Filibustering let loose

Judicial Confirmation Statistics

This clearly shows many of the "facts" liberals have been using about judicial nominations are clearly false.

Please read through this and ask yourself why this has come to a head as it has.

Filibustering has been around for a long time. Republicans could use it during Clinton's 8 years and even Jimmy Carter's time, now all of a sudden, they want to change it?? BS!!!

That's like at halftime, my team is winning by 6 pts in basketball, but I am not satisfied, I expected to win by 27 pts, so I change the rules to fit my basketball player's strengths.

It's not fair. Keep the rules the same for both sides.

chris56789 wrote:

Filibustering has been around for a long time. Republicans could use it during Clinton's 8 years and even Jimmy Carter's time, now all of a sudden, they want to change it?? BS!!!

That's like at halftime, my team is winning by 6 pts in basketball, but I am not satisfied, I expected to win by 27 pts, so I change the rules to fit my basketball player's strengths.

It's not fair. Keep the rules the same for both sides.

The Repubs did NOT filibuster ANY of either Carter's or Clintons nominees once they came out of committee.
They DID however,block them from coming out of committee.
There is a difference.

Justice Brown was twice rated not qualified by the California Judicial Nominations Evaluation (JNE) Commission, first in 1993, when then-Governor Wilson submitted her name as one of six potential nominees to the state supreme court and again in 1996 when Wilson, who had appointed her in the interim to a seat on the state court of appeals, nominated her to the state supreme court. The "not qualified" rating was based primarily on Brown's judicial inexperience, and her tendency to interject into legal opinions her political and philosophical views.

The Commission received specific complaints that Brown was careless of established legal precedent, had difficulty grasping complex litigation, lacked compassion and intolerance for opposing views, misunderstood legal standards, and was slow to produce opinions.

Brown has received similar criticisms during her tenure on the court, often clashing with fellow Wilson appointee, Chief Justice Ronald George. In a case dealing with affirmative action ..., George concurred in the result reached by Brown but stated that her recitation of the history of affirmative action "represent[ed] a serious distortion of history." 4 In a case dealing with a gun control law, George dissented from Brown's decision and noted that Brown's interpretation of the law "represents a clear and unwarranted frustration of the intent of the law to ban assault weapons.

Brown's major problem has been being too conservative apparently. Imagine that, if you can... Democrats stonewalling a judicial candidate for being too conservative...

Admit what? The data speaks for itself. If you can find any faults in the data, please let me know.

McGentrix wrote:

Brown's major problem has been being too conservative apparently. Imagine that, if you can... Democrats stonewalling a judicial candidate for being too conservative...

Brown's problem is two-fold. First, she doesn't seem to be too good at understanding law. I'm a layman here, but that seems to be the opinion of the experts as well. Second, she is an "activist" judge, who ignores laws she doesn't like or twists their meanings to suit her own views. In my opinion, either of those disqualify any judge, liberal or conservative.

Judicial Tyranny & Renegade Judges
The Founding Fathers established our Constitution for the judicial system to have the least power of the three branches of government. They knew if the judicial branch should become dominate, freedom of speech & especially freedom of religion would be severely limited as it had been in Europe with the Monarchs. But what the Founders of our nation feared most has happened.
Today, we are experiencing nothing less than judicial tyranny in our court system. Federal judges are appointed for life and are accountable to no one. These unelected renegade judges were mostly appointed by President Carter and Clinton. They are seizing power in this country and writing laws from the bench, instead of interpreting laws as the Constitution requires. These atheistic judges have a personal vendetta and their agenda is to remove all traces of Christianity from the public arena and force secularism and atheism on all Americans.
Most Americans are very familiar with the Ten Commandment issue and the battle that Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore has been through in trying to keep the Ten Commandment Monument in his Alabama Supreme Court building. But in the end Moore lost his fight and his job, he has recently, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to get his job back. Federal judge Myron Thompson ruled that the state of Alabama cannot acknowledge God and forced the removal of the monument. This was an example of judicial tyranny to its fullest degree. It didn't matter to Federal judge Thompson that Chief Justice Roy Moore's monument was supported by a large majority of Alabamians. It didn't matter that the majority of Americans were in favor of keeping the monument in place. It didn't matter that Moore's acknowledgement of God was consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the state Constitution of Alabama, both of which acknowledge God. It didn't matter that this ruling was at odds with American history and the Constitution of the United States.
The following is another example of Judicial Tyranny: An appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the Second Amendment does not, grant Americans a personal right to own fire arms. It didn't matter to this left-wing court that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is very clear in stating, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It didn't matter to this 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals that their ruling flies in the face of two centuries of popular thinking and the majority of the American public today. By the way, it was this same appeals courts who ruled that the "Pledge of Allegiance" was un-Constitutional because it contained the words "Under God" in it. Now consider this: 23 judges who sit on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 17 of them are radical liberal Democrats and 9 of the 17 were appointed by Bill Clinton. While President Clinton was in office he appointed over 300 radical judges to the federal bench.
However, Mr. Clinton was not the only president to appoint these renegade judges. Nixon, Bush senior and even Reagan are also guilty, although to a much lesser degree. One radical judge is still on the bench that was appointed by Lyndon Johnson.
The ACLU and these renegade judges have been using the courts for the last 40 years to remake America into a Godless society. Consider the damage these liberal courts have done to our Christian Heritage: Banned prayer and Bible reading from the public schools, outlawed the Ten Commandment from public places, given legal status to same-sex marriage, overturned the laws of all 50 states to permit abortion, ruled in favor of schools who want to give condoms and birth-control devices without the consent of parents and told the Boy Scouts they can't mention faith in God in their oath or prohibit openly homosexual Scout Masters. With all this judicial tyranny presently going on, it is still not enough for most Democrats senators in Washington D. C., they want more of these renegade judges. That's what the Senate Democrat filibuster is all about. Senators like Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Patrick Leaky, John Edwards, John Kerry and others are cleverly and dishonestly using senate rules to prevent the confirmation of President Bush's well qualified common-sense conservative judge nominees. These liberal democrats know that the legislature and the American people do not want to wipe out our Christian Heritage, so their agenda is to have atheistic renegade judges on the bench to over ride the Constitution and do the dirty work for them.
Now, what gives inspiration and drive to these anti-Christian judges to make such un-Constitutional rulings from the bench? Answer! THE GREAT LIE OF "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE." That in our Constitution there is a "wall of separation of church and state." There is nothing in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights or the U.S. Constitution that even mention "separation of church & state." But our courts and their politically correct cohorts are telling the American people that there is.
It has often been said, "That if you tell a lie long enough, strong enough and often enough people will believe it. That is exactly what the liberal establishment has done and regretfully many Americans have taken this lie "hook, line and sinker." As long as people believe this lie, we will continue to see presidents and senators elected who will maintain their effort to put more of these renegade judges on the bench and we will continue to suffer from the rulings of judicial tyranny that would cause our fore-fathers to roll over in their graves.

Perhaps not an opinion I would agree with 100%, but an opinion worth noting.

Banned prayer and Bible reading from the public schools, outlawed the Ten Commandment from public places, given legal status to same-sex marriage, overturned the laws of all 50 states to permit abortion, ruled in favor of schools who want to give condoms and birth-control devices without the consent of parents and told the Boy Scouts they can't mention faith in God in their oath or prohibit openly homosexual Scout Masters.

These unelected renegade judges were mostly appointed by President Carter and Clinton.

As for her lack of knowledge of the law? *pft* She has an extensive education and background working with the law. She is a sitting judge in the California state supreme court. Last time I checked, idiots were not allowed to hold that position.