Why is placing judges so political? Is to put judges in place to follow politcal
powers policy or to pass judgement on laws that are written? To keep
the separation of powers as the constitution provides, it should be for the
latter and the only consideration in appointing judges.If the
legislators and the President are making political appointments then that is the
time to stall these positions. The trust and integrity of a judge should be
above reproach or political influence. Nor should a judge question his duties to
the justice system and his personal beliefs.Obama has made too many
political appointments to the Supreme Courts and it is showing how dangerous
this kind of appointments are. Judges are by proclamation and interpretation
trying to rewrite the constitution with decisions opposite of the rights and
freedoms granted by the Constitution.So if stalling appointments
stops political influence I am for it. Obama is very careful who he appoints to
positions of power, he makes choices based on the lack of integrity of the
people he chooses.
The GOP is grinding government to a halt. Even a lot of Republicans not in the
Senate are concerned. The Senate Republicans care more for power than for the
good of the nation.
We've had a couple of good candidates, Scott Burns and Dave Schwendiman, for the
United States Attorney position. I don't understand why the Republicans are
blocking them. This is a pretty solid example that Orrin Hatch isn't able to
deliver for Utah. I hope that the Tea Party rhetoric doesn't overshadow the
real story that he just can't help this state in Washington.
Too bad the Republicans were not willing (or able) to block the confirmation of
Obama's two Supreme Court nominees.While blocker circuit court
nominees can be good or bad, it is done by both sides.Anyone
remember the inspiring Janice Rogers Brown of California, a conservative leaning
judge, who was blocked by the Democrats during most of Bush's term?