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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (234653)	5/25/2005 3:57:09 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578701

Posted 05/24/2005 @ 2:15pm Bad Deal on Judges As the showdown on the so-called "nuclear option" approached, polls showed that the American people opposed scheming on the part of Senate GOP leaders to eliminate judicial filibusters by an overwhelming 2-to-1 margin. Even among grassroots Republicans, there was broad discomfort with the idea of creating a tyranny-of-the-majority scenario in which the minority party in the Senate would no longer be consulted regarding lifetime appointments to the federal courts. So there were plenty Republican senators who were looking for a way out of the corner into which Senate majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., had maneuvered them. Democrats simply needed to hold the line, while attracting Republicans who were uncomfortable with Frist's machinations, and they could have secured the will of the people. Unfortunately, the Democrats buckled. So Republicans will get the votes they want on at least three federal appeals court nominees who should not be allowed on the bench. Under a compromise worked out by moderate Republicans and Democrats, the "nuclear option" has been averted for the time being -- and perhaps permanently. But in return for that concession by the Republicans, the Democrats have agreed to allow confirmation votes on three judicial nominations that had been blocked: Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor Jr. and Priscilla Owen. The trio were among the ten appeals court nominees whose records of judicial activism, ideological rigidity and ethical misdeeds were so troubling that a substantial number of senators felt they ought not be given lifetime tenures on key appellate court benches. It now appears that confirmation is all but certain for the nominees: That's bad news for Americans in general and, in particular, for low-income citizens, people of color and women who look to the nation's highest courts for a measure of protection against discrimination and other forms of government-sanctioned abuse. Brown, who has been nominated to serve on the powerful US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has condemned the New Deal, which gave the United States Social Security, the minimum wage and fair labor laws. She has expressed doubts about whether age discrimination laws are a good idea. And she has made it clear that she is no fan of affirmative action or other programs designed to help minorities and women overcome centuries of oppression. Pryor, while serving as attorney general of Alabama, fought to undermine the authority of Congress to prohibit discrimination and to protect the environment, to maintain separation of church and state, to protect reproductive freedom and to guarantee equal protection under the law for gay men and lesbians. He has been nominated to serve on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Owen, who has been nominated to serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, established a record on the Texas Supreme Court of unswerving loyalty to corporate interests. She has, in addition, adopted such extreme antiabortion rights stances that even her fellow conservatives, including Alberto Gonzalez, who was then a Supreme Court justice but now servers as US Attorney General, have distanced themselves from her. All three nominees have drawn broad opposition from civil rights, women's rights, public interest, religious, environmental and labor groups. None of them should ever be allowed anywhere near an appeals court bench. Yet it is likely that, as a result of the deal worked out by the moderate senators, all three will soon be donning the robes of the federal judiciary. This "compromise" may have averted the "nuclear option" for a time. But it will saddle the federal bench with more bad judges. That's a bad deal, especially when there is such overwhelming public sentiment for maintaining the right of senators to block inappropriate judicial nominees. Democrats were right to oppose Brown, Pryor and Owen. They will come to regret cutting the deal to let these unacceptable nominees -- and the others who are now sure to be nominated by the Bush Administration -- to be approved. thenation.com

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (234653)	5/25/2005 6:18:54 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578701

Of late, I've been reading more of the right's media. No, its not a form of self punishment but rather a periodic check of what's au courant. The article below is an example of how you all are mislead by your media. The Never-Ending Gubernatorial Race nationalreview.com The author slips in enough truths and half truths to appear to be doing an honest story. However, intermixed with those truths and half truths are his own opinions passed off as facts: Opinion 1: A majority of WA state were in favor of having the election redone. Huh? A new election would cost the state $4 million....thanks to the Bush recession, state revenue is just now recovering..........balancing the state budget for the past 4 years has been hell. Why would voters want to have a new election when the vote was so close? Its total nonsense. A majority did not want a new election. Opinion 2: The state is a worse voting travesty than FLA 2000. I don't think so! The state is talking about erroneously-counted and misplaced ballots in the tens and hundreds, not the tens and hundreds of thousands of a FLA. Nor was there a hanging chad issue. Opinion 3: With the voting miscounts discovered by the GOP, Rossi would have won. Nonsense! Using the GOP's own standards, the Seattle Times who endorsed Rossi in the race concluded that Rossi would not have won any which way the votes were counted. Opinion 4: There was voter fraud. Right! Not once has there been any indication of voter fraud. Its a recurring fantasy of Vance, the head of the state's GOP....and that's all it is, his fantasy. Those are just four of the pieces of info in the article that were not presented truthfully. There are more. How can you all get a straight picture of the world if you are fed BS. Of course, you can't.......that's why some of you still believe that there were WMDs in Iraq. And you want us to let you lead. I don't think so!