I gave up on Nightline but tonight i'll watch

[AlCzervik]

heres the email

JUDGING THE JUDGES

April 21, 2005


The nation's judges are under attack, literally and figuratively, from all sides. The rhetoric is heating up and so is the violence. In a system where they are deemed an equal branch of government, who judges the judges and who protects them?




If you are a judge in this country, watching the news over the last few weeks can't have been all that encouraging. The husband and mother of a federal judge in Chicago were killed by a man upset with one of her rulings on a medical malpractice case. In Atlanta, a judge, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy and a federal agent were killed by a defendant on trial for rape. That's one issue for judges right now -- increasing violence directed at them. On the other side, they are being assaulted for their views. Don't like a judge's decision? Well, for a lot of people the answer seems to be to throw the bums out! There are movements across the country to recall or impeach judges. It is a surprisingly coordinated and sophisticated effort. But it is not just outside interest groups.

Filibuster. It's that time-honored tactic that allows senators endless debate on a bill, nomination or issue in order to stall a vote. The most famous example is in the classic movie about politics, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Southern Democrats used it to prevent action on civil rights legislation in the late 1950s and early 1960s. In the past few weeks, Democrats have been threatening to use it to hold up President Bush's judicial nominations. The only way to overcome a filibuster is a three-fifths vote known as cloture. Those numbers are hard to pull off. So, Republicans are threatening to use the so-called "nuclear option," which would allow the nominations to go through with a simple majority vote. If you're looking at the filibuster at face value, it wastes time and postpones the real work that needs to get done in Congress, so does it really belong in our system? It's not that simple, so Chris Bury takes a look at the Constitutional challenge being brought on by the Republicans.

And Ted Koppel talks to former independent counsel Ken Starr, the man who investigated the President Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. He's been a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. Solicitor General, led major investigations for the government and has argued before justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. He has some interesting views on all of this.

We hope you'll join us.

Madhulika Sikka & the "Nightline" Staff
Senior Producer
ABC News Washington Bureau

[housewolf]

1. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll try to remember to watch

sounds like an interesting show.

[jojo54]

2. I'll definately watch this

Thanks for letting us know. It will be worth it just to watch Ken Starr tell fibs.

[CoffeeCat]

3. They'll be interviewing Ken Starr?

Lovely.

It will be interesting to see what Starr has to say.

Several months ago, he practically apologized for his actions during the Clinton/Lewinsky witch-hunt. He said he had regrets.

Maybe Starr is attempting to redeem himself? Although he can't redeem himself, I bet he'll argue for the filibuster.

Starr is on for a reason. There's a hook here. Starr's been a well-known Republican sympathizer for a while. My guess is that he's on Nightline because he's against the "nuclear option"--even though he's a hardline conservative who vociferously went after Clinton.

This could be a nice presentation for the Dems.

I'll watch too.

[RamboLiberal]

4. Thanks for the heads up - I'll try to stay awake to watch this one

eom

[AlCzervik]

5. kick it for the 3rd shift.