• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key Democrat warns against 'activist' Obama court nominee

danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Nelson's a politician. We'll see what happens if Obama nominates an activist and see what Nelson does.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the real test be if he votes against his own party?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Laila said:
Wouldn't the real test be if he votes against his own party?
Click to expand...

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

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 ...
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom