Schumer showing that Democrats play politics with judges, as we have said here all along. If the judge gets high ratings and is qualified, then they should be confirmed. End of story.
That is the way the system works. The American people vote for a President, and they get to pick who goes on the Supreme Court. The congress is only around to make sure the President doesn't pick someone unqualified, and the criteria does not have anything to do with politics. If you are really concerned try and figure out why you have only had a Democratic President in office for 8 of the last 29 years.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Oh my goodness! Politics in selecting and confirming judges? Who'd a thunk it?
You know that the Repugs blocked more of Clinton's judges than the Dems blocked Bush's, don't you?
I quote article 2 of the US Constitution:
"The President may also appoint judges, ambassadors, consuls, ministers and other officers with the advice and consent of the Senate."
I doubt that Bush has ever sought the advice of Democrats in the Senate, but he MUST have their consent. The president can't just pick anybody they want.
But what criteria do they have to reject a Supreme court justice...
Did the Republicans reject crazy liberal Clinton Supreme Court Judges...answer: no.
This all has to do with legislation from the Bench. Liberals CAN NOT get their social adjenda passes in congress, because the American people would never allow it. Do you think congress would ever pass a law for late-term abortion? I don't think so.
The constitution only says advice and consent. It doesn't stipulate criteria.
What crazy liberal Clinton Supreme Court Judges are you referring to?
You have never really defined "legislating from the bench". What I get from you is that it means overturning laws passed by legislatures. Is that correct?
It means making up things based on the world oourt or what the judges think SHOULD be in the constitution.
Where does it say in the constitution you have the right to an abortion?
where does it say you have a right to health care?
Where does it say that you have the right to have a cesarian section? Where does it say you have the right to have hip replacement surgery or a heart transplant? Where does it say that you have the right to produce offspring through invitro fertilization?
When the Preamble to the Constitution says "promote the general welfare", what does that mean?
I can't stand Schumer, but we need to get this nutjob court squared away.
Where does it say that you have the right to produce offspring through invitro fertilization?
Exactly, Jim.
Why do my tax dollars have to go to help these breeders multiply like rabbits?
First of all, Jim has compared hip replacement surgery with killing a baby.
I still don't know what the hell hash is even talking about.
I am not comparing hip replacement surgery to "killing a baby". You are and thereby trying to ignore the point. So if you must, pick one of the other examples.
This "nutjob" court IS getting squared away. Schumer getting in the way again slows down the process. We need more people on the court who interpret the Constitution, not those who read into it things that aren't there. That's why its so very important that we get another Republican in the White House. The likely next retirees are just trying to outlast this administration hoping that a Dem idiot is elected before they retire. If a Republican is elected, they'll either have to bite the bullet and retire anyway, or continue to wait out the next prez and hope he isn't either re-elected or replaced with still another Republican. Ah, it'll be great once we get a majority of rational people on the bench, instead of activist judges. Roberts and Alito were just the start of sanity returning to the SCOTUS.
Well first of all Jim, your list are medical procedures that make people's lives better.
No matter how much you want to believe that women are dying everywhere because they can't have an aborion, they are not. So there is really no need for it. It is morally reprehensible to many people...I don't think a heart transplant is however.
Get back to the constitution, game. We're not debating morality here. Where asking what rights are specifically granted by the Constitution.
Marshall, what have Roberts and Alito done for you lately?
We need more people on the court who interpret the Constitution.
Interpret the Constitution. Hmmm, interesting concept. If the Constitution is black and white as you seem to think, why would there be a need to interpret it? And if it does need to be interpreted, isn't it logical that there could be more than one interpretation?
Aren't all nine current justices interpreting the Constitution?
Liberal judges have said in opinions that what they think is based on international law. So no, Clinton judges are not interpreting OUR constitution
Cite a case.
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2005/may05/psrmay05.html
There ya go...TD to win the game...GOOD!!!
You've won nothing except successfully executing my request to cite a case where international law was considered. Thank you Phyllis Schlafly!
Of course the constitution strictly defines cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th amendment, doesn't it? Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor are hardly "liberal" justices.
Here' another reference for you with many citations and footnotes showing how the use of international law and norms have influenced nations' domestic policies for centuries. "The practice of looking at international and foreign law has a particularly strong tradition in the Eighth Amendment context, going back to one of the first cases challenging punishment as 'cruel and unusual' [in 1879]."
I believe it was Justice Breyer who debated Scalia about the topic of using Int'l law in determining the Constitutionality of legislation here. A sorry practice indeed, as if we need to look to others to determine for ourselves.
Neither Roberts nor Alito have done anything for me specifically, Jim. So what? If they are doing their jobs in the proper manner, they are definitely doing something for me as for all America.
To clarify, their job is to interpret whether or not legislation or policy is in line with the Constitution. As we've seen with Roe V Wade, that doesn't always happen. Some justices will write opinion based on personal preference rather than an objective determination. Even many libs see problems with the Roe V Wade decision, even though they may approve of its heinous outcome.
That link doesn't work.
And there is a difference between the basis of their decision and a point that they think is relevant for discussion/contemplation.
Link worked for me, Andy, but don't worry, it's just a link to the Phyllis Schlafly report suggesting that considering international or foreign laws in making judicial decisions may be an impeachable offense.
Just read my link which shows how considering international and foreign law has been done through the centuries including in the US especially when considering cruel and unusual punishment.
Where does it say in the constitution you have the right to an abortion?
In the Fourth Amendment, and additionally the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth.
where does it say you have a right to health care?
In the Preamble. The Constitution is an amazing document, Game; you should try reading it sometime.
quote the line that says we are guaranteed health care from the govt.
quote the line that says we are guaranteed health care from the govt.
Like I said, the Preamble to the Constitution. We had to memorize it in elementary civics. I guess standards have fallen somewhat since then, judging from Game.
stop being an ass, especially when you are wrong...show me the line the guarantees a right to health care provided by the govt...its not in there...
We have a right to the PURSUIT of happiness. That means you do the work, if you do, you can have it.
To liberals like you, you expect everything given to you...
We have a right to the PURSUIT of happiness.
That's not even in the Constitution. You have no idea what it says, do you? (I take that back - you've probably got the Second Amendment memorized, except for the part about militias.)
Christ, open a book once in your life, Game. You'll read: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Now, explain to me how you can "promote the general Welfare" without a system of health care for all Americans (that's what "general" means.)
You write that. What does that have to do with the constitution?
If you open the right book, you just might find a copy of the Constitution of the United States; and therefore if you read it, you would know what it says.
For instance, you would know that it doesn't say anything about "the pursuit of happiness" at all. You know, unlike what you said.
Post a Comment