Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] "they all deserve up or down votes"

[Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

You know I got to thinking, and I am most concerned about one thing here.

Judges making laws from the bench.

This is why this is so political. Judges have now been found to have a
very broad reaching power as more and more of the constitution is
being litigated. This is a sad state of affairs. Is it the judges that
are at fault here, or the blood-sucking lawyers lead by the ACLU that
has brought us to this political nightmare?

Let's face it, if laws were not being challenged, we would not have
these extremists judges setting precedent over laws. I am not saying
we should not have litigation and I am not saying that we should not
challenge laws that are unconstitutional, on the contrary, perhaps we
should not have so many laws, this really seems to be the heart of the
matter, everytime someone does something wrong in this country we seem
to need a special law just for them. Why not enforce those laws we
have in place? Is this really so hard?

Two men beat a gay man in the street. Do we actually need a special
"hate crime" law to convict them under? Is this really necessary? Can
we not look at the circumstances in the case and apply a suitable
punishment without creating another law that later has to be defended
on its constitutional merit?

How about illegal aliens. We have many laws in California the
Californian populace have voted into law that have been struck down by
the courts as unconstitutional. Why would we need another law to apply
to illegal aliens? They are called illegal aliens for a reason, round
them up and send them back and problem is solved. Yet in an attempt to
control the bleeding that is being caused on public services in this
state, the population of California felt the need to take action and
vote new laws into place which later were found unconstitutional and
thrown out by judges. In many cases, activists judges that are
legislating from the bench, i.e. the 9th circuit court of appeals.

This is ridiculous having to even deal with this nonsense. Judges are
supposed to be impartial and uphold the laws. It is really too bad it
has come to this.



On 6/3/05, Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> Interesting article to say the least, I am not sure how much of this
> is accurate, but I will take some time and do some comparisons. Also
> it would be good to know who blocked some of these. I see Senator
> Helms on the list a few times.
> 
> The problem comparing this to what is happening now is this:
> 
> These judges never got out of committee. Lets compare apples to apples
> here, take a look at this graph...
> 
> http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983
> 
> This shows that the number of Bush appointments that have been
> confirmed is almost directly on par with those that Clinton had
> confirmed. In fact, if you want to get down to brass tacks, Bush has
> had 53% of his confirmed whereas Clinton had 61% of his confirmed.
> 
> Once again the left totally misses the entire point, not surprising
> really. The point here is not those appointments blocked in committee
> and kept from getting a vote, even though I once posted an article
> here that Boxer, Feinstien and Kennedy were all screaming about that.
> The problem here is democrats filibustering on the floor of the
> senate.
> 
> If I have to once again put up the definition of the word filibuster
> and what it means I will. Filibuster is not the blocking of
> appointments in committee, filibuster is blocking a senate vote after
> they have passed through committee already. This is what the democrats
> were threatening to do and why the senate leadership was threatening a
> change.
> 
> 
> On 6/3/05, Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> > Here is an interesting table on Clinton judicial nominations and what
> > happened to them.  Suffice it to say, I find the current suggestion by
> > some Republicans that it is unconstitutional not to have votes on
> > nominees to be pretty strange.  This has never been the case, and
> > certainly wasn't the policy they followed between 1995 and 2001.
> >
> > http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2005/06/feinstein-in-tabular-form-apparently.html
> >
> > Again, maybe you think some of these judges should have been blocked,
> > but few of them ever got a vote in committee, much less in the senate.
> >
> > jking
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > discussion mailing list
> > EMAIL:PROTECTED
> > http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Thanks
> F Vernon Green
> 


-- 
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion