Security legislation for Federal judges

[Demosthenes]

Judiciary. The Senate voted 93-3 today to limit debate and clear the way for passage of legislation intended to enhance protection of judges. The measure would authorize new criminal penalties for the use of personal information to harm judges and authorize funds to improve security in state and local courts.

One impetus for the measure was the 2005 murder of the mother and husband of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow in their Chicago home. "It was an unwelcome wake-up call for our country," said Senate Majority Whip Durbin. The bill would also increase penalties for witness tampering. The cloture motion was filed after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., objected to the bill on the ground that the unspecified new spending it authorized would not be offset by spending cuts or a revenue increase. Aides said he supported the bill but was looking for an offset. Durbin deplored Coburn's objection to the legislation, saying, "I hope common sense prevails."

[Cobalt Shiva]

Judiciary. The Senate voted 93-3 today to limit debate and clear the way for passage of legislation intended to enhance protection of judges. The measure would authorize new criminal penalties for the use of personal information to harm judges and authorize funds to improve security in state and local courts.

One impetus for the measure was the 2005 murder of the mother and husband of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow in their Chicago home. "It was an unwelcome wake-up call for our country," said Senate Majority Whip Durbin. The bill would also increase penalties for witness tampering. The cloture motion was filed after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., objected to the bill on the ground that the unspecified new spending it authorized would not be offset by spending cuts or a revenue increase. Aides said he supported the bill but was looking for an offset. Durbin deplored Coburn's objection to the legislation, saying, "I hope common sense prevails."

Last time I checked, common sense dictates that if I spend money on fixing my car or improving my home's security posture, I'm going to have to economize elsewhere to pay for it. Why is the government immune to this?

[Lambkin]

Last time I checked, common sense dictates that if I spend money on fixing my car or improving my home's security posture, I'm going to have to economize elsewhere to pay for it. Why is the government immune to this?

This is a guy voting for an Iraq pull-out date, where do you expect to find a bigger offset? This judge protection stuff is in the noise. They could fund every nutty bill on earth by a factor of "who's counting?" Oops, just fell into Ranting & Raving. :-)

[Neckbone]

Judiciary. The Senate voted 93-3 today to limit debate and clear the way for passage of legislation intended to enhance protection of judges. The measure would authorize new criminal penalties for the use of personal information to harm judges and authorize funds to improve security in state and local courts.

One impetus for the measure was the 2005 murder of the mother and husband of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow in their Chicago home. "It was an unwelcome wake-up call for our country," said Senate Majority Whip Durbin. The bill would also increase penalties for witness tampering. The cloture motion was filed after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., objected to the bill on the ground that the unspecified new spending it authorized would not be offset by spending cuts or a revenue increase. Aides said he supported the bill but was looking for an offset. Durbin deplored Coburn's objection to the legislation, saying, "I hope common sense prevails."

Last time I checked, common sense dictates that if I spend money on fixing my car or improving my home's security posture, I'm going to have to economize elsewhere to pay for it. Why is the government immune to this?

Because, CS, government doesn't "spend" the money they take in, they give it away. Didn't you know that?

Neckbone