"Joe" wrote in message ...
Translation:
As usual, I pulled this from my ass
Translation:
I too stupid and narrow minded to use the web to do some simple
research.
You are the one who made the claim, not me. You provide the proof.
You cant because your full of ****.
You said:
" True enough. Fact is, the cost of the war is far from over. You
must
understand that it's not just the 9 billion a day we are spending
DIRECTLY on the war, but there are many, many peripheral costs
involved"
You are now trying to use very suspect estimates of "peripheral
costs"
to
try to validate your asinine statement of "9 billion a day spent
DIRECTLY on
the war"
Note, DIRECTLY in caps by you, not me.
You're an idiot.
Heehee! ALL of the above numbers are DIRECT costs of the war. What a
dolt.
Your a fool.
Do you disagree that the above costs are DIRECT costs of the war?
Yes
How? Please provide reference to refute.
Again, you made the claim you provide the proof.
PS: Where's my history lesson on judicial nominee filibusters?
Go back and read it V E R Y slowly, you effing dumb ass, and you just
may comprehend it.
Do you still believe a judicial nominee has ever been filibustered?
Here is your statement (wrong)
Currently, a minority of senators, composed entirely of Democrats, is
blocking the nominations of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Texas Supreme Court
Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, even
though both nominees have the support of at least 51 senators.
Democrats have also threatened to filibuster the nominations of
Carolyn Kuhn to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Alabama
Attorney General William H. "Bill" Pryor to the 11th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals if their nominations are brought to the floor
And then my post for which you never responded:
In 1968, 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats opposed the elevation of Supreme
Court Justice Abe Fortis to the position of chief justice of the United
States. Fortis' nomination was withdrawn when only 46 senators agreed to
support for the nominee.
He was NOT filibustered.
http://new.crosswalk.com/news/1206583.html
Your wrong again.
Now, I've given examples, all of which are readily available to ANYONE
with enough intelligence and enough fortitude to get there lazy ass
off of the couch, put out the cigarette, finish there beer, and LOOK.
Your full of ****.
Funny, this article, by a republican senator, makes reference to one.
SENATOR JON KYL
East Valley Tribune (Mesa, Arizona)
March 2, 2003
As I write this, Senate Democrats are continuing a weekslong
filibuster of Miguel Estrada, who would be the first Latino ever to
serve on the D.C. Circuit Court, the second-highest court in the
nation.
On Wednesday this paper urged Senate Democrats to end the filibuster -
a commendable position taken by more than 50 other newspapers across
the country.
But while indicating that the filibuster was wrong, the editorial
excused the behavior with the argument that the obstruction of Estrada
is mere political "payback" for similar transgressions by Republican
senators against nominees selected by President Clinton.
That argument is false. President Clinton got the vast majority of his
judicial nominees (90 percent) confirmed by the Senate, even though it
was controlled by Republicans for six of his eight years in office.
Nearly every one of the circuit court nominations he made during his
first two years won Senate confirmation within that time frame. And
overall, the number of President Clinton's confirmed judges was just
five short of the all-time leader in confirmations, Ronald Reagan.
Most of Clinton's judicial nominees who did not get a Senate vote were
nominated at the end of Clinton's second term, when there was little
time to go through the full confirmation process.
While over 90 percent of Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton circuit court
nominees were confirmed in their first two years in office, less than
half of President Bush's original circuit court nominations have even
had an up or down vote in the Senate. Some have waited nearly two
years for even a hearing.
Senate Democrats have repeatedly tried to change the rules in the
confirmation process - some arguing, for example, that judges might
even have a presumption of disqualification until they prove
otherwise.
Miguel Estrada did not receive a committee vote for 20 months!
The Estrada filibuster is, in fact, an unprecedented departure from
past judicial battles. It marks the first time in Senate history that
any political party has used such a tactic to obstruct a nominee for
the federal circuit court.
Only once in Senate history has there been a filibuster against any
judicial nominee, and that was a bipartisan effort against a Supreme
Court Justice, Abe Fortas.
This is not mere "payback." It is an escalation of a bitter battle by
Senate Democrats to keep judges with potentially conservative
political views off the courts at any cost.
That is extremely disappointing. And dangerous. If the Democrats
succeed with this filibuster – which requires 60 votes to break - they
will have effectively changed the rules that have governed our country
since its founding.
Henceforth, any nomination that a minority faction finds
"controversial " would no longer need majority support - 50 votes -
but a supermajority of 60. That is a recipe for endless gridlock and a
terrible disservice to the American people.
More than that, it is a great injustice to Miguel Estrada, an
immigrant success story and a role model for the Latino community.
This is a man whose qualifications no one seriously disputes, who
overcame a speech impediment and a language barrier to become a
Harvard-trained lawyer, a Supreme Court clerk, and an attorney for
both the Bush and Clinton administrations. The American Bar
Association - by whose standards Democrats insist all judicial
nominees be measured - unanimously rated him "well qualified." And
he's been endorsed by the Hispanic civil-rights organization LULAC,
the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and even Vice President Gore's
former chief counsel.
Senate Democrats have tried in vain to piece together a coherent
argument against Estrada's confirmation. Yet, as even the Washington
Post - no ally of President Bush - recently editorialized, the
Democratic opposition to Mr. Estrada's confirmation "range from the
unpersuasive to the offensive."
The injustice being committed against Miguel Estrada must not be aided
by ignorance of judicial battles in the past. He should be given an up
or down vote in the United States Senate, a courtesy given to nearly
all of President Clinton's nominees.
Mr. Estrada certainly deserves better than being cavalierly shrugged
off as just another victim of Washington infighting.