Somebody Needs To Shut Up Barbara Boxer

[Guest MikeSC]

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

http://www.radioblogger.com/images/conlawboxer.mp3

Ah, so Boxer thinks it's only fair to COMPLETELY change the Constitution because she doesn't like the current political landscape? She wants to require BOTH a supermajority AND for judges to face election.

 

Lovely.

 

But, hey, she doesn't like the Republicans because they only FOLLOW the Constitution.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

Actually, I do think judges have too much power in terms of the checks in balances, only if because they are making out of left-field (not in the political sense) moralistic interpreatations of the constitution (as seen in the minor death sentence case) I'm leery of this whether libs or cons are in the majority in the Supreme Court, BTW.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Let that little feminazi keep on going -- the more she yaps the more seats Republicans will win...

[Ripper 0]

The relgious groups that support the president bitch about the same thing though, because they don't feel there should be any judge that disagrees with their stances. So basically....stupid people are republicans and democrats.

 

 

But, hey, she doesn't like the Republicans because they only FOLLOW the Constitution.

 

And Democrats don't?

[Guest MikeSC]

The relgious groups that support the president bitch about the same thing though, because they don't feel there should be any judge that disagrees with their stances. So basically....stupid people are republicans and democrats.

 

 

But, hey, she doesn't like the Republicans because they only FOLLOW the Constitution.

 

And Democrats don't?

In this case, no. The Democrats want a super-majority for judicial nominations, which is not required by the Constitution.

 

Hell, she wants judges to possibly face election, which goes very much against the entire point of having judges (namely that they won't be beholden to political pressures).

 

Hey, I'll be the first to state that the Courts have made some borderline moronic decisions (The Supreme Court ruling that welfare was property was spectacularly horrible) --- I still wouldn't want such an overwhelming change to our system.

 

I'd have no problem with Congress having an ability to override a decision in a manner similar to overriding a veto, though.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

She isn't "The Democrats" she is one voice.

 

 

Thats like me saying "The Republicans" want to make laws to protect gay babies.

[Guest MikeSC]

She isn't "The Democrats" she is one voice.

 

 

Thats like me saying "The Republicans" want to make laws to protect gay babies.

Sen Byrd, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Schumer, Sen Kennedy, etc have expressed similar views.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Shouldn't Boxer be more worried about trying to give felons the right to vote?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Thats like me saying "The Republicans" want to make laws to protect gay babies.

I don't -- wipe those little bastards out before they exit the womb.

 

Did I tiptoe over the line on that one?...

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Thats like me saying "The Republicans" want to make laws to protect gay babies.

I don't -- wipe those little bastards out before they exit the womb.

 

Did I tiptoe over the line on that one?...

Probably, you're against abortion but for killing gay babies. Not the best thing to put on your pamphlet. I don't know if I will be voting for you now.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Well, to be fair, the "gay babies" would still be in the womb -- We talked about this subject before and it dealt with (brief rundown in case you missed it) some idiot proposing a bill to protect unborn gay babies from being aborted if the parent finds out that the baby, while he/she/it is still in the womb is a homo and wants to abort because the baby is "gay."

 

Although it is odd considering I'm pro-life (or at least I think so) but yet hate children...

[Guest Cerebus]

This thread went to hell in 5 posts. You guys are improving I must say.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Only five? Come on guys, we can do better than that...

[Justice 0]

*shakes head*

 

But in all seriousness...

 

This is stupidity. With this suggestion, complete Judicial Gridlock occurs. Seriously, that's what is asked for here. People might think that this thing would be restricted for 'controversial' judges, but 'controversial' can be put on anyone who might disagree with one key question, like abortion or gun rights or gay marriage. With the ultra-polarized political field we have going right now, do you honestly think either side will give up a chance at the biggest trump card in the land?

 

Regardless of side, Boxer and anyone who is for this does not forsee the consequences of this at all.

[Guest CronoT]

The Judges on the Supreme Court are placed there for life for one simple reason: So they don't have to worry about the random political bitching this country seems to revel in. If your job involves potentialing pissing off "the most powerful man in the world" on a regular basis, you'd certainly want some assurance he couldn't fuck with you for doing it.

 

And don't even get me started on Pat Robertson's stupid stunts recently involving the Supreme Court.

[Vyce 0]

Thats like me saying "The Republicans" want to make laws to protect gay babies.

I don't -- wipe those little bastards out before they exit the womb.

 

Did I tiptoe over the line on that one?...

When I read kkk's post, my blood ran cold.

 

I said a prayer......wait, didn't we alredy do this joke?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Yeah, I'll admit that quote is pretty stupid. But it seems like everyone in Congress is having braindead moments from time to time.

[Guest CronoT]

Yeah, I'll admit that quote is pretty stupid. But it seems like everyone in Congress is having braindead moments from time to time.

If the Founding Fathers had expected Congress to actually get anything done, they would have name it Progress.

 

Yeah, I know it's a little lame, but it's funny when you think about it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yeah, I'll admit that quote is pretty stupid. But it seems like everyone in Congress is having braindead moments from time to time.

If the Founding Fathers had expected Congress to actually get anything done, they would have name it Progress.

 

Yeah, I know it's a little lame, but it's funny when you think about it.

I thought about it.

 

You're mistaken.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yeah, I know it's a little lame, but it's funny when you think about it.

 

No, it's not...

[SuperJerk 0]

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

http://www.radioblogger.com/images/conlawboxer.mp3

Ah, so Boxer thinks it's only fair to COMPLETELY change the Constitution because she doesn't like the current political landscape? She wants to require BOTH a supermajority AND for judges to face election.

First of all, according to this quote, she was referring to them facing election by the Senate, which they already do.

 

Second, her suggestion would not COMPLETELY CHANGE the Constitution as you claim.

 

Third, Boxer isn't the first person to suggest amending the Constitution because she didn't like how the courts were behaving. After all, this reasoning part of the justification for the gay marriage amendment.

 

Fourth, I am curious to know why you or anyone thinks making judicial apointments require a super-majority vote in the Senate is such a bad idea. I have not made up my mind yet on this issue, and wouldn't mind seeing people actually debate the merits of it rather than just throw insults at the person who proposed it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

http://www.radioblogger.com/images/conlawboxer.mp3

Ah, so Boxer thinks it's only fair to COMPLETELY change the Constitution because she doesn't like the current political landscape? She wants to require BOTH a supermajority AND for judges to face election.

First of all, according to this quote, she was referring to them facing election by the Senate, which they already do.

 

Second, her suggestion would not COMPLETELY CHANGE the Constitution as you claim.

 

 

A supermajority COMPLETELY changes the requirement. And judges being up for occasional election, no matter by whom, completely and totally changes the Constitution.

 

This would be as bad as FDR's court-packing scheme.

Third, Boxer isn't the first person to suggest amending the Constitution because she didn't like how the courts were behaving.  After all, this reasoning part of the justification for the gay marriage amendment.

Boxer isn't advocating amending a thing. She's advocating changing the Constitution WITHOUT amending it. She's advocating just ignoring the parts she doesn't like.

Fourth, I am curious to know why you or anyone thinks making judicial apointments require a super-majority vote in the Senate is such a bad idea.

Because a minority shouldn't be allowed to prevent anything from getting done. It can cause the entire system to collapse.

I have not made up my mind yet on this issue, and wouldn't mind seeing people actually debate the merits of it rather than just throw insults at the person who proposed it.

She wants to change it WITHOUT Amendments. She just wants to do it out of thin air.

 

And they have the audacity to bitch about the "nuclear" (or, in OTHER terms, the CONSTITUTIONAL) option?

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think you're reading way to much into what she said.

 

Boxer isn't advocating amending a thing.

She's advocating changing the Constitution WITHOUT amending it.

She's advocating just ignoring the parts she doesn't like.

 

Assuming your description of her position is accurate, ignoring the Constitution (which I didn't interprete her statement as advocating) is a little different than changing the Constitution.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Yeah, I'll admit that quote is pretty stupid. But it seems like everyone in Congress is having braindead moments from time to time.

If the Founding Fathers had expected Congress to actually get anything done, they would have name it Progress.

 

Yeah, I know it's a little lame, but it's funny when you think about it.

No

[Guest MikeSC]

I think you're reading way to much into what she said.

 

Boxer isn't advocating amending a thing.

She's advocating changing the Constitution WITHOUT amending it.

She's advocating just ignoring the parts she doesn't like.

 

Assuming your description of her position is accurate, ignoring the Constitution (which I didn't interprete her statement as advocating) is a little different than changing the Constitution.

If you ignore entire portions of the Constitution, you make them irrelevant. Which DOES change them.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hell, she wants judges to possibly face election, which goes very much against the entire point of having judges (namely that they won't be beholden to political pressures).

Does anyone else think it's funny that Mike is defending this after complaining in so many gay marriage threads about judges following their interpretation of the Constitution instead of the political leanings of voters?

[Guest MikeSC]

Hell, she wants judges to possibly face election, which goes very much against the entire point of having judges (namely that they won't be beholden to political pressures).

Does anyone else think it's funny that Mike is defending this after complaining in so many gay marriage threads about judges following their interpretation of the Constitution instead of the political leanings of voters?

I'm arguing that since the Constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about this, this should be decided by the states.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think you're reading way to much into what she said.

 

Boxer isn't advocating amending a thing.

She's advocating changing the Constitution WITHOUT amending it.

She's advocating just ignoring the parts she doesn't like.

 

Assuming your description of her position is accurate, ignoring the Constitution (which I didn't interprete her statement as advocating) is a little different than changing the Constitution.

If you ignore entire portions of the Constitution, you make them irrelevant. Which DOES change them.

-=Mike

That's pretty far-fetched reasoning.

[Guest MikeSC]

I think you're reading way to much into what she said.

 

Boxer isn't advocating amending a thing.

She's advocating changing the Constitution WITHOUT amending it.

She's advocating just ignoring the parts she doesn't like.

 

Assuming your description of her position is accurate, ignoring the Constitution (which I didn't interprete her statement as advocating) is a little different than changing the Constitution.

If you ignore entire portions of the Constitution, you make them irrelevant. Which DOES change them.

-=Mike

That's pretty far-fetched reasoning.

The civil rights amendments passed after the Civil War were supposed to give former slaves rights equal to whites.

 

For about 100 years, it didn't come close to happening.

 

Which meant that the amendments were made useless for the groups they were intended to improve the lives of.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I think you're reading way to much into what she said.

 

Boxer isn't advocating amending a thing.

She's advocating changing the Constitution WITHOUT amending it.

She's advocating just ignoring the parts she doesn't like.

 

Assuming your description of her position is accurate, ignoring the Constitution (which I didn't interprete her statement as advocating) is a little different than changing the Constitution.

If you ignore entire portions of the Constitution, you make them irrelevant. Which DOES change them.

-=Mike

That's pretty far-fetched reasoning.

The civil rights amendments passed after the Civil War were supposed to give former slaves rights equal to whites.

 

For about 100 years, it didn't come close to happening.

 

Which meant that the amendments were made useless for the groups they were intended to improve the lives of.

-=Mike

True, but that didn't change the Constitution. Ignoring the Constitution and changing the Constitution are two different things. You're trying to make her look like a villian by claiming she trying to do both simultaneously, which is impossible.