Don’t know off the top of my head.
Nor does it matter. Anything less than 100% conservative judges is short of the ideal.
Oh, all right - I’ll compromise and say 80%.
In my case at least, you are mistaken. I am talking primarily about strict constructionism - judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written, and don’t make up new rights because they think they should be there.
As I recall, we’ve thrashed that one out on the boards once or twice before.
Regards,
Shodan
Current article on ‘strict constructionism.’
And you know what, I don’t really have too much of a problem with strict constructionism. I understand the argument and I think it is a valid one (though maybe not always the best one). Unfortunately, that is not what we are talking about. Looking at BrainGlutton’s links earlier in the thread it appears that 4 of the 7 judges being opposed by Democrats are religious, ultra right-wing, judicial activists. The other 3 are being opposed for what appear to be purely partisan reasons.
And to answer my own questions, 10 of the 13 appeals courts have majority Republican appointees and 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. Even with this overwhelming majority, there is an attack on the courts that goes well beyond the appointment of strict constructionists and more toward the goal of making the judiciary an arm of the republican party or (more likely) the religious right.
Yes we have…
You are correct about the partisan motives of the last three, but it seems at least as likely that “religious, ultra right-wing” is Democratic short hand for “has the temerity to question the great Goddess Abortion”.
From BG’s post (with my bolding):
So I would say that partisan reasons - meaning both “payback time” and “anyone who doesn’t support abortion right 100% under any circumstances no matter what is a far-right extremist woman-hating blah blah blah” - account for most if not all the resistance to the current crop of nominees.
Incidentally, you mentioned that Democrats opposed four of the seven because they are religious. The Democrats might want to rephrase their opposition to those four.
Article VI, Clause 3, you know. 
Regards,
Shodan
Bah. I object to your terminology. I don’t think there are any Democrats, liberals or even anarchists who would come close to treating abortion as divine. Abortion is a dirty fact of life and I don’t think there is anyone that celebrates or reveres it.
I have always found it interesting that Republicans, who say they believe in small government, limited taxes, personal responsiblity, and basically that government has no businees in a persons (or coporations) life, also believe that they can take this choice away from women, or in the Shiavo case, away from a spouse. They also seem to be the party of decency standards, desiring to control what individuals purchase from services like satelite radio and cable TV (I will produce cites if desired). The only freedoms Republicans seem to stand for these days are the freedom to own guns and the right to pray in schools or have monuments to the 10 commandments in our courts. Am I mistaken on this?
Regardless, I can use bold face as well as you:
Sounds to me like the first 2 are ultra-conservative religious activists (more on this in a second), the third is a cross between a ultra-conservative religious activicist and a coporate stooge, and the fourth is fully in the pocket of the mining, ranching, and oil lobbies. None of these guys sound like strict constructionists at first glance. Where in the Constitution does it talk about limits on corporate liablility? Where in the Constitution does it talk about sodomy? In my book a person who compares consenual sex between two (same sex) adults to “adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia” should be examined very carefully and probably should not be a judge with the ability to define what the Constitution means.
Come on Shodan, you can’t be serious… I agree the last 3 seem to be “payback time” or at the very least a protest of past actions, but this"support abortion right 100% under any…" is over the top. How many of the 200-odd judges that have been approved since 2000 supported abortion rights? My guess would be 0 knowing the current administration and the current Senate. I cannot imagine President Bush nominating a pro-choice candidate.
Why? Many (actually most) democrats are sincerely religious Christians just like Republicans. Please do not imply that Democrats are godless heathans becuas it is not true. Second, I would oppose someone being a government leader, judge, etc… because of their religion. This isn’t Iran or Afganistan under the Taliban. We try to keep a wall of separation between church and state here. Don’t we? Is this something about our government that we are rethinking? To me, if someone cannot separate their religious ideals and beliefs from the will of the people and the law of the land they do not belong in government.
As you can see, the real issue with the Senate’s judicial confirmation process is that it’s Mr. Bush’s political assistant, currently unmarried, and resides in Washington, D.C. Thanks for writing!
Pretty much as bad as calling someone an extremist or a corporate stooge or whatever because they disagree even moderately on abortion, wouldn’t you agree?
This basically boils down to Democrat Congresspeople calling a judge they don’t like a whole bunch of the worst names they can think of. Partisanship, in other words. And on all the judges they oppose.
Business as usual.
Regards,
Shodan
And a quick correction -
I didn’t say or imply that they were godless heathens. I said they might not want to be so up front that they were opposing certain judges because those judges were “religious”. Thus I linked to the part of the Constitution forbidding a religious test for public office.
Try not to read things into posts that aren’t there. That’s much of the problem with activist judges and the Constitution, and something we ought all to oppose.
Regards,
Shodan
Just so! If we but follow friend Shodan’s sterling example of non-partisan civility and polite discourse, we might move more quickly to uniform and unanimous approval of The Leader!
Gee Dub-ya, my Lord, Gee Dub-ya!
Oh, Lord!
Gee Dub-ya!
Of interest, this column by noted radical lefty David “Bobo” Brooks…
Requires some bullshit. You can see a reaction to same over at Washington Monthly…http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/… which has pertinent excerpts and requires no registration.
“It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.” Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, May 14, 1997
“I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, October 5, 1999
“Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, September 11, 1997
“I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . .It is not appropriate not to have hearings on them, not bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote.” Sen. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, March 19, 1997
“If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.” Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, September 28, 1998
“I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.” Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, January 5, 1995
"The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: ‘Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote … The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or vote him down.’ Which is exactly what I would like.” Sen. Pat Leahy, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000
Sakes alive! Why, these quotes seem to suggest that there are elements of hypocrisy and opportunism amongst Democrat politicians! I gasp with horror and dismay, and only hope I can see well enough through these tears of disillussion to fill out this Republican Party registration, that I might align myself with such paragons of candor, probity and civility as Tom DeLay (R-Undead, the worlds most cuddly arachnid…)
Should I post a few pertinent quotes from the abovenamed and his allies? No, I hardly think that necessary.
“But don’t pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don’t think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don’t appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying.” Senator Mark Smith (R - New Hampshire), March 7, 2000
Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?
It’s not necessary. I posted my set of quotes not to convince you to join the GOP, but to point out that your criticism of the “tighty-righties” was incomplete; the Democrats engaged in similar conduct when they had the majority… and the GOP was about equally indignant at the suggestion that their obstructionist tactics were improper.
In other words: no monopoly on hypocrisy, on either side.
But did the Democrats then complain that it had never been done before?
Do tell us where you found those quotes, apparently all conveniently in the same place.
Not that I know of. Are the Republicans now complaining it has never been done before?
If they are, it’s a specious claim. Although there are slight differences between then and now (holding up nominations in committee versus filibustering at the floor level) they are differences of a technical nature only. In each case, the minority party was using the house rules to prevent the majority party from confirming its desired judicial nominees. At the time these quotes were generated, I have no doubt that we can find Republicans affirming piously that they are exercising their duty in stopping the nominations… just as Democrats are doing now, and with equal lack of integrity.
They were on my vast right-wing conspiracy mailing list, for use as talking points in just this sort of situation.
What difference does it make?
Not to put a dent in the “everybody in politics is a politician” argument, especially because it is correct, but the minority party itself cannot hold up nominations in committee – they’d be outvoted. The Republican practice of holding nominations in committee occurred while they were the majority party – that is to say, given sufficient party discipline they could have voted the nominees down on the floor. Whether they chose to do it in committee instead because they didn’t have sufficient discipline on the floor, because they were to cowardly to record all those “no” votes or for some other reason I don’t know.
But as a minority party, blue slips when available (and when accepted – they weren’t and aren’t always) and the filibuster are the tools available.
Not the pols themselves, who know better, but that’s often innocently claimed by their commentariat.
Do you need an explanation of the credibility of glurge? Surely your experiences in the last couple of campaigns demonstrates that the stuff you get that way from the VRWC is often at best filtered and at worst fabricated. We can accept your own probity, but not your sources’; see how it works?
My source is http://thomas.loc.gov - it contains the complete Congressional Record from the relevant years.
Ms. Boxer’s comment may be found at JUDICIAL VACANCIES (Senate - May 14, 1997), page S4421.
Mr. Daschle’s comment appears in the EXECUTIVE SESSION – (Senate - October 05, 1999) record.
Ms. Feinstein’s comment appears at NOMINATION OF JANET C. HALL OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (Senate - September 11, 1997) - Page: S9166.
Mr. Leahy’s comment is at Page S11796.
Mr. Harkin’s comment is at AMENDING PARAGRAPH 2 OF RULE XXV (Senate - January 05, 1995) - Page: S432.
To find these or any other comments, got to http://thomas.loc.gov, pick “Search Congressional Record,” select the correct time span, and enter the reference number or search phrase.
OK?