When I left you I was but the learner, now I am the master..

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:41 am

People For The American Way, huh?

lol....and you made fun of linking to the Washington Times.

Now I can answer Beek's question. These Judges are being blocked because of their personal views on abortion....plain and simple. The dems are using an abortion litmus to qualify judges who may be in a position to be nominated to the Supreme Court. When confronted on it they deny that is what they are doing but it is fairly clear.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:44 am

I see. And so attempting to legislate from the bench and circumvent the law based on their abortion stance isn't relevant, it's simply their abortion stance?

Are you claiming the other 95% of the judicial appointees are not also staunchly pro-life?

Because, honestly, I'd be mildly surprised if Bush appointed a single pro-choice judge to the bench. I'd be greatly surprised if it was more than five. Do you have any evidence that it was just this 5% that were that staunchly pro-life?

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:48 am

Relbeek Einre wrote:I see. And so attempting to legislate from the bench and circumvent the law based on their abortion stance isn't relevant, it's simply their abortion stance?

Are you claiming the other 95% of the judicial appointees are not also staunchly pro-life?

Because, honestly, I'd be mildly surprised if Bush appointed a single pro-choice judge to the bench. I'd be greatly surprised if it was more than five. Do you have any evidence that it was just this 5% that were that staunchly pro-life?

Sandra O'connor claims to be pro life, but said she would not overturn Roe .V. Wade.

A good judge will not legislate from the bench reguardless of personal beliefs.

I would hope the test would be more than what a judges personal beliefs on any topic and more on their past performance and impartiality in actual practice.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:50 am

I agree, Aabe. Thus Klast's citations show there's an issue with practice, not belief. Jecks' claim of the converse is thus far unsubstantiated.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:50 am

Are you claiming the other 95% of the judicial appointees are not also staunchly pro-life?

Sometimes you really are a dumbass. It is only these 5% that matter. They are the ones going to the higher courts one step away from being SC nominees.

Why would the dems care what a lower court jdge ruled on abortion if they make sure the higher court will maintain the status quo.

I am not even saying that the dems are wrong for doing it. It is their agenda. They should be honest about it and see what the people think about it. Unless they are afraid of course.

And I still do not see judicial activism in her ruling....I see only interpretation of the law.

People For the American way .....I am going to laugh at Klast for that for a long time.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:54 am

P.S. If Judge Owens is such a right wing extremist how did she get a "well qualified" rating for her nomination from the perpetually left leaning American Bar Association?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:57 am

Because the ABA isn't perpetually left-leaning, and it's not as prestigious to get that rating as you may have been led to believe.

So you're saying these 5% are all higher-court appointees and all the others are lower-court appointees? Can you support that? Perhaps without losing your temper?

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 17, 2005 9:11 am

These are the justices in major contention or under the threat of filibuster. You will see they are Circuit Court of Appeals nominees

Terrence W. Boyle (4th Circuit; May 9, 2001)

Priscilla Richman Owen (5th Circuit; May 9, 2001)

David W. McKeague (6th Circuit; Nov. 8, 2001)

Susan Bieke Neilson (6th Circuit; Nov. 8, 2001)

Henry W. Saad (6th Circuit; Nov. 8, 2001)

Richard A. Griffin (6th Circuit; June 26, 2002)

William H. Pryor (11th Circuit; April 9, 2003)

William Gerry Myers III (9th Circuit; May 15, 2003)

Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit; July 25, 2003)

Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit; July 25, 2003)

William James Haynes II (4th Circuit; Sept. 29, 2003)

Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit; May 10, 2004)

These are District Court nominees

James C. Dever III (Eastern District, N.C.; May 22, 2002)

Thomas L. Ludington (Eastern District, Mich.; Sept. 12, 2002)

Robert J. Conrad (Western District, N.C.; April 28, 2003)

Daniel P. Ryan (Eastern District, Mich.; April 28, 2003)

Peter G. Sheridan (N.J.; Nov. 5, 2003)

Paul A. Crotty (Southern District, N.Y.; Sept. 7, 2004)

Sean F. Cox (Eastern District, Mich.; Sept. 10, 2004)

J. Michael Seabright (Hawaii, Sept. 15, 2004)

As you can see the names of the judges that have invoked the furor are all higher court nominees.

Post by **Ddrak** » Tue May 17, 2005 9:25 am

The problem (as usual) is neither side is willing to talk to the other. The GOP is demanding an "up or down vote" knowing they have the strength on party lines to ignore what the Dems think. The Dems are threatening filibustering knowing that's the only way they can stay relevant on the discussion. Neither side is actually willing to compromise.

Dd

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 17, 2005 9:28 am

Not true Dd..... Ben Nelson of Nebraska (D) and a few Rapublicans are making progress on a compromise.

Post by **Ddrak** » Tue May 17, 2005 9:32 am

Nah, it's true. The compromise effort is a fringe thing, not the core position of either side. It's like saying the Dems have a SS plan because some FL congressman put one forward.

Dd

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue May 17, 2005 9:33 am

Now wait a minute, Jecks... the district court nominees you cited are all under contention too, right?

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 17, 2005 9:39 am

Not really ...no. They will make it through after a short pummeling.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue May 17, 2005 9:42 am

You base that assumption on what, exactly?

And how many Appeals Court judges have sailed through without a fight?

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 17, 2005 10:12 am

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050517/D8A506EO0.html

The standoff between the two parties "has a great deal to do with anticipation of upcoming vacancies in the United States Supreme Court," McCain said.

The previous and the next quote both support my argument that it is higher court judges that are at issue because of the Supreme Court and all that implies....

Even as Frist and Reid gave up efforts to reach a compromise, a small group of Democrats, who have been meeting with Republicans also eager to avoid a showdown, floated a proposal to clear the way for confirmation of some of Bush's blocked appointees.

Under the proposal, circulated in writing, Republicans would have to pledge no change through 2006 in the Senate's rules that allow filibusters against judicial nominees. For their part, Democrats would commit not to block votes on Bush's Supreme Court or appeals court nominees during the same period, except in extreme circumstances.

Each member would be free to determine what constituted an extreme circumstance, but Republicans would bind themselves to not changing the filibuster rule for the next two years.

Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Democrats involved in the compromise would vote to end any filibuster blocking a final vote on Richard Griffin, David McKeague and Susan Neilson, all named to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Democrats would also clear the way for final votes on William H. Pryor Jr. for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Both are among the nominees most strongly opposed by organized labor as well as civil rights and abortion rights groups and others that provide political support for the Democratic Party.

Three other nominations would continue to be blocked under the offer: those of Henry Saad to the 6th Circuit Court, Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit and William G. Myers III to the 9th Circuit.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue May 17, 2005 10:29 am

I find no relevance to your second quote, Jecks, and your first, coming from a Republican (albeit one with a good reputation for honesty), is somewhat unconvincing, unless you're trying to tell me you're repeating the party line.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Tue May 17, 2005 10:34 am

I find it interesting. Apparently Beek is trying to say this is about judicial activism and legeslating from the bench. Klasts' Google search I found interesting though:

owens + abortion + alcoholic

Funny that.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 17, 2005 10:40 am

Exactly Klast.

I also find it odd that Relbeek refuses to believe what every political commentator takes for granted. That these fights over judicial nominees are so vehement because of the high stakes involved with the Supreme Court.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Tue May 17, 2005 10:59 am

Exactly Klast.

err.....should read Exactly Kulaf

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Tue May 17, 2005 11:18 am

Ya know......I never actually picked this out of "The Memo" the first time I read it....but I just saw it and found it telling:

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

Doesn't that right there indicate that prior to any "fixing" or "jazzing up" of intel that the PM and DS of the UK thought it likely that Saddam not only did in fact have WMD's......but might very well use them against attacking forces or his neighbors?

Or am I reading that wrong?