On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 09:26 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
Just clarifying the process as to how someone becomes a federal judge (it was a *minor nitpick* after all). And when you take into account Senate traditions such as "Senatorial courtesy", the process becomes a lot less certain.On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 08:08:30PM -0500, John Garcia wrote:Any judge that makes it through such a process was originally chosen byMinor nitpick: Federal Judges are *nominated* by the President, but are confirmed by the Senate. Quite a few nominees have been rejected by that body.
the president, and one might suppose the president be unlikely to choose
a judge that has shown strong oppostion to the executive branch. So,
at a minimum, out of the distribution of all judges that COULD be
appointed, the ones most likely to check the President will never make
it through the selection process. True, if the Senate is controlled by
the opposite party, the most egregious choices will be rejected, but
the balance will still be leaning strongly towards those less likely to
check the president. And if the Senate is controlled by the same party,
well...
And you may have noticed in the New York Times article I quoted, they
referred to the judges as having been appointed by the President, so my
language appears to be in common use.
Do you disagree that there is a problem? Do you disagree that this
Federal Appeals court has made a decision in violation of the
Constitution?
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
As for this POS decision, it clearly violates the Constitution, and if the Supreme Court's "strict constructionists" are true to their beliefs, they will strike it down.
Regarding the direct election of judges, if you lived in New York, you might have a different slant on that.
john
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
