|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
From: Millie (user-24-214-41-38.knology.net - 24.214.41.38)
In Reply to: Fili---Busted...... posted by Millie on April 21, 2005 at 5:22 pm:
Isn't that a prime question? Here's a bit of info on some of them - I'd like to find a more detailed account of the faults of each - this discussion really should, imo, include the reasons these people are being questioned in their abilities.......if anyone finds a better explanation of the Democrats views on this (not a commentary on their views: their actual views in context, please), I'd like to see it..... Some of the nominees are simply unqualified. President Bush has nominated numerous people lacking in legal distinction or experience -- leading the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary to draw the line with some of the more flagrantly inexperienced and unqualified nominees. (link) As one example, William Myers of Idaho has never been a judge. He spent 12 years as a lobbyist for mining and cattle corporations. In 2001 he became the chief legal advocate for the Interior Department. Some nominees have serious ethical issues. One of President Bush's appointees to a Texas district court, Ron Clark, reportedly asked the White House not to sign his official commission papers -- a routine ministerial action -- after the Senate confirmed him so that he could continue campaigning for reelection to the Texas legislature. Such actions clearly violate ethics rules forbidding judges and nominees from campaigning for political office. In the case of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor Jr., the committee pursued evidence that he solicited contributions for the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) from companies doing business in the state. As serious as the alleged solicitations appeared and notwithstanding the pending investigation, the committee moved forward with the vote, which went 10-9 along party lines. The unresolved investigation provided Democrats with further justification for the subsequent filibuster on the Senate floor California Justice Janice R. Brown argued that the First Amendment should permit corporations to make false or misleading representations without legal ramifications. (link) Priscilla Owen, a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, argued that landowners are exempt from environmental regulations that are inconsistent with how they wish to use the land. In another case, her ruling would have prevented a woman from suing a corporation for a rape committed by a sales representative for its distributor. (link) William Hayne was the principal author of the Bush administration's handling of enemy combatants. In this capacity, he denied Geneva Convention protections to those captured during battle. Although he was responsible for the oversight of legal standards for military personnel, he failed to prevent, and possibly encouraged, the torture and mistreatment of combatants in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. (link The weird previous rulings of some of these nominees are nothing short of kooky. California Justice Janice R. Brown characterized a city ordinance requiring some housing to be made available to the poor, elderly, and disabled as the theft of private property. She also indicated that racially discriminatory speech in the workplace is protected under the First Amendment right to free speech, even when it meets the legal definition of harassment. In a case involving far-reaching drug testing by an employer, she ruled for the employer, despite the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court having rejected the testing as unconstitutional. Priscilla Owen, a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, once argued for a very narrow view of a state law regarding the ability of minors to obtain an {banned topic} without notifying a parent. Her argument was so radical that fellow justice Alberto Gonzales, now U.S. Attorney General, said that agreeing with her legal argument would be an "unconscionable act of judicial activism." Alabama Judge William Pryor has called laws prohibiting gender discrimination in public education "antidemocratic." He strongly defended the practice of handcuffing prisoners to hitching posts during summer as a form of punishment. He has advocated allowing states, based on a simple majority vote, to decide issues concerning {banned topic}, gay rights, and school prayer, even if it violated constitutional rights. Judge Terrence Boyle of North Carolina has twice had rulings reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court because he allowed congressional redistricting that disenfranchised black voters David McKeague, a judge in Michigan, ruled to allow substantial logging without the state's mandated environmental analysis. An appellate court overruled and called his ruling "arbitrary and capricious." Though one would never know it to hear what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, et al, are saying about the importance of an up or down vote for all judicial appointees, lots of Clinton nominees were refused an up or down vote. During the six years Republicans controlled the Senate during Clinton's presidency, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch gave homestate senators absolute veto power and expanded the blue slip policy to allow senators to block nominees they opposed. The blue slip form itself, given to homestate senators for their feedback on nominees, said that no nomination would move without the consent of both homestate senators. Republicans are hypocritical in complaining of obstructionism, given the 63 highly capable, moderate Clinton nominees who were never confirmed. (link) Of the 214 Bush nominees sent to the Senate for a vote during his first term, Democrats blocked only ten, using the filibuster. As such, 95 percent of Bush's nominees have been approved. By contrast, from 1995 to 2000, while Republican Senator Orrin Hatch was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate blocked 35% of Clinton's circuit court nominees. (link) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/17/144614/199
|
