On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:20:02 -0700, Dave wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:46:38 -0400, DSK said:

On the contrary, it's an example of what happens when an administration is
so eager to appoint someone acceptable to the other side of the aisle that
they pay insufficient attention to a judge's fidelity to the Constitution.

Ah yes, the executive shouldn't be afraid to TRAMPLE the minority... and
also any members of his own party who are insufficiently inflexible,
doctrinaire, and ideology-driven.

TRAMPLE= what you call a majority vote when you're in the minority.
OBSTRUCT= what you call it when you're in the majority and don't get to
vote.
INVLEXIBLE, DOCTRINAIRE AND IDEOLOGY-DRIVEN= what you call someone who sees
things differently from the way you see them.
SPENDING= what you call it when you don't like what money is going for.
INVESTMENT= what you call it when you do like what money is going for

The only way America can remain FREE is if we have an executive who rams
his choices down the throats of those who are charged by the
Constitution to review & approve.

Doug, the words are advise and consent, not review and approve. Big
difference. Judges are appointed by the chief executive, not by 2/5 of the
Senate.

If you would advise me without REVIEWING relevant facts, your advise would be
worthless, mere uninformed opinion.

To "advise" implies "prior review".

Consent:
1 : to give assent or approval

Yeah, "consent" not "approval". BIG difference.

Judges are appointed by the chief executive WITH THE ADVISE AND CONSENT of
the senate, not merely, "by the chief executive".

Big difference.

And by all means, let's have more politics in *this* newsgroup too. Lots
of name calling, too. We just don't seem to have enough of it elsewhere.

???????