[burwellstark]

This is the body of an email I received about five minutes ago. "Courts' independence?" Last time I checked the Judicial Branch was not independent, but a part of the checks and balances set up for the US government. The problem is that the courts have been acting independent too much recently, independent from the US Constitution, and independent in accountability.

Saying that Bush will "attack the courts with reactionary judges" is so pathetic it is laughable. I suppose Souter, Brader, Ginsberg, Kennedy, most of the 9th Circuit, et al are not reactionary, but are the only level headed justices in America. God help us.

Also, I wonder if the originator of this email knows that it is now circulating on official government email servers? (I am a bureaucrat, after all) I would forward it to my supervisor and systems people, but I am too afraid that they will sign it and pass it on rather than stop it.

[Eva]

There was an article in yesterday's WSJ that said that Byrd stated that there was nothing in the constitution or senate rules which requires that the senate vote on nominees, only to advise and consent. So, the WSJ figures that since the resident Democrat expert on Senate rules claims that no vote is required, that the nominees should be cleared by committee and 51 Republicans should send the President letters of advice and consent and consider the nominations approved.

[Congressman Billybob]

Two things are wrong with this e-mail. First is that it is partisan activity on taxpayer-funded computers. The other is that the e-mail is a fraud. The filibuster has only been generally applied to judicial nominees in the last decade. For two centuries before that, the Senate under all political parties understood that only a majority vote was necessary to confirm any judicial nominee.

Is there any way, without causing harm to yourself, that you can report this e-mail? Can you get the fact of this e-mail out in public in any way?

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "The Fatal Attraction of the Inside Straight"

[4thInfVet]

"The fundamentalists are champing at the bit to destroy the courts' independence after the Schiavo case."


Isn't it "CHOMPING at the bit?"


And I am chomping at the bit to get the courts out of the legislation business.