she's being opposed because she's a black conservative, and in case you haven't noticed, conservativism is pretty mainstream right now.
so which is it basso? are Dem's doing this b/c they are bitter over the election and this is all sour grapes, or is it because they don't want a black conservative? or maybe, just maybe it has to do with the character of these judges? afterall, we're only talking about 10 out of over 200
Read the post again--I did not say "breaking" the rules--I said change... The reason I bring it up is because I hear Frist throwing words around like "precedent" and "tradition". By changing the rules to complete a power grab, then the Republican party is setting a new, dangerous precendent and breaking tradition.
Again, I noted that with your "majority" and "mainstream conservatism" there should be NO problem getting the required 60 votes for cloture--quit complaining about the rules right?!
Here's some more information that I just found out regarding this situation. Another twist to this issue is that Frist is planning on getting the vote to change rules based upon a ruling by the presiding officer, the VP, rather than what is the usual practice of the Senate Parlimentarian. This is a departure from standard Senate practice in another way because a change in Senate rules is also subject to filibuster but by going to the presiding officer then the vote can be taken place with only a majority. IMO this is even further diminishing the power of the Senate because for one it changes the rules of the Senate by doing an end run around the parlimentarian but also since the presiding officer is a member of the Executive Branch is naturally going to rule in favor of something that will give the Executive Branch more power to make appointments.
But that's the whole point of our system of governance that a majority, especially a narrow majority, cannot run roughshod over a minority. You sound like you want a system of a tyranny of the majority (no matter how close) which was something the Framers themselves were very afraid of.
hmmm, here's interesting historical perspective, and insight into the founder's intent. so madison thought a 2/3 super majority should be required to reject an executive's nominee. more: if 2/3 did not disagree w/in days, the nomination took effect- no need for "confirmation," madison wanted it to be automatic, unless a super majority of congree objected.
Sorry Bass-dude, you have handed us a fat lot of nothing--what on EARTH does Madison's OPINION have to do with established Senate rules?
why should i care? aren't minorities by definition "outside the mainstream?" why should anyone "outside the mainstream", blacks, homosexuals, democrats, etc., have any representation at all in governement, either in the executive, legislature, or the judiciary?
I assume your talking about Janice Rogers Brown right? She is an activist judge to the extreme - she has a history of ignoring precident and legislating from the bench - a strange combination for the wingnuts to nominate considering their uproar over this Undermining civil rights remedies. In 1999's Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., a California trial court found that the defendant employer had violated the California Fair Housing and Employment Act by creating a hostile work environment through the use of racial slurs directed at Latino employees. The California Supreme Court upheld the lower court's remedy that prohibited the use of racial slurs. In her dissent, Brown argued that the First Amendment protects the use of such slurs in the workplace, even when they rise to the level of illegal race discrimination. This conclusion by Justice Brown virtually ignored several Supreme Court precedents. Hostility toward affirmative action. Brown's majority opinion in Hi-Voltage Wire Works v. City of San Jose has made it extremely difficult for California to conduct any meaningful affirmative action programs. While some of the result in this case may have been dictated by Proposition 209, the state's anti-affirmative action ballot initiative, Brown's opinion appeared to go much further than necessary by prohibiting cities from requiring their contractors to engage in outreach to subcontractor businesses owned by minorities and women. Brown's opinion stated that affirmative action is at odds with federal law, despite consistent Supreme Court rulings finding that, under the right circumstances, affirmative action is permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Constitution. Antagonism toward the rights of workers. In Loder v. City of Glendale, a case addressing the constitutionality of a drug and alcohol testing program for employees of the City of Glendale, Brown, in dissent, explicitly rejected binding Supreme Court precedent that called for the use of a balancing test to weigh the interest of the government against those of its employees in assessing whether these types of tests were constitutionally permissible. Despite the clear Supreme Court precedent, Brown would have imposed a bright line rule allowing drug tests for all employees. This opinion raises very serious concerns about Brown's commitment to upholding settled law in both the workers' rights context and many other areas of civil rights and liberties. Undermining the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. In a 2002 housing discrimination case, Konig v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, Brown's lone dissent argued that the state's Department of Fair Employment and Housing Commission, unlike the courts, did not have the authority to award damages for emotional distress. This rule, if adopted by the court, would have seriously limited the redress options available to victims of discrimination. In Peatros v. Bank of America, Brown argued in dissent that the National Banking Act of 1864 pre-empted California's fair employment law, thus preventing a bank employee from being able to file a lawsuit for race and age discrimination in state court. Justice Brown made this argument despite the fact that other more recent federal laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, would clearly supercede the 135-year-old banking law on this question. Undermining the rights of the accused. In People v. Mar, the California Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a defendant who was made to wear a stun belt during his testimony at trial. The belt made the defendant uncomfortable and nervous and may have affected how the jury viewed his testimony. In her dissent arguing to uphold the requirement that the defendant wear the belt, Brown berated her colleagues in a brazenly sarcastic and highly critical way, belittling the court's research into stun belts, accusing her colleagues of "rushing to judgment after conducting an embarrassing Google.com search," and implying that a high school student could have done a better job than the chief justice in preparing the majority ruling. Also, Brown's dissent in People v. Ray would have allowed a warrantless search of a person's home as part of law enforcement's "community care taking functions," � an exception to the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against warrantless searches not recognized by the Supreme Court. http://saveourcourts.civilrights.org/nominees/details.cfm?id=16978 here is a letter from the Society of American Law Teachers protesting her nomination http://www.independentjudiciary.com/resources/docs/SALT 2005 brown opposition.pdf As you can see, there are many reasons why a lot of people have a problem with her - her nomination needs to be carefully examined considering the post she is up for
Because our govt. was set up so that it wasn't just the majority that had their say. If you disagree just look at the idea of the senate. Regardless of population every state has 2 reps. to the senate. The smallest state with the tiniest minority has the same representation as the largest in the senate. Obviously they didn't just want the majority to rule. They wanted everyone to have a significant say in the process.
