| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
29 Dec 2004 09:49:27 AM |
| Object: |
When it comes to picking bad judges, Bush would rather fight than switch. |
From a San Francisco Chronicle editorial, 12/29/04:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/29/EDG13AHP971.DTL
Bush's activist bench
WHEN IT comes to picking bad judges, President Bush would rather fight
than switch.
In a move that clearly revealed his ideological stripe, Bush announced
last week that he was renominating 20 judges to the federal bench that
couldn't pass muster with the previous Senate.
By triggering another confrontation with Democrats in the Senate, Bush
is showing the swagger of a second-term president who claims a mandate
even though he was narrowly re-elected.
Yet selecting doctrinaire or clearly unqualified judicial nominees
serves neither the president nor Congress well.
Presidents may shape the judiciary to reflect their own views, but
it's hardly a proud legacy to be responsible for picking judges who
want to chisel away at civil rights, equate government with tyranny
and have no problem with restricting privacy rights.
That's been the Bush record so far.
Senate Democrats, who have used filibusters to block some of the
president's most ideologically extreme nominees, now face the prospect
of another bruising, partisan battle over judicial appointments.
It's clearly unnecessary.
Justice Department records show that 204 of Bush's 260 nominations to
federal district and appellate courts were confirmed during his first
term, laying waste to Republican rhetoric that Democrats are blocking
so many of Bush's choices.
___________________________________________________________
It's just Li'l Georgie trying to prove that he's not really a wimp.
Harry
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
