GOP Loses again; Americans don't want politicians constraining judges

Coexist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-30-06 09:21 AM
Original message

GOP Loses again; Americans don't want politicians constraining judges

This is great news - the GOP screed "activist judges" has not penetrated so far into the American subconscious that they are now programmed to hate them, and feel they work against the general good.

I am happy.

(CNN) -- Despite politicians' complaints about judges having too much power, two-thirds of Americans do not believe elected officials should have more control over federal judges, according to a new CNN poll released Saturday.

Sixty-seven percent of 1,013 people surveyed by Opinion Research Corp. on behalf of CNN said federal judges -- and the decisions they make -- should not be subject to more control.

more...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greeby

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-30-06 09:23 AM
Response to Original message

1. Repukes didn't get where they are by giving a rat's ass what the public think

Why start now? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Coexist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-30-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #1

2. they do care - but they think they can shape public opinion

to their view - in this REALLY IMPORTANT case, they haven't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zbdent

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-30-06 09:34 AM
Response to Original message

3. I understand their logic ... Repukes back (and fund) conservative judges

in the hopes that, when they're caught breaking the law, they can't appear before a "conservative" judge because they funded them ... that becomes a "conflict of interest" ... and then the only judges left are "liberal" (read: lenient) so they can get a light sentence ...

They don't want to appear before the "hanging judges" they want everybody else to appear before ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Coexist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-30-06 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #3

4. that is interesting, but I am not sure I agree

my opinion is that they want to be able to "retire" members of SCOTUS they don't agree with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zbdent

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-30-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #4

5. State and local levels

toss cash at "conservative" judges ... and then, when they're caught stuffing "their" money into the trunks of their Mercedeses, the judge has to back out due to "conflict of interest" ... meaning that the conservative, "throw the book at 'em" judge has to recuse himself from the case ... leaving the "liberal"/"soft on crime" judges to pass lenient sentences ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Coexist

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-30-06 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #5

6. okay, I see.

but do you really think that judges are "soft on crime" based on political affiliation?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zbdent

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Oct-30-06 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #6

7. No, but I think that the Repukes

are hoping that they get one ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:10 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.