Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Scholar Presses for More Supreme Court Diversity | Main | Treasury Department Names Tully Rinckey a TARP Subcontractor »

November 17, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20133f5f7801f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats Plan Votes on Controversial Nominees, Senator Says:

Comments

wvanpup

Dear Paul

Federal judges can and have been impeached, but for crimes they commit rather than decisions they issue. The day we impeach judges for their decisions, simply because YOU think they are wrong, is the day judges lose their independence.

Funny how those who disagree with you have an agenda, while those who agree are simply following the law.

Activist judges do not exceed their Constitutional authority and rebel against Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, "activist" judges just do not agree with you on what the Constitution means. What makes that disagreement treason?

So, the 'legal' explanation why judges are not impeached because of their decisions is very simple. Disagreement, even when disagreeable, is not illegal and not impeachable.


anon

I thought Louis Butler was known for absolutely following the law.

Paul

Is 'Roosevelt' stacking the court with sympathizers again?

Why can Congress (or someone)not eject federal judges who violate, fail to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, their sacred and official obligation. (Obviously I'm not referring their imaginary and fake version of the document, upon which the Kagan's of the world "swear adherence")

How is it that these 'agendist' aren't ejected from the bench?

Activist judges exceed their Constitutional authority thus rebelling against authority of the Supreme Law of the Land. To me this is tantamount to High Treason, seriously! Its a serious crime.
These lawless judges are ruining this country.

Someone please give me the 'legal' explanation why this cannot be done (and quote the supporting U.S.Statute)


Rick

Hey Uncle Bill:

Are you concerned about conservative active justices who ignored 100 years of precedent and legislated from the bench in the "Citizens United" ruling?...Were you concerned with conservative judicial activism in Bush V. Gore?...Or is there no such thing as conservative judicial activism in your book...

I love how conservatives always cry the "liberal activist judges blues" yet in reality some of the most glaring examples of judicial activism (see first paragraph) are compliments of a conservative court...

Uncle Bill

So we should approve an activist judge to the 9th Circuit (known on the west coast by those it victimizes as either the "9th Circus" or the "9th Soviet")? This guy want to twist the 14th Amendment into setting a national school curriculum. As a tenured classroom professor with over 30 years experience teaching, I can tell you that letting bureaucrats and lawyers set the standards of teaching and curriculum content is the last stake in the heart of a free and liberal education in America. They have the neither the aptitude nor the experience for what he proposes. Gee, and that's only one law journal article.

Carol L. Ziegler

Our federal courts need a full house. It is long past time to fill these vacancies. I leave it up to the Senate leadership to figure out whether to go for the "controversial" nominees or all of them. But let's get it done.

JonathanZ

You can't get to a floor vote until you've passed a cloture vote.
What Democrats should do (if cloture fails) is force the Republicans to actually filibuster--use up floor time & come across as the obstructionists they have been.
Republicans have led the public to assume you need 60% to even enact any bill (or approve a nomination). Isn't so; supermajorities (needed to end filibusters) are but an exception to the normal simple majority ("51%"); help the public realize this (and maybe succeed in getting these nominations through in the process).

Captain Kirk

How about having votes (with or without use of "force") on all of the **uncontroversial** nominees (uh-duh)? How hard can that be? In case the Senate has forgotten, you put them on the calendar, you vote, and then you bang the gavel. Voila, new judges! See how simple that was?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements