on the bench and should not have been nominated in the first place.
There are two issues here. one is attacking the judiciary, which both delay and reid have done. you think one is reprehensible, the other isn't. i think you're giving into the worst sort of partisanship and being untrue to your own principles in this regard. second is the issue of voting on Bush's nominees, not confirming them, and the filibuster democrats have employed to keep them from receiving an up or down vote. i personally think the "nuclear option" is a bad idea, but by the same token the democrats have changed the rules, in effect by their obstructionist tacticts. perhaps it will take such an extreme step to get everyone to change the system
so if i uinderstand you correctly you support the new super majority rules the dems have adopted, requiring a 2/3 majority to approve a nomination, rather than the simple majority required by the constitution?
No, they haven't. Are you just ignoring the article I posted that detailed at least one instance where the GOP Senators filibustered one of Clinton's nominees? They just want it both ways.
