Given his past votes for crappy Bush appointees, I don't want Biden picking our Supreme Court

[Tejanocrat]

Here are a few of the controversial Bush-appointee judges Biden voted to confirm against the better judgment of his progressive Democratic colleagues:

Biden voted to confirm Bush appointee and notorious anti-choice activist Judge Diane Sykes to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals when Edwards and Hillary (and 25 other Democrats) had the sense to vote against this confirmation.

Biden voted to confirm Bush appointee and notorious anti-consumer, anti-labor activist Judge Deborah Cook to the 6rd Circuit Court of Appeals when Edwards, Hillary and Dodd (and 22 other Democrats) had the sense to vote against this confirmation.

Biden voted to confirm Bush appointee and notorious anti-environment activist Judge Brooks Smith to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal when Hillary and Dodd (and 33 other Senators) had the sense to vote against this confirmation.

I post this because I mentioned my misgivings in another thread and got the response "who fucking cares"? Well, I care. This is a substantive objection to Biden's record, and not a petty attack about his celebrity supporters, his hair, his family, or any such similar nonsense. This is a real policy issue. Don't we care about these kind of issues or are we irretrievably focused on non-issue-related attacks?

I have previously expressed my disappointment about Biden's anti-consumer votes on the awful 2005 bankruptcy bill. This is yet another policy-based objection I have to Biden's candidacy.

[ixion]

1. I believe he also support Scalito and Gonzales

anyone remember? :shrug:

[Hawaii Hiker]

3. Biden voted no on Ailito's confirmation

I think only 4 Democratic Senators voted for him, Ben Nelson was one of them..

[LynneSin]

32. He also voted "No" on Gonzalez

this is such a crappy hit piece

[rurallib]

2. might want to duck - flying objects headed your way soon.

[1corona4u]

6. Yeah, facts flying his way.

[Tejanocrat]

9. I'm not worried about facts. That's why I posted links. Do you dispute those votes? Do you defend

those judges?

[1corona4u]

10. See my post below...it clearly shows it didn't matter how HE voted.

[Czolgosz]

21. So you defense of Biden is "he was wrong to vote with the Republicans but his vote didn't matter?"

That's LAME!

[1corona4u]

4. Yeah, at least he knows how to work across the aisle,

unlike your boy;

Kucinich, a Democrat, has been a Representative from Ohio since 1997.
Kucinich is a radical Democrat according to GovTrack's own analysis of bill sponsorship. (Where do these labels come from?)

Kucinich sponsored 102 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 93 (91%) haven't made it out of committee and 1 were successfully enacted.


LOSER.



Like I said;

Diane Sykes;
Senate Votes; 70-27.

Deborah Cook;
Senate votes; 66-25


Brooks Smith;
Senate votes; 64-35

So, even if JOE wouldn't have voted to confirm, they would all have been confirmed anyway. Get over it.

[1corona4u]

5. And, here is what Joe said at the CNN debate;

BIDEN: I will answer both. Answer your question first.

Your question first. I've provided over more Supreme Court justices than anyone in American history -- number one.

Number two, I have taken on those justices who, in fact, show no balance -- they are ideologues. We have enough ideologues. We have enough professors on the bench.

I want someone who ran for dog catcher. I want someone -- literally, not a joke. When Hillary's husband asked me for his advice when he was appointing people, I wanted to go to people and so did he -- we couldn't. Four people turned it down.

We wanted to get someone who, in fact, knew what it was to live life. Knew what it was -- not as some intellectual feat.

(APPLAUSE)

And by the way, the next person that is appointed in a Biden administration is going to be a woman. We don't have enough women on the bench, number one.

Number two, to Suzanne Malveaux's question, I would not appoint anyone who did not understand that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment provided a right to privacy. That is the question I would ask. If that is answered correctly, that that is the case, then it answers the question, which means they would support Roe v. Wade.


I HIGHLY doubt Biden would make a bad choice.

[Stop Cornyn]

36. Isn't working across the isle what we have now?

[Captain Hilts]

7. Sometimes he votes 'yes' to help put it to the whole senate.

But, yes, I want to hear him discuss what he thinks of the bankruptcy bill.

[1corona4u]

8. Why don't you just go here and read it for yourself;

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=234426

[frogcycle]

13. and furthermore...

Here are aspects of the supposedly onerous bankruptcy bill:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/20/pf/bankruptcy_bill/index.htm

It does not automatically throw poor people out in the street. It provides for better means tests to filter out the scam artists who repeatedly run up credit cards and then walk away from them.
It says if you have the means to pay back 25% of the debt you incurred voluntarily, you should do so.

It says if you buy a house and also run up credit card debt, you can only shield 125,000 equity in the house in the first 40 months, or longer if you are guilty of violating securities laws or some other crimes.

There are a lot of people who have learned how to abuse the system. I personally know more than one who who have declared bankruptcy multiple times, walked away from credit card bills, live in nice houses, and still have all the stuff they bought two or three bankruptcies ago.

If this bill is imperfect; if there are individual cases where it is too heavy-handed, there are provisions for the courts to use discretion. If the means tests need to be tweaked, or if special circumstances need to be defined for hardship cases like medical emergencies, etc. then that is where to focus. Compassion for the true hardship cases is vastly different from saying this is giving the credit card companies a "handout." The "handout" is 25% of the debt paid back over five years by those with demonstrated capability to do so. Quarrel over the ability formula if you wish, but slamming this bill in total because it may make it tougher on some of those in the grey area is simpleminded.

Those who want to keep the free ride are the ones making all the noise about this.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – President Bush on Wednesday signed into law a bankruptcy reform bill that will make it harder for individuals to clear their debts through bankruptcy.

So, experts say, if you were thinking about filing for bankruptcy, you might think twice -- or act twice as quickly, since major provisions of the law will go into effect six months from the day the law is signed.

Individuals filing for bankruptcy usually do so either under Chapter 7 or under Chapter 13.

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, your assets (minus those exempted by your state) are liquidated and given to creditors, and many of your remaining debts are cancelled, giving you what's known as a "fresh start." In 2004, over 1.1 million people filed for Chapter 7, accounting for roughly 72 percent of non-business bankruptcies.

Since many Chapter 7 filers don't have assets that qualify for liquidation, credit card companies and other creditors sometimes get nothing.

In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, you're put on a repayment plan of up to five years. Any debts not addressed by the repayment plan don't have to be paid. Last year, there were 445,574 Chapter 13 filings.

Under the new law, fewer people will be allowed to file under Chapter 7; more will be forced to file under Chapter 13.

Lawmakers who favor the legislation argue that it will prevent consumers from abusing the bankruptcy laws – using them to clear debts that they can afford to pay.

But consumer advocates argue that the new law is a gift to creditors – particularly the credit card industry, which may receive $1 billion or more from repayment plans due to the expected increase in Chapter 13 filings, according to Robert McKinley, CEO of CardWeb.com.

"The bill simply doesn't balance responsibility between families in debt trouble and the creditors whose practices have contributed to the rise in bankruptcies," said Travis Plunkett of the Consumer Federation of America in a written statement.
Key changes

Here are some of the major changes for consumers under the new law:

A qualifying test: Currently, it's up to the court to determine if your case qualifies for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Under the new law, your income will be subject to a two-part means test. First, it will be subject to a formula that exempts certain expenses (rent, food, etc.) to determine whether you can afford to pay 25 percent of your "nonpriority unsecured debt" such as your credit card bills. Second, your income would be compared to your state's median income.

You won't be allowed to file for Chapter 7 if your income is above your state's median and you can afford to pay 25 percent of your unsecured debt, said California-based bankruptcy attorney Stephen Elias, who is coauthor of the book "How to File for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy." But, he said, you may be allowed to file for Chapter 13.

If your income is below the state's median but you can pay 25 percent of your unsecured debt, you may be able to file Chapter 7, but the court can still require you to file Chapter 13 instead if it believes that you would be abusing the system by filing for Chapter 7, Elias said.

Under current law, the court has great latitude in deciding whether debtors may file for bankruptcy in consideration of their personal circumstances. Under the new law, there will be few if any exceptions made to the means test, no matter how sympathetic your case, said Leon Bayer, a bankruptcy attorney in Los Angeles.

Determining what you can afford to pay: Currently, if you file for Chapter 13 today, the court determines what you can afford to pay based on what you and the court deem to be reasonable and necessary expenses.

Under the new law, the court will apply living standards derived by the IRS to determine what is reasonable to pay for rent, food and other expenses to figure out how much you have available to pay your debts. The IRS regulations are more stringent, and to contest them means asking for a hearing from a judge, which can mean more time and expense, Elias said.

Tougher homestead exemptions: Currently, if you declare bankruptcy, the state where you file may allow you to protect from creditors some or all of your home equity. In Florida, for instance, your home may be entirely exempt, even if you bought it soon before filing. In Nevada, you may exempt up to $200,000.

The new law, however, places more stringent restrictions on the homestead exemption. For instance, if filers haven't lived in a state for at least two years, they may only take the state exemption of the state where they lived for the majority of the time for the 180 days before the two-year period.

Filers may only exempt up to $125,000, regardless of a state's exemption allowance, if their home was acquired less than 40 months before filing or if the filer has violated securities laws or been found guilty of certain criminal conduct.

Unlike most of the other provisions, the new homestead exemption rules go into effect immediately.

[Tejanocrat]

11. These are his votes to confirm, not his votes in the committee to put the vote on the floor.

[Stop Cornyn]

12. Those are definitely some pretty bad judges.

[rucky]

14. You really think he'd nominate these people?

c'mon.

[Stop Cornyn]

19. I agree that Biden would likely not nominate such people, but it does raise legitimate questions

about who Biden would nominate in light of the fact that he found these judges worthy of Biden's support.

Judicial appointments are a pretty big issue for me, and these votes are troubling.

[rucky]

23. Consider Bush's use of recess appointments...

We may have ended up with John Bolten's ass-tumor sitting on the bench, for all we know. It's not an excuse for voting-in crappy appointees, but it makes the sin forgivable in my book.

[Stop Cornyn]

26. Actually, the Senate is blocking recess appointments now by refusing to recess.

[rucky]

33. Yes, Reid finally started.

but not when the votes in question went down. there was no assurance.

[Czolgosz]

15. Judge Diane Sykes is a complete nutjob!

Diane Sykes

* Praised anti-abortion extremists on trial before her for blockading a clinic even though they had a history of numerous similar arrests. Then she issued lenient sentences, which was unusual given her reputation for issuing heavy sentences.
* Misled Senate Judiciary Committee about her knowledge of the defendants' criminal history. She told the Committee that she was unaware of their records at the time of sentencing, but court transcripts show that as she was sentencing the men she said that they "obviously have a history of this kind of behavior" and noted that they were unlikely to stop. One of the defendants had appeared before her six previous times.
* Refused to answer written questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee about whether Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut had been decided correctly.
* Voted against a new trial for a case in which a juror could not understand English.
* Consistently rules against workers and injured plaintiffs in favor of big business.
* Member of Federalist Society, a conservative legal community.

http://feminist.org/courts/nominee_info.asp

[1corona4u]

16. Like I said;

Diane Sykes;
Senate Votes; 70-27.

Deborah Cook;
Senate votes; 66-25


Brooks Smith;
Senate votes; 64-35

So, even if JOE wouldn't have voted to confirm, they would all have been confirmed anyway. Get over it.

[ginchinchili]

17. Biden is a Constitutional scholar.

He knows that its the President's job to make judgeship appointments and that a strong argument for voting against such appointments has to be made before doing so. He may not have approved of these judges, but the bar for opposing them is much higher than that. Sure, I'd like all moderate to liberal judges, but that's not how our democracy works. Biden takes the Constitution seriously, even when it's not always the popular thing to do. He does it because it's the right thing to do. I worry that the Democrats are slipping into the same self-destructive mindset as the Republicans: the more liberal the better and try to destroy everything conservative even if it means skirting the Constitution. I'll side with integrity over partisanship anyday.

[1corona4u]

18. BINGO--

I worry that the Democrats are slipping into the same self-destructive mindset as the Republicans: the more liberal the better and try to destroy everything conservative even if it means skirting the Constitution. I'll side with integrity over partisanship anyday.


My thoughts exactly.

[Hippo_Tron]

20. We have no choice left but partisanship

The Religious Wrong has been forcing its ideology onto the Supreme Court since the Nixon Administration and it has escalated in every Supreme Court battle since then. They aren't willing to let a Democratic President have their first choice for appointments and therefore we shouldn't be letting a GOP President have what he wants. Yes, Clinton got to appoint Ginsburg and Breyer. But Ginsubrg was 60 when she was appointed and Breyer was not as liberal as the justice he was replacing. The Democrats controlled the senate at the time.

Bush, on the other hand, got to appoint two ideologues both arguably to the right of Scalia, both in their early-mid 50's.

We need to stop pretending that we still live in the era of bipartisanship when it comes to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court confirmations are partisan and the sooner we accept that, the better. If your party has 60 votes in the senate, you can put whoever the fuck you want on the court. Otherwise you make a certain amount of concessions to the minority. The Republicans have realized this. Why the Democrats haven't is beyond me.

[polichick]

22. "We need to stop pretending that we still live in the era of bipartisanship"

This is absolutely true ~ it's the delusional belief that Republicans will play by rules of ethics, bipartisanship or law that has gotten us where we are. There's an old saying: "When somebody shows you who they are, believe it." Congressional Dems have been played over and over again because they refuse to get that.

[ginchinchili]

24. If that is true, then the game is already over.

It's bad enough if one Party is putting politics before the best interests of the country, but if both major Parties engage in that counter-productive blood letting then all that's left is for people to make as much money as possible in order to survive the sinking of the ship. Corporate America would love that. It'd play right into their hands. But rather than the Democrats mirroring the Republicans, I think it would be better to demonstrate that we're the true Party of the people. We're the Party that protects our nation's spirit. We can show them how it should be done. We have that opportunity right now. You've got to think bigger and better than the Republicans.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. While in the process we give them the edge in putting fascists on the court with no balance

No thanks, I'll take my chances with partisanship. At least putting our ideology on the court will help to balance out their ideology.

[Czolgosz]

35. Well put!

[Tejanocrat]

27. AMEN!

[1corona4u]

28. Biden, from the debates, again;

BIDEN: I will answer both. Answer your question first.

Your question first. I've provided over more Supreme Court justices than anyone in American history -- number one.

Number two, I have taken on those justices who, in fact, show no balance -- they are ideologues. We have enough ideologues. We have enough professors on the bench.

I want someone who ran for dog catcher. I want someone -- literally, not a joke. When Hillary's husband asked me for his advice when he was appointing people, I wanted to go to people and so did he -- we couldn't. Four people turned it down.

We wanted to get someone who, in fact, knew what it was to live life. Knew what it was -- not as some intellectual feat.

(APPLAUSE)

And by the way, the next person that is appointed in a Biden administration is going to be a woman. We don't have enough women on the bench, number one.

Number two, to Suzanne Malveaux's question, I would not appoint anyone who did not understand that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment provided a right to privacy. That is the question I would ask. If that is answered correctly, that that is the case, then it answers the question, which means they would support Roe v. Wade.


I HIGHLY doubt Biden would make a bad choice.

[Tejanocrat]

29. But Biden supports Republican tools for judge who Edwards, Hillary, Dodd (and dozens others) opposed

Why go to the back of the pack (in terms of numbers of supporters) to pick someone who doesn't share progressive values on judges when Edwards, Obama, Kucinich, Dodd and even Hillary don't reflect such poor evaluations of right-wing activist judges?

[1corona4u]

30. You know what, I am going to say something to you now,

and it will be the last thing I EVER say to you. There's a little thing called Karma. Ever heard of that? Karma always levels the playing field, and you, my friend, have been building negative Karma for quite a while now. You may not know when or how, but mark my words, all of the hateful, demeaning, viscious BS, half truths, accusations, fabrications, etc., you have thrown on this board about Joe Biden, are going to come back to you. When Karma decides it's time for you to pay for it, I hope you realize what created it.

Problem is, you're probably too dense to connect the dots when it happens. But mark my words, it will happen. Karma always levels the field. Always.

To the most profound depths of my soul, I ask that Karma humbles you soon.



Oh, and welcome to my list.

[Tejanocrat]

31. These are policy-based differences on substantive issues. You act like I made fun of his physical

appearance or his ethnicity.

What is it about an issue-oriented debate that unnerves you so?

[LynneSin]

34. Wowza - Biden must be giving the top tier candidates a run for their money

Once again another hit job.

Biden has been one of our best allies on the Judiciary committee. Is he perfect? Clearly the OP has proven that. But I still keep going back to the Ashcroft nomination - here was our first chance to show Bush that we weren't gonna fuck around with poor nominations and yet Feingold screwed that one up saying that 'presidents have the right to have their cabinet around them'.

In a nutshell - this is just Biden's turn to be bashed. I still think he's the best candidate and would provide qualified nominations for our judicial court. He would also protect a woman's right to choose - something he has done his ENTIRE political career, not just when it was convinient to get democrats to support him (I'm eying you Kucinich supporters on that one!)