I mean, federal judges don’t have a whole lot of impact upon my life. I don’t really get excited by the latest and greatest “burning issue” in the Harvard Llaw Review.
I guess i see the law as a system that is supposed to facilitate business-not screw it up by tying things up in knots. When you see the millions of trees that must die to print up all of this verbiage, i tend to think that the current logjam is a good thing. Take these idiotic class action lawsuits: I am currently a plaintiff in one (cause i went to see a movie " A KNIGHT’s TALE"-and i may have been overcharged by $2.00). The stupid lawsuit is grinding its way through the system 9and the plaintiff’s law firm is getting rich).
So why not a moratorium on all fedral judges? That would dissuade a lot of people from starting foolish litigation.
If you paid to see A Knight’s Tale you were overcharged by however much the price of the ticket was…
Surely you don’t mean gerrymandering, do you?
I suspect the OP means filibustering.
Ralph, why the heck are you a plaintiff in a type of lawsuit you do not approve of? You can opt out.
Ralph, I’ve noticed that you have a bad habit of using a 9 instead of a (.
In other threads as well.
As far as fillibustering goes, I think it’s a stupid tactic, effective but stupid.
We, the people, voted in the members of congress for chrissake. Let the nominees get confirmed with an actual vote and quit holding up the process just because ‘your’ guy isn’t on the list. Childish and time wasting. When your group has the majority then you can ram your nominees down the throat of the minority, but until then act like adults. When the other side in is your shoes I hope they choose to let the vote occur and don’t fillibuster either. The reason the senate flows from Dems to Repubs from time to time is because that’s what the public want, so let the damn nominees of the party with the most votes get through - You’ll get your turn. Fed appointees are supposed to ebb and flow with the tide of the senate, that’s the way this whole thing is supposed to work.
One side gets a chance to cancel out the other side with their eventual nominees. You can’t have the side that fillibusters the most to have their way all the time, at least that’s not what I want to see.
ralph: To clarify what other said so far, the practice of having someone speech for an extremely long period in order to delay a vote in parliament is called filibustering. Gerrymandering is the practice of designing the boundaries of constituencies in an advantageous manner.
Uncommon Sense: I think filibustering is a good example for the extremely short time span of politicians’ memories. You don’t want to get filibustered when you have the majority, but when you have a minority you do it anyway, and after the next elections when the majority swings, the other filibuster you - not really to retaliate, but simply because it’s a good strategy for the minority party. But my impression is that in the U.S. Senate, it has, generally, not been misused as much as it could have been. It could be used to freeze practically anything, but it gets used sufficiently responsibly to keep things going.
And I think the OP is underestimating the importance of judicial appointments. In a system of separation of powers and checks and balances, the judiciary plays an important role in the system of government. This does not only apply to the supreme courts but also minor circuit courts, for they decide how to construe the law that’s governing our life. You might not notice it, but federal judges’ decisions can have a huge impact on your life that goes far beyond academic articles in the Harvard Law Review.
To begin with, I’m completely missing to connection between a moratorium on federal judges and dissuading foolish litigation. How would that work? Is the idea that an even bigger caseload on existing judges would make people less likely to file suits at all, legitimate or otherwise?
Secondly, I think you have a somewhat skewed view of the day to day life of a federal judge. They don’t just sit around all day breathing legitamacy into ridiculous lawsuits; while I was in federal court a good part of my job was quietly putting the brakes on frivolous lawsuits so that the ones where people had alleged real grievances and real defenses could have their disputes settled as expeditiously as possible. Even putting aside the civil caseload for a moment, the job of handling federal criminal matters from the Moussaouis, Padillas, and Noriegas of the world all the way down to mundane welfare cheats and income tax evaders in accordance withe federal law and the U.S. Constitution, and you’ve got a fairly big and fairly important job on your hands. If caseloads are a problem, the solution sure isn’t getting rid of judges.