Skip to main content

View Diary: Next Battle: Bush's Judicial Nominees (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wrong attitude on judicial nominations (none)
    Why do Democrats so vehemently oppose these judicial candidates? Could it possibly be simply that they take opposing stances on some of today's hot issues, such as abortion? If so, this is the wrong attitude about the courts. The Constitution was meant to, in part, interfere with majoritarian impulses not to bow to them as the Democrats seem to think they now should.
    •  Hey, troll (none)
      I find it rather funny that you mention that "The Constitution was meant to, in part, interfere with majoritarian impulses not to bow to them"  as forcing obeisence to majoritarian impulse is exactly what the Repubs are trying to do by getting rid of the filibuster, the greatest protector of minority rights in the legislative branch of government.  I think you must be standing on your head and everything looks, well, kinda upside-down.  It's the only way to make sense of your comment.   That kind of thinking reminds me of the fellow (true story) who shot his wife because divorce was against his religion.

      Why do you think repubs blocked so many of Clinton's appointees?  Because they took "opposing stances on some of today's hot issues, such as abortion?"  DUH?  But that was okay with you, I guess.  Besides, it's not just their stances that are objectionable, it their lack of qualifications and obvious bias leading to legally unsound decision making.  But bias is fine, as long as it's biased your way, no doubt.

      In case you are unaware of it, the courts are not only defenders of the constitution, but according to their constitutional mandate and settled law, defenders of the people that that constitution represents.  

      I say let's go nuclear!  Let them try to ram this stuff down America's throat and see just who chokes.  It's time to lance this boil.

    •  Dear Troll, (none)
      Opposition to these kinds of judges is not predicated necessarily upon their stance on hot-button issues. Opposition is predicated on the fact that these judges advocate reversing or eroding many of the long held constitutional principles with which the American judicial system has functioned.

      Janice Rogers Brown (Antonin Scalia in a skirt) has questioned the long held legal principle that the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. This would undo roughly, oh, just over a century of legal precedent, if followed.

      A vast majority of the civil rights advances of the last 60 years were based on the applicability of the 14th Amendment. Brown v. Board is but one.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site