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

[Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Reference for my previous post about illegal aliens in California and
the tricks judges and ACLU will pull, this is just a history.

http://ccir.net/REFERENCE/187-History.html

Of course the politicians, namely Governor Gumby who was soundly
recalled did nothing to help the cause.

On 6/3/05, Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> 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
> 


-- 
Thanks
F Vernon Green

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