Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (12561)	4/6/2005 7:20:25 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361717

Lieberman is with Bush on Iraq. I disagree with him on that. Kerry is not with Bush on Iraq. Kerry was merely for making sure Saddam was disarmed, by force if necessary. Kerry would have never unilaterally invaded Iraq unless Saddam had attacked us. The reason Lieberman is with Bush on Iraq is that Lieberman stands with the rightwing Zionist jews. Israel is his #1 priority, not the USA. Otherwise, he's pretty liberal, except on morality issues because he really is very religious, not phony religious for political reasons like many Bushies are.

To: Crimson Ghost who wrote (12561)	4/6/2005 7:37:05 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 361717

Lautenberg issues sharp speech about attacks on judges RAW STORY Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) issued stiff remarks to the Senate in response to another senator's seeming implication that federal judges were responsible for violence against them because they were "unaccountable," RAW STORY has learned. The speech delivered to the Senate follows. REMARKS BY SEN. LAUTENBERG: Mr. President, I rise today to respond to some recent remarks by a member of this body, and the Majority Leader of the House, about the judges who preside in our federal courts. Article III, Section One of the United States Constitution says: The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. That seems pretty clear to me. Judicial power is vested in our courts – not in Congress. The Constitution gives the Senate a role in the appointment of judges. We are supposed to provide advice and consent. But once a judge is seated on the bench, his or her decisions are not subject to our approval. And the Founding Fathers set up that way on purpose. They wanted to make sure that court decisions would be based on legal grounds - not political. Today there is an orchestrated effort to smear the reputation of the judiciary, especially federal judges. This effort is being waged by Republicans in Congress, as a prelude to an attempt to change the rules for confirming judicial appointments. In order to justify the “nuclear option,” they are trying to paint judges as “activists” and “out of control.” In reality, it is the leadership of this Congress that is out of control and endangering the future of a fair court system. Mr. President, in this chamber yesterday, one of our colleagues said Americans are becoming “frustrated” by the rulings of judges and accused them of making “raw political or ideological decisions." Our colleague then went on to say: “I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public … that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence.” These remarks are almost unbelievable. Yet they echo the words last week of the House Majority Leader. Speaking of the judges in the Schiavo case, the House Majority Leader said, “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." These are inflammatory words. They ignore the fact that our Founding Fathers wanted judges to be insulated from political pressure. And they are words that could easily incite violence against judges. On Sunday, a columnist in the House Majority Leader’s hometown newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, wrote: “It is time for him to stop sputtering ill-tempered threats, not only at the judiciary but also at the U.S. Constitution, which he repeatedly has sworn to uphold.” Mr. President, to make matters worse, there have been two recent episodes involving violence against judges. In Chicago a man fatally shot the husband and mother of a federal judge who had ruled against him in a medical malpractice suit. And in Atlanta last month, a man broke away from a deputy and killed four people, including the judge presiding over his rape trial. Were these judges who suffered terribly because of their official duties “activists”? Were they “out of control”? The message being sent out to the American people by the other side of the aisle is not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous to our nation’s judges. Like the nuclear option, the goal here is to have judges make political decisions rather than legal. They are trying to intimidate sitting judges. And they are trying to change Senate rules to get bad judges on the bench. I vow to fight this nuclear option as well as these irresponsible threatening statements. In my view, the true measure of democracy is how it dispenses justice. In this country, any attempt to intimidate judges not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well. I call on every member of this Senate to repudiate these attacks against the federal judiciary and the United States Constitution.