HELP! Need info on filibustered judges...

[tnliberaldemocrat]

I'm trying to debate with some freeper-type on why the 10 are bad. Need talking points, preferably with links.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: I did see the link on the DU front page regarding Brown. My thanks to the author.

[Hatalles]

1. Info on some of the judges...

Read this in the local Letters to the Editor section:

Who are these judges? William Myers is still under ethics investigation for conflicts of interest by having ties to industry while in the Department of the Interior — and he even overturned a successful market-based system to retire overgrazing permits. Priscilla Owen has consistently voted against consumer rights and workplace protections and has even been accused of judicial activism by fellow judge and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Our California-grown Janice Rodgers Brown, rated unqualified by three-fourths of California 's State Bar examiners, thinks it is OK to use racial epithets in the workplace but not OK to require lead paint manufacturers to help fund treatment of kids exposed to lead paint.

Not really a good source for a debate but it's a start.

Here's the full page... http://www.tracypress.com/voice/2005-05-05-Your-voice.html

[Maat]

2. The place to go is ...

www.pfaw.org

(People for the American Way)(I'm a recent law graduate, so I know - PFAW Foundation leads the way in the fight).

Also, go to:

www.au.org

(Americans United for Separation of Church and State).

The key, to me, about Brown, is that she does not believe in 'incorporation.' That is the doctrine that extends our Bill of Rights protections to the States; in other words, the States must honor these rights.

If that were reversed, it is my firm belief that I would no longer recognize our legal system, or the Land I grew up in.

I'm terrified about her even taking a tour of the Supreme Court.

[gumby]

3. The "filibuster" "debate" is mainly a semantic one.

The right has a list of talking points a mile thick to argue against the filibuster. But, the underlying issue is that the opposition party has always had a method of blocking judges they found objectionable.

Right now, the only way Democrats can exercise the long held policy of blocking judges is by filibuster. Rebubs did it by action A, and now the Dems are using action B. Of course, the Repubs are screaming foul.

They are making an issue of the word "filibuster" so they can discount the underlying principle; mainly that the minority party has a say in the judicial branch.

Any "conservative" should oppose those rejected nominees. Bush reappointing them was a show of total disrespect for democracy and the Democratic Party.