I'd love to hear everyone's views on whether the filibuster should be eliminated in regards to judicial nominations... I realize some may think it is a pointless discussion after this weeks events (If you do, wake up reality is here :)). The agreement this week was not the end of this only a delay. -
Seriously, I would like to see where everyone stands on this.
May 26, 2005
Your Views
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
PA-I think my position on this issue is crystal clear--the filibuster on judicial nominations has got to GO! The constitutional process cannot and must not be held hostage to partisan political considerations. Each nominee deserves an up or down vote on their qualifications and merits to hold the position they were nominated to fill. It's just that simple! BTW: I am preparing a new posting on this issue because of the Democrats threat to filibuster the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador of the UN-stay tuned.
I would not agree with abolishing the filibuster.
I think if you abolished it in one case you would need to abolish it in all cases, or have the possability as being viewed a hypocrite.
What I would like to see is the republicans force the issue of a filibuster. Make then do it. Stay in all night long and steal the vote when they can. This si one thing I have not seen the republican party due. The Dems threaten one, and the Reps back off.
Show some will. Stay in session as long as it takes to get your vote. Sleep, food be damned.
I have to admit that the vote to abolish the filibuster does seem tempting however, how would politically conservative people feel if the shoe was on the other foot? - There will come a time when liberal activist judges will be nominated by a democrat president and we would have no means of protecting against it. Political parties have become too powerful that office holders do not want to go against the "Party Line" - This is the real problem. Instead of voting their conscience, they vote to protect their party's backing!
Interesting twist PA. I must admit I did not look at it quite that way. Here's a novel thought. What about an appointment/retention type system such as we have here in Pennsylvania. Judges are appointed by the Governor, but come up for a retention vote every 5 or 10 years. Your thoughts on this?
I am totally against politicizing judges - I hate the fact that they are elected here in PA. - This tends to make their rulings based on polls instead of the rule of law...We'd be better off having term limits of 10 years and allow the majority party to appoint without consent from the opposing party - this would put an end to it...That way the voters decide the ideology of those selecting them and it would cross over Presidential and Governor's terms even if one did serve a second term.
In doing the David you undermine the Checks and Balances of the Constitution. A judge needs to have the ability to rule without consequence. The Activist judges we have now do that and the system seems bad. But I must say the alternative would be a whole lot wqorse.
Excellent points from both PA & shafter, but at present the judges are answerable to no one, not even the voters of the nation or of a particular state, and I think you will agree that this needs to change. Failing some sort of merit selection system, there would be only one other method of removing activist judges and that is IMPEACHMENT!
Ufortunatley for you David, when the framers wrote the Constitution they did not want the Judges anserable to anyone. They did this so judges could make the correct tough choices. What we need to do as voters and citizens is hold the politicians who represent these activist judges. If a senator elects and activist judge, vote hime out. Or vote his party out. Put clearly making Judges accountable to somebody is wrong.
I think the Framers may have done this because they believed anyone in such a position would be God Fearing and would make the correct decision. Today we just don't have enough God Fearing people.
I don't necessarily agree Shaft on the fact that judges should not be held accountable. I believe society (hense the voters) in this nation should have the ability (albeit used with the greatest degree of discretion) to bring judges who are consistently identified to be passing laws from the bench, to the point of referendum.
I would suppose to make this referendum extremely difficult to bring about so as not to entice every Tom, Dick or Hillary to make use of it for simple dislike. I would compare it more to the ratification of a constitutional amendment where a 2/3rds majority of States would need to agree (in the case of federal judges) and in the case of a state judge (2/3rds of countys)...
Taking away the life sentence that politicians impose on our federal judges would also alieviate the problem. This way they would serve and be dismissed and a new group would take on the cause... Right now the supremen court is a dynasty of its own.
I would be more apt to do a term limit. lets say 10 years and then out. You would have to make term limits a little more lengthy then presidents. I believe electing judges should be above politics.
And the fact that it was written that way, Shaft, may explain why we have an out of control judiciary today, otherwise this debate would not even be happening. If the judiciary is allowed to be an island unto itself and not answerable to anyone it is more likely, not less likely to continue to see rulings such as Lawrence v. Texas & Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. Short of impeachment, I would agree with PA that the lifetime appointments have got to go and some form of term limits be implemented. I must admit admit, in retrospect, that you made quite an interesting point about the Framers believing that people who held a position of a Judge would be a God fearing person, and at that time that was true. Unfortunately this is not the case today, and therein lies our problem!!
If the courts were held responsible as you say do you think we would've seen such rulings as Brown V. The Board of Education?
Who is to say that we would not have had the Brown v. Board of Education decision? A critical point is that the when the Framers drafted the Constitution, they established three separate but co-equal branches of the government, but in their belief the judiciary was the least "powerful" of the three branches. Should the courts have handed down an unpopular decision, the congress could overturn that decision simply by passing a law to reverse the ruling. Clearly this is not the case today, because WE the people have grown so indifferent and complacient that we hide our heads in the sand like an ostrich rather than getting involved in the issues of the day. This has in large part contributed to the situation we have today with a judiciary constantly legislative from the bench, rather than interpreting the constitution and the laws of the United States. If the courts were accountable and responsible for the rulings they hand down, maybe we would not have seen the infamous Roe v. Wade decision, and others of its kind. As I said before, the judiciary cannot and should not be allowed to be an island unto itself. In so doing, the American people will continue to see their rights and freedoms chiseled away, until the day comes when there are NO rights left. This indeed would be a dark day in the history of this Country.
I agree with term limits. This would allow the courts to make the tough decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education. It would also allow the courts to later overturn rulings that should not have been made. Do you think, if the justices are held responsable, the judges would even touch cases Roe v. Wade?
I'm off for the weekend. Everyone have a Happy Memorial Day and I will talk to everyone Tuesday.
That is a most interesting question, shaft, and one that I will ponder over the Holiday weekend. I wish you and your family a safe and happy Memorial Day weekend, and I am sure we will be chatting next week.
Post a Comment