• 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

« Judge Hears Closing Arguments in 'Libyan Embassy' Domain Name Case | Main | Antitrust Rules Need to be Clearer, Federalist Society Panel Argues »

March 14, 2012



Next we'll be hearing that the President's low apapovrl rating is "biased" and "not scientific". Activist judges extremist socialist agenda a vast left-wing media conspiracy just listen to yourself. While you're at it, consider wiping that foam away from your mouth.Yes, Blair and Howard were re-elected, but neither of them are pushing the hard right agenda in their own countries that Bush is pushing in the US. have acknowledged error in ways that Bush will never be able to bring himself to do. Both Howard and Blair are eloquent, well-spoken, and diplomatic. So let's not equivocate them with Bush or use their re-elections as evidence of a world-wide movement to the right. That's disingenuous if not intentionally decietful.The truth of the matter is that present day politics in America is not moving in the ideological direction as their counterpart western democracies. This soap-box preaching about "freedom" is belied by America's support for some of the worst human rights violators out their, and America's unwillingness to push for reform in some of those countries because "they may be bastards, but they're America's bastards". Most other countries out there recognize this and can see the pattern. America supported Osama's ilk in Afghanistan when it was convenient to do so and it came back to bite them. America supported Saddam when it was convenient and it came back to bite them. Under George II's rule, he's been off grandiosely slaying a toothless tiger while Osama's still at large, North Korea and Iran are reaching nuclear brinkmanship, and America still has gaping security problems.Meanwhile at home, Bush has been pandering to the far right who wants (like Bolton) to see the UN disappear, and who wants (like Scalia) to undo jurisprudence like the right to privacy, the right to make one's own medical decisions, and the right not to have governmental endorsement of religion. The type of theocratic reforms that the Bush administration is aiming for are hardly representative of freedom or democracy, and certainly don't represent the way the rest of the developed world is moving. Freedom is winning, but isn't because of Bush.UN reform isn't going to occur by brute force. The General Assembly and Security Council are somewhat democratically controlled bodies and changes require support from others. Convincing others to support reform isn't going to come about by suggesting that the UN doesn't exist, or by forcing resolutions that pin the UN into a corner (see Bolton's previous comments regarding the UN for details), slamming doors, or chasing secretaries up and down hallways. Screaming, yelling, chest-thumping those things might go over well on Monday Night RAW, but (as evidenced by the UN's reaction to Bush's "with us or without us" rhetoric) it won't fly at the UN. What is the likelihood that Bolton will be able to lead others to support his efforts when his past comments have reflected a desire to see the UN gone, international law ignored, and America's treaty obligations not worth the paper they were written on? Having Bolton as an Ambassador is only likely to further marginalize America's influence on the UN. When that happens, everyone loses. The problem is that the "right" is so caught up in the "Bush can and never has done any wrong" that they'd rather toe the party line than admit to the obvious... Bolton is a bad choice, and one indicative of one who proclaimed to be a "uniter, not a divider".The founding father's of America understood the concept of "tyranny of the majority" and the problems associated with having power consolidated with one body. The right's present efforts to effect exactly that might represent democracy in the literal sense of the term, but certainly not in the Plato/Madison/de Tocqueville meaning.Of course, based on your above rants ("Daschlecrats!??!, I don't hold any misconceptions about being able to convince you. I can only pray that there are Americans out there that are a bit more level-headed. Bush's current apapovrl rating provides some hope.


Undocumented Immigrants are not not contributing to a "crowded" problem for the courts. They are crowded because there are not enough judges in our system.

Howard Norris

Just what we need, more anti-gun nuts on the bench:


Wait a sec- the republicans are upset that Obama made recess appointments, but those appointments were made only after the republicans sat on judicial and other appointments for a long time. Advise and consent means you VOTE - up or down- not play political football with the nominees. THe only ones hurt are the american public AND the federal judges still serving- at ridiculously low pay for waht they do (compared to what they could make in the marketplace).

Nominations are just hat- and Congress has an obligation to act on them. Shame on the republicans.


Looks to me like they're going in chronological order on the nominations. The circuit judges who didn't make the cut all seem to have been reported out by Judiciary Committee since February. I'd expect to see progress on most of them in a month or so.


The reason the dockets are 'crowded' is because nearly 1/2 of all federal cases are about illegal aliens. That seems more significant than the number of judges we have.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad