Key Democrat warns against 'activist' Obama court nominee

danarhea · May 25, 2009

Looks like that, whoever is nominated for the Supreme Court, it had better not be a judge who legislates rather than interprets the law. Democrat Ben Nelson will help make sure of that.

"I don't care whether they're liberal or conservative," Nelson told Fox News Sunday in an interview. "I just want to make sure they're not activist. I don't want an activist on the bench."

"I think that's the test -- will they be an activist or not?" Nelson said.

I believe that Nelson has nailed the issue right on the head. Yes, Obama is in power, so we can be sure that his picks are not going to be Conservatives. OK, that is fine. Obama is President, and the Democrats control Congress. They get their pick for SCOTUS....... However, I commend some of the Democrats who are willing to cross the aisle to the Republican side if Obama's choice is an activist judge. Filibusters are for preventing a "tyranny of the majority", and they are a good thing.

Which brings me to the nuclear option that the Bush administration had threatened to use. The Republican mantra just a few years ago was that judges deserved "an up or down vote", and that mantra was wrong on so many levels. I do NOT believe that the president has the right to an up or down vote on judges. I thought it wrong when Bush was in power, and I believe it to be wrong now. With use of the filibuster, judges who bend and warp the Constitution, along with American values, are prevented from being sworn in.

So my question to Republicans is this - Do you believe in the nuclear option now? I sincerely hope you have changed your mind on this. The shoe is certainly on the other foot now, and I believe that John McCain had the vision and foresight to see what using the nuclear option could eventually lead to. While some may think McCain a traitor for forging a compromise that prevented the nuclear option from being used, I believe that McCain is an American hero for that very reason.

Discussion, anyone?

Article is here.

Redress · May 25, 2009

This rush of people commenting on what the nominee should be like is silly. Let's wait for a pick, and judge the pick. Congress's job is to approve or disparove of the pick, not tell the president what type person he should pick.

LaMidRighter · May 25, 2009

danarhea said:
Looks like that, whoever is nominated for the Supreme Court, it had better not be a judge who legislates rather than interprets the law. Democrat Ben Nelson will help make sure of that.

I'll give Nelson a +1 on that.

I believe that Nelson has nailed the issue right on the head. Yes, Obama is in power, so we can be sure that his picks are not going to be Conservatives. OK, that is fine. Obama is President, and the Democrats control Congress. They get their pick for SCOTUS....... However, I commend some of the Democrats who are willing to cross the aisle to the Republican side if Obama's choice is an activist judge. Filibusters are for preventing a "tyranny of the majority", and they are a good thing.

I agree if the fillibuster is used for actual concerns, not because of a desire to get a philosophical or partisan result.

Which brings me to the nuclear option that the Bush administration had threatened to use. The Republican mantra just a few years ago was that judges deserved "an up or down vote", and that mantra was wrong on so many levels. I do NOT believe that the president has the right to an up or down vote on judges. I thought it wrong when Bush was in power, and I believe it to be wrong now. With use of the filibuster, judges who bend and warp the Constitution, along with American values, are prevented from being sworn in.

I saw the democrat push as a partisan one, it could be a perspective thing, a couple of potential justices were screwed over, like Janice Rogers Brown, but, we did get two very good picks, so your point is valid.

So my question to Republicans is this - Do you believe in the nuclear option now? I sincerely hope you have changed your mind on this. The shoe is certainly on the other foot now, and I believe that John McCain had the vision and foresight to see what using the nuclear option could eventually lead to. While some may think McCain a traitor for forging a compromise that prevented the nuclear option from being used, I believe that McCain is an American hero for that very reason.

It's still on the table and fair game, so, we'll have to let things fall as they may.....for at least the next 1.5 years.

LaMidRighter · May 25, 2009

Redress said:
This rush of people commenting on what the nominee should be like is silly. Let's wait for a pick, and judge the pick. Congress's job is to approve or disparove of the pick, not tell the president what type person he should pick.

I see your point, but if it aids in the process of picking a justice and eliminates another contentious nomination process, maybe it isn't such a bad idea to give a preview of what the house is looking for and what the basic criteria for nomination would be.

Moon · May 25, 2009

Nelson's a politician. We'll see what happens if Obama nominates an activist and see what Nelson does.

Redress · May 25, 2009

danarhea said:
So my question to Republicans is this - Do you believe in the nuclear option now? I sincerely hope you have changed your mind on this. The shoe is certainly on the other foot now, and I believe that John McCain had the vision and foresight to see what using the nuclear option could eventually lead to. While some may think McCain a traitor for forging a compromise that prevented the nuclear option from being used, I believe that McCain is an American hero for that very reason.

I almost missed this part. Sorry about that. Why would the "nuclear option" not be legit? It's part of the rules of how the senate is run. I may not like it if republicans use it, but it is a legitimate tool.

Laila · May 25, 2009

Moon said:
Nelson's a politician. We'll see what happens if Obama nominates an activist and see what Nelson does.

Can a Democrat filibuster a democrat President and majority congress without getting some form of grief in return?

Moon · May 25, 2009

Laila said:
Can a Democrat filibuster a democrat President and majority congress without getting some form of grief in return?

Theoretically, but since it will never happen, we'll never know.

Laila · May 25, 2009

Moon said:
Theoretically, but since it will never happen, we'll never know.

See, i find that amazing. I guess your politicans have more freedom.
It would be unheard of over here, the whips keep the MPs in line. If a 3 line whip occurs, every party member votes with the Government.

Redress · May 25, 2009

Laila said:
Can a Democrat filibuster a democrat President and majority congress without getting some form of grief in return?

Probably not, nor is he likely to. I see this as him talking tough to appeal to voters, but suspect he would fall in line in a hurry if President Obama needed him to. Could even be an effort at stealing republican thunder on this. Repubs have been out in force complaining about the potential that President Obama might pick some one objectionable, so Democrats send one of their own out to do the same, then have him praise the nominee, who is likely this week.

danarhea · May 25, 2009

Laila said:
Can a Democrat filibuster a democrat President and majority congress without getting some form of grief in return?

Yes, there will be fallout, but situations like this can show how much integrity a politician really has. Is he going to be a whore to the party, or is he going to stand up for what he believes in? Nelson passed that test, and is a stand up guy.

Laila · May 25, 2009

Redress said:
Probably not, nor is he likely to. I see this as him talking tough to appeal to voters, but suspect he would fall in line in a hurry if President Obama needed him to. Could even be an effort at stealing republican thunder on this. Repubs have been out in force complaining about the potential that President Obama might pick some one objectionable, so Democrats send one of their own out to do the same, then have him praise the nominee, who is likely this week.

Oh i see ...
How much control or influence does a President have over the senates? Is it just because they are from the same party?

Laila · May 25, 2009

danarhea said:
Yes, there will be fallout, but situations like this can show how much integrity a politician really has. Is he going to be a whore to the party, or is he going to stand up for what he believes in? Nelson passed that test, and is a stand up guy.

Wouldn't the real test be if he votes against his own party?

LaMidRighter · May 25, 2009

Laila said:
Oh i see ...
How much control or influence does a President have over the senates? Is it just because they are from the same party?

The president can say what he wants to be done, or can otherwise veto until his writing hand falls off, he can slow the process down or kill legislation, not set the house agenda outright, but otherwise make things miserable for an unfriendly legislative branch.

Redress · May 25, 2009

Laila said:
Oh i see ...
How much control or influence does a President have over the senates? Is it just because they are from the same party?

President is something of a head of the party, so has a large amount of sway over those senators from his party. Much less with those of the other party. The Vice president is the president of the Senate and can vote in the case of a tie.

Thales · May 25, 2009

Redress said:
Probably not, nor is he likely to. I see this as him talking tough to appeal to voters, but suspect he would fall in line in a hurry if President Obama needed him to. Could even be an effort at stealing republican thunder on this. Repubs have been out in force complaining about the potential that President Obama might pick some one objectionable, so Democrats send one of their own out to do the same, then have him praise the nominee, who is likely this week.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was the Dem's tactic. Congressional Republicans are casting around for some kind of rallying point, and I'm sure they're praying Obama nominates someone objectionable. They need some issue they can take a firm stand on and look like a respectable, cohesive party. They're trying to lay the groundwork for an "activist judge" narrative, and this could be the Dems way of cutting them off at the pass.

Redress · May 25, 2009

Thales said:
I wouldn't be surprised if this was the Dem's tactic. Congressional Republicans are casting around for some kind of rallying point, and I'm sure they're praying Obama nominates someone objectionable. They need some issue they can take a firm stand on and look like a respectable, cohesive party. They're trying to lay the groundwork for an "activist judge" narrative, and this could be the Dems way of cutting them off at the pass.

I suspect, strongly, that President Obama is going to go with a very safe nominee. You are right about republicans looking for an issue, and I don't see President Obama giving them an easy one.

TOJ · May 25, 2009

Redress said:
I suspect, strongly, that President Obama is going to go with a very safe nominee. You are right about republicans looking for an issue, and I don't see President Obama giving them an easy one.

You mean another one? He has already handed them a few, the best so far being Gitmo. :doh

.

rebelbuc · May 26, 2009

danarhea said:
Yes, there will be fallout, but situations like this can show how much integrity a politician really has. Is he going to be a whore to the party, or is he going to stand up for what he believes in? Nelson passed that test, and is a stand up guy.

Don't you agree that the likelihood of a politician disagreeing with his/her party is so rare that it proves that 90+ percent of them are party whores?

I mean this with all due respect to those non-political whores who deserve respect!

rebelbuc · May 26, 2009

Laila said:
See, i find that amazing. I guess your politicans have more freedom.
It would be unheard of over here, the whips keep the MPs in line. If a 3 line whip occurs, every party member votes with the Government.

It's interesting how we seemingly look for greener grass overseas on this issue. Not that I generally agree with UK politicians more or less than US's, but I occasionally hear and see a member (youtube of course) of Parliament who stands up against the odds and provides an impassioned statement that goes against the flow. Perhaps this is all within the same party and I dont' have the total view of UK politics. American politicians seem to me to be more likely today to change parties rather than be an individual within their existing party (i.e. Arlen Specter, (now D), Jim Jeffords (now D), etc.). The days of the Zell Millers (remained D, although outspoken conservative) seem to be long past!

rebelbuc · May 26, 2009

Laila said:
Wouldn't the real test be if he votes against his own party?

We agree completely on this, as I suspect Dana does also. A politican who openly disagrees with his party without ulterior motives is certainly showing individuality and integrity... a rare comodity these days with politicians!

DarkWizard12 · May 26, 2009

Which brings me to the nuclear option that the Bush administration had threatened to use. The Republican mantra just a few years ago was that judges deserved "an up or down vote", and that mantra was wrong on so many levels. I do NOT believe that the president has the right to an up or down vote on judges. I thought it wrong when Bush was in power, and I believe it to be wrong now. With use of the filibuster, judges who bend and warp the Constitution, along with American values, are prevented from being sworn in.

So my question to Republicans is this - Do you believe in the nuclear option now? I sincerely hope you have changed your mind on this. The shoe is certainly on the other foot now, and I believe that John McCain had the vision and foresight to see what using the nuclear option could eventually lead to. While some may think McCain a traitor for forging a compromise that prevented the nuclear option from being used, I believe that McCain is an American hero for that very reason.

I must say, I thought the nuclear option was a good idea...at the time.

But that was because, at the time, I myself had too little foresight to see the consequences. I guess, this is one of the few times on this board that I will plainly say, my opinion was flat-out wrong, no bones about it.

And all I can say now is, Thank GOD for McCain and the gang of 14.

American · May 26, 2009

Since Democrats have a majority and Republicans only 40 seats, why would there be a need for a nuclear option?

Laila · May 26, 2009

rebelbuc said:
It's interesting how we seemingly look for greener grass overseas on this issue. Not that I generally agree with UK politicians more or less than US's, but I occasionally hear and see a member (youtube of course) of Parliament who stands up against the odds and provides an impassioned statement that goes against the flow. Perhaps this is all within the same party and I dont' have the total view of UK politics. American politicians seem to me to be more likely today to change parties rather than be an individual within their existing party (i.e. Arlen Specter, (now D), Jim Jeffords (now D), etc.). The days of the Zell Millers (remained D, although outspoken conservative) seem to be long past!

Yeah our politicans are outspoken but that is the way our Parliamentary system works. Question Time is designed to hone the skills of any future PM in debating.

It's a shame they don't know when to zip it ...

zimmer · May 26, 2009

danarhea said:
Looks like that, whoever is nominated for the Supreme Court, it had better not be a judge who legislates rather than interprets the law. Democrat Ben Nelson will help make sure of that.

I believe that Nelson has nailed the issue right on the head. Yes, Obama is in power, so we can be sure that his picks are not going to be Conservatives. OK, that is fine. Obama is President, and the Democrats control Congress. They get their pick for SCOTUS....... However, I commend some of the Democrats who are willing to cross the aisle to the Republican side if Obama's choice is an activist judge. Filibusters are for preventing a "tyranny of the majority", and they are a good thing.

Which brings me to the nuclear option that the Bush administration had threatened to use. The Republican mantra just a few years ago was that judges deserved "an up or down vote", and that mantra was wrong on so many levels. I do NOT believe that the president has the right to an up or down vote on judges. I thought it wrong when Bush was in power, and I believe it to be wrong now. With use of the filibuster, judges who bend and warp the Constitution, along with American values, are prevented from being sworn in.

So my question to Republicans is this - Do you believe in the nuclear option now? I sincerely hope you have changed your mind on this. The shoe is certainly on the other foot now, and I believe that John McCain had the vision and foresight to see what using the nuclear option could eventually lead to. While some may think McCain a traitor for forging a compromise that prevented the nuclear option from being used, I believe that McCain is an American hero for that very reason.

Discussion, anyone?

Article is here.

Well I'll be damned.

But what is "activist" to Ben Nelson?
I guess we will have to wait and see.

My guess is he won't live up to his rhetoric.

.

Key Democrat warns against 'activist' Obama court nominee

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Klattu Verata Nicto

Klattu Verata Nicto

Why so serious?

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Why so serious?

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

Klattu Verata Nicto

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Well-known member

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sir Poop A lot

Trump Grump Whisperer

Educating the Ignorant

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency