judicial nomination shame

[mithrandir2001]

Ever watch a snake eat its prey? The rabbit will kick and squirm violently just before it dies; it's a last gasp. I hope that the dangerous Religous Right activity dominating Congress and our Executive Branch right now is simply a "market peak" and will be followed by a decline and return to moderation. If only the Dems had some leadership at the top they could have a Congressional "Revolution" like the Right did in 1994. We definitely need to shake out the DeLays, Santorums and Frists. How are you going to spread democracy in the Middle East if you install Evangelical Christianity as the Offical National Religion of America...which is obviously what the Right wants.

 

[arsbanned]

Democrats continued to criticize DeLay yesterday, with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) charging that the Republican might have broken a federal statute against threatening U.S. judges.

"Threats against specific federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a Member of Congress," Lautenberg wrote. "Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well."

If anyone is out of control it's Rep. Delay. The man is a nutcase!
He should be jailed for threatening judges.
Text

 

[Buz2b]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's in the linked .pdf, above, Zebo. 2/3 to invoke cloture on Senate rules changes, 3/5 on general business. Obviously, what the Repubs contemplate is a change to the Standing Rules of The Senate, article XXII.... thus requiring a 2/3 vote in favor...

No, it doesn't require a 2/3 vote. They showed that in 1975 and will do so again. It's simple and part of the rules quoted. You need to read a bit better. Here's something else for you to chew on. Leading scholars in this area of law such as John O. McGinnis of Northwestern University, Michael Rappaport of San Diego University, and Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of Southern California all have written that the Senate Rules can be changed at any time by a simple majority of the Senate. More importantly, Vice Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Hubert H. Humphrey, and Nelson A. Rockefeller have all so ruled while presiding over the United States Senate. Hmmm, did I detect a lib in there?

As for Buz2b, attacking the source w/o addressing the argument isn't really an acceptable tactic- do you deny the chronology provided as to what actually happened in 1975? Or contend that the facts are otherwise? If not, the source is immaterial.

Actually I did address the "argument" as out of context and pieced together to suit their argument. For the density challanged, that means they are letting (which is why I bolded the quotes) their own liberal views color their own piece. Specifically they are interpreting with "left-colored lenses" rules that have stood for 200 years.

It's also convenient that you actually bolded the rule in question, which states that the Senate has to follow their own rules to change the rules, followed by an obfuscative argument to the contrary, even if that argument comes from a seemingly credible source. What is the current rule? A 2/3 majority is required to change the rules. Plain and simple, cut and dried, black and white, rule XXII... paragraph 2, to be precise...

Man, you really don't read well do you? A super majority is NOT required to change the rules. There is one precedent after another to show that and Constitutional Law studies back it up. Most likely, if the Dems try to keep up this filibuster crap, you'll find out yet again. However, most likely the minority will cave and there will be a "comprimise" as has happened in the past (ala 1975) when they kinew they had lost.

As I said, this doesn't matter to the Repub leadership, who are all for showing the public just how they define "bipartisanship" and "tradition", echoing their true regard for "morals" and "values", now that they've restore "honor and dignity" to the Whitehouse...

Here's what Harry Reid has to say about it, something that Repubs should take into consideration before attempting anything truly stupid-

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031605A.shtml

Ok, so now you want to put forth more liberal diatribe to try and show a "holier than thou" stance. I'd hoped to keep this reply shorter but I guess that all goes to hell with that one. :roll:

Number one, he says ?you have threatened to use extraordinary parliamentary tactics allowing the Republican majority to rubberstamp the handful of nominees already rejected and all future Bush nominees.?

That is factually wrong. The ?handful of nominees? weren?t rejected; they were not allowed to be brought to an up or down vote by the threat of filibuster. You have to have the vote to be rejected. Duhh!!

Gotta love this one, ?The Senate should not become like the House of Representatives, where the majority manipulates the rules to accommodate its momentary needs.?

So, old Harry thinks the HOR is a piece of crap legislative branch and doesn?t want to be like them. I?m sure they might have something to say to that. A hell of an opinion from a supposedly responsible Senator. Of course, if the Dems were the majority, I?d guarantee he wouldn?t have made that remark. So transparent.

Here?s another ?jewel? of diatribe, ?And no Senate right is more fundamental than the right to debate. Should the majority choose to break the rules that give us that right, the majority should not expect to receive cooperation from the minority in the conduct of Senate business.?

Debate, yes. A filibuster is, when implemented, a refusal to debate. LOL, the second sentence (pay attention here Jhhnn) actually seems to admit that the majority CAN change the rules and ?threatens? to be uncooperative if they do. Hmmm, I?ll be Frist was shaking in his boots at that one. NOT!!

And, if you read the last two paragraphs, you will note not only the hollow threat of non-cooperation (they can?t afford to look any worse or more like obstructionists as they already do), but also a very obvious tone of defeat as he offers up the possibility of a compromise. That?s what usually happens when the minority knows it?s wrong and in no position to fight a winning battle.

Look, as the time worn saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." This party is over. You seemed to be enamored with reading interpretations of positions put forth by folks with a very transparent agenda. That's fine if it keeps you and the rest in your liberal nervana. Keep it up and in 2006 you might just find yourselves facing a super-majority in the Senate as part of a daily routine. Until then, you can continue to spew forth the rancor of the "downtrodden, browbeaten, shoulda had a V8, minority."

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, it seems obvious that you've abandoned any reference to the facts of the matter, Buz2b, resorting instead to the usual rightwing Limbaugh-esque diatribe, railing against the opposition in an illogical manner. Typical, and the use of the word "spew" pretty well confirms it...

Here, try this .pdf- scroll down to page 21, rule XXII, paragraph2, and tell me what it says- "interpret" it for me, OK?

http://lugar.senate.gov/CRS%20reports/Parliamentary_Reference_Sources_Senate.pdf

"One precedent after another" is an extremely broad statement, particularly w/o any links or reference to actual events- apparently not required for the exercise of what passes for thought in rightwing circles... Yeh, you read the Harvard opinion, and a few rightwing webopinions, and they must be right, because they say so... doesn't work that way...

The "agenda" is, indeed, transparent, the intent is to keep party hacks and ideologues off lifetime appointments to the bench. Which certainly can't be said for the Frist/Bush agenda of obfuscation and misrepresentation... of attempting to make new Senate Rules by breaking the old ones, which you've acknowledged are valid...

 

[Kerouactivist]

This arguement kinda reminds me of the ending of the movie a time to kill....
Can the republican's out there just imagine what you would be thinking if it were the dems doing this instead of the republican's?

How does the thought of the dems using this to appoint extremely liberal judges onto the court when they are back in power...

I think the Republicans are being very short-sighted on this issue....
I am not suprised in the slightest by this though.

I say this much I don't think it is good for democracy no matter who is in power...

 

[Jhhnn]

You're right, bthorny, it's not good for Democracy, regardless of the ideology of the perps.

To be candid, I don't think people of reasonable ideological leanings would even propose such a thing over the issue of Judicial nominees.