|
|
|
|
When it is changing the rules so the minority cannot practice their rights.
wrote:
What "rights"?
The right to approve judicial appointments.
... The right to stop the system?
Actually, that is among the Congressional powers. Don't like it? Talk to
the Framers of the Constitution.
... The right to the filibuster? There is no right to a filibuster.
Perhaps not, but it has been a longstanding rule of order, to assure
that a slim majority cannot ram through any action a large minority
cannot tolerate... the filibuster has been practiced by both sides.
The fact that the President cannot simply appoint whom he pleases should
have occured to somebody in the cabinet long before this. The difficulty
in getting approval is a sign of both extremism and lack of foresight.
... It's a senate rule.
The republicans are having to threaten to invoke the supreme law of the
land, the Constitution, to get the democrats to do their job.
By revoking a long standing rule that the Republicans have themselves
benefitted from in the past?
Yeah right, just like their recent overhaul of the ethics rules was so
that everybody could enjoy a higher ethics standard.
What does "just vote dammit" have to do with the way the Congress
operates? It is not how we elect the President either.
Because that is what Congress does.
No, it isn't. It never has been. Ever heard of a rider bill? Ever heard
of bills buried in committee? There are thousands of ways to manipulate
the legislative process, some are totally honest & aboveboard, some not
so much. The concept of 'just vote dammit' is a rather simplistic way of
spinning the situation to make the far right wingnuts not look so bad.
... You keep saying that the far right doesn't have a
majority of votes. Then why are you scared of taking a vote?
I'm not 'scared' of anything. However it is not within the principles of
American gov't for the President to assume dictatorial powers.
Appointing whomever he pleases to a judicial position is just that.
Not 'my opinion only' but rather in the opinion of a large number of
people. A large enough number of people that it would be well to back
off and re-think the appointment, or figure out some way to ram it down
all their throats just like in a dictatorship.
A large but *minor* number of people. Don't equate this to a
dictatorship. A dictatorship is a single person ramming his policy
down EVERYONES throat.
Not really. A dictator uses coercive means to accomplish his goals,
whether supported by a majority or simply by a well-armed minority.
Changing rules and denying minority rights is coersion.
... This is a situation of an elected president
requesting the the elected representatives of the states give an up or
down vote on judicial appointments.
Which is not necessarily how the system works.
Look at it this way, if President Bush had done one of 2 things, he'd be
home free.
1- pick judicial (and ambassadorial) appointees that are not
looney-tunes with extremist agendas
2- go through the Congressional mover & shakers and cut whatever deals
necessary to get the appointees over the hump.
He did neither, most likely because it didn't occur to anybody in the
Cabinet that Bush doesn't have dictatorial powers. That's why they are
taken by surprise and having a tantrum.
That is how a republic works... if you want 51% of the voters, or of
Congressmen, to be able to do anything they please, then you need to
drastically change the nature of our gov't... which is what Bush &
Cheney and their supporters are busily doing.
Anything they please within the bounds of law, yes. That IS what I
want.
No, you want to change the rules to allow the President to appoint whackoes.
... A representative government empowered to take action even if it
by the slimest of majorities.
But it is NOT empowered to take action that is extremely offensive to
49% of it's constituents.
DSK
|