Bush Installs Judge, Bypassing Senate

The issue is not the imposition of Sharia as civil law, rather a particular act about which people of all kinds, religious or irreligious, often have strong views. It is the views on the issue hand that are relevant, not the motivation behind them.

The presence or absence of a religious motivation for a particular view on a question of law has no effect whatever on the merits (or lack of merit) of the view itself and of the individuals right to advocate it.

I think blatham has got the right of it, it does seem silly for republicans to whine about the judicial confirmations when Bush has had more voted on than Clinton did.

georgeob1:

Of course they do, each side of any issue acts toward any particular issue that is important in that way. Its the nature of politics.

You make a very valid point that the issue is what is important, not the motivation of any one particular view. I am not sure its realistic in view of how we humans operate :wink:

I can understand why some people totally ignore politics and important issues and really have no idea of what is going on in the world around them. It can be maddening no matter what your point of view.

Sorry if I seem lazy, but does anyone have a link or info about the particulars of this appointee?

I understand that he's way to the right on a number of issues, but with all my schoolwork and responsibilities right now, I am unable to go searching for the particulars.

Not to mention if I stare at this damn computer screen much longer, I feel like my eyes are goign to start burning in my skull

Hope these links work

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/14/103808.shtml

http://www.archives.state.al.us/conoff/wpryor.html

This one give this issues and links to his views on each:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/pryor.html


PS I know what you mean .. sometimes I feel like my laptop is attached to me and I am surprised when I wake up in the morning and it isn't under my pillow

Actually, recess appointments don't seem to be too uncommon. CNN says that "Since 1789, when the first judicial recess appointment was made, presidents have appointed more than 300 judges by this method."

In an ideal world, there would be no filibustering by the opposition and no recess appointments by the president. But in the USA, like in any democracy, government is a marketplace not a philosopher king, so these things do happen. America's democracy has survived the first 300 recess appointments, and it will survive this one too.

thomas

I'm afraid I consider your stance a bit on the glib side here. There are very real potential consequences for American democracy if the judiciary is made an arm of the executive, or of a party, most acutely so when that executive or party is as radical as this one is.

george will protest the claim that the 'christian right' has become the most powerful block within the Republican party, but that is an opinion held to be so by voices not easy to dismiss (like mine, for example). And that element within the party is far too confident that it holds a monopoly on 'the truth' and 'the good', and they are far to ready to place governance under the management of their singular and exclusionary views.

The analogy to Sharia law above is exaggerated, but that doesn't mean it is inappropriate as analogy.

Where it is held that no man-made law can be senior to 'god's law', and that events are determined by a benevolent diety, and where the fellow in charge believes that he's in the position he's in because god put him there to do god's work, then the Constitution becomes effectively a secondary document.

1) I don't see how being glib is a bad thing.

2) I don't like the Republican party in its current state either. It is nevertheless the party that has won the presidency and both houses of Congress in free elections. Therefore they have the right to appoint judges, even if both the Democratic party and I find them too radical.

3) My understanding is that over the last 50 years, the Supreme Court has become less and less narrow in its interpretation of the American constitution. This has given rise to a phenomenon which is called 'the living constitution' by its supporters and 'judical activism' by its opponents. I understand that with this in mind, conservatives are making two points: That judical activism is bad and should be curbed, and that if judical activism is fine, it's only fair to appoint conservative activists along with liberal ones. I see nothing wrong with either argument.

4) Consistency seems to dictate that if Bush's recess appointment is a scandal, so is filibustering. But if filibustering is just one of those things politicians do, so are recess appointments. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the ganter, and playing games with the system cannot be fine if my people do it and a scandal if the other side does it.

Thomas has covered the gound and addressed the key points here , all in a reasoned, balanced way - and done so in a very compact form.

thomas

You're a slippery guy.

You are setting this question up as a dualism. One opinion over here, one over there. Both, hence, equal.

I'm arguing that this mode is inappropriate because of what remains undifferentiated, and that what may be differentiated here is of potentially critical importance to American liberty.

Another common example of such a dualistic mode, and how it hides as much as reveals, is the secular/Christian dualism argued by george and many others. Both are, george has argued, merely opposing worldviews, not distinquishable in quality. But where does one fit Hinduism in such a scheme?

One could place any two views on the ends of such a dualist scheme. And we do this all the time. Claude Levi Strauss considered that such a mode or scheme is a fundamental aspect of our though processes, and boy do I think that's a bright observation. So we end up with communism/capitalism, for example, which you'll understand to be a simplification which inhibits discrimating discussion as much as aids it.

... until proven fundamentally unequal, which you haven't done so far. Yes, that's a fair description of my position, and I still fail to see what's wrong with it.

This "dualism" or binary stuff really sets Blatham off. However I have never understood his point in this area.

If a recess appointment is an example of an undesirable device of the democratic process, then so is the fillibuster. Both are nevertheless permitted and indeed frequently used devices in that democratic process. As the actors in these dramas are all themselves duly elected officials of the government it is difficult to see how either action is in any way undemocratic.

It would be difficult to find any significant element of public policy that couldn't be interpreted as a product of the influence of some religion or theological view somewhere. Shall we exclude all such ideas from our public discourse? Or shall we exclude them only when it can be shown that among those who advocate them are some who can be shown to have entertained religious or theological thoughts? Absurd!

Can we assume that it's not a bad place to start a discussion, but that detail and discrimation isn't likely to produce such a pretty balance?

Or in other words, I'll play with you on this question (as time allows) but only under the condition that you don't insist on a relativist conclusion (eg., sharia is merely one view of social arrangement with nothing to distinguish it from others, except culture and bias)

Glad to. Although I truly don't fully understand your dualism point.

I have no problem passing judgements on the relative merits of various views, religious or otherwise. However I do reject the notion that because some religious expressions are obnoxious, all must be excluded from public life (any motre than the corresponding notion that because some secular notions are obnoxious, all must be excluded).

You, after all, find recess appointments by Republican Presidents obnoxious, but do not propose to so classifiy all other such democratic prtocess devices in the same way. (Though, as Thomas has suggested, it would be difficult to show any difference in the objective merits of recess appointments and fillibusters).

george and thomas

I'm afraid I am going to do the 'Indian-giver' thing here and take back my offer to engage you both in a discussion on constitutional law. It would be tough to find two better fellows to have a set-to with on the subject, but it is really too large and too sophisticated for me to promise adequate time towards. My apologies.

Is it possible that McGentrix is wising up? Naaahhhhhh

I think this is a case of the spirit of the law being violated by the letter of the law...........straight from the bush inc. playbook.......

The problem comes when one party decides to totally impede the 'will of the people' in allowing their elected officials to vote yes or no on a candidate by the process of filibustering.

In this case, the Democrats in their arrogant 'we know what is best for everyone' attitude, have decided that since they can't win the vote to block certain judicial candidates that they will just 'hold their breath until they turn blue'

In their petulance, they seem to have forgotten that their jobs are to represent their constituents and via the democratic process.

I think it is more likely that the Democrat leaders in the Senate (Kennedy, Leahy, et. al.) truly believe that they (and their well organized supporters) embody the true 'will of the people' in denying a vote, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the people's elected representatives in the Senate would likely approve the nominees in question.