DSK wrote:
wrote:
How else is representative government supposed to operate if majority
doesn't rule?

How about by not trampling on the minority... especially a minority that
can summon a majority on many of the more right-wing proposals?

How is insisting on a vote trampling on the minority?



.... Repubs have the majority of the votes in the Senate,
House, and the White House.

Yes, but the far right does not have a majority, even within the
Republican Party. That's why the 'nuclear option' and arm-twisting...
why do several Republican Senators say that they've been 'beat up' by
the Bush cabinet?

What does that have to do with getting them to "just vote dammit"?




... What else do they need to get a few judges
approved?

Pick judges that aren't fascist whackoes.

In your opinion only. But it's not your job or priviledge to decide if
they are fascist. At this point it is the Senate's job and a minority
of Senators are holding up the process. The minority should not have
the power to shut down the system if they don't like what's going on.
The minority never does like what's going on, that's why they are the
minority. The dems only have to convince a few measly Senators that
these appointees are "fascist". If they can't do it, then what rights
should they have to block them from taking the bench?

Did it amount to 'mob rule' in your book back in the early 1990s when
Newt Gengrich led the Republican minority in the exact same kind of tactics?

I already said ,"I would be just as mad if the repubs pulled this
crap", but you snipped it. I was too young at the time to care about
Newt, but yes it was dirty politics. Did you have a point?

wrote in message
oups.com...


DSK wrote:
wrote:
How else is representative government supposed to operate if majority
doesn't rule?

How about by not trampling on the minority... especially a minority that
can summon a majority on many of the more right-wing proposals?

How is insisting on a vote trampling on the minority?



.... Repubs have the majority of the votes in the Senate,
House, and the White House.

Yes, but the far right does not have a majority, even within the
Republican Party. That's why the 'nuclear option' and arm-twisting...
why do several Republican Senators say that they've been 'beat up' by
the Bush cabinet?

What does that have to do with getting them to "just vote dammit"?




... What else do they need to get a few judges
approved?

Pick judges that aren't fascist whackoes.

In your opinion only. But it's not your job or priviledge to decide if
they are fascist. At this point it is the Senate's job and a minority
of Senators are holding up the process. The minority should not have
the power to shut down the system if they don't like what's going on.
The minority never does like what's going on, that's why they are the
minority. The dems only have to convince a few measly Senators that
these appointees are "fascist". If they can't do it, then what rights
should they have to block them from taking the bench?

Did it amount to 'mob rule' in your book back in the early 1990s when
Newt Gengrich led the Republican minority in the exact same kind of
tactics?

I already said ,"I would be just as mad if the repubs pulled this
crap", but you snipped it. I was too young at the time to care about
Newt, but yes it was dirty politics. Did you have a point?


NO, he just choose to lie....Newt G, was the speaker of the house , he had
absolutely NO power in the Senate.

THe liebrals are desparate and will do anything not to give up
power......unfortunately, a few spineless moderate republicans don't know
how to act like a majority.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:57:55 -0400, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...


DSK wrote:
wrote:
How else is representative government supposed to operate if majority
doesn't rule?

How about by not trampling on the minority... especially a minority that
can summon a majority on many of the more right-wing proposals?

How is insisting on a vote trampling on the minority?



.... Repubs have the majority of the votes in the Senate,
House, and the White House.

Yes, but the far right does not have a majority, even within the
Republican Party. That's why the 'nuclear option' and arm-twisting...
why do several Republican Senators say that they've been 'beat up' by
the Bush cabinet?

What does that have to do with getting them to "just vote dammit"?




... What else do they need to get a few judges
approved?

Pick judges that aren't fascist whackoes.

In your opinion only. But it's not your job or priviledge to decide if
they are fascist. At this point it is the Senate's job and a minority
of Senators are holding up the process. The minority should not have
the power to shut down the system if they don't like what's going on.
The minority never does like what's going on, that's why they are the
minority. The dems only have to convince a few measly Senators that
these appointees are "fascist". If they can't do it, then what rights
should they have to block them from taking the bench?

Did it amount to 'mob rule' in your book back in the early 1990s when
Newt Gengrich led the Republican minority in the exact same kind of
tactics?

I already said ,"I would be just as mad if the repubs pulled this
crap", but you snipped it. I was too young at the time to care about
Newt, but yes it was dirty politics. Did you have a point?


NO, he just choose to lie....Newt G, was the speaker of the house , he had
absolutely NO power in the Senate.

THe liebrals are desparate and will do anything not to give up
power......unfortunately, a few spineless moderate republicans don't know
how to act like a majority.



The 'Constitutional' option hasn't been dispensed with, its use has simply been
postponed. If the Dems start their **** again, it will be put back on the table.
The Republicans just got three judges approved without a fight.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

wrote:
How is insisting on a vote trampling on the minority?


When it is changing the rules so the minority cannot practice their rights.




Yes, but the far right does not have a majority, even within the
Republican Party. That's why the 'nuclear option' and arm-twisting...
why do several Republican Senators say that they've been 'beat up' by
the Bush cabinet?


What does that have to do with getting them to "just vote dammit"?


What does "just vote dammit" have to do with the way the Congress
operates? It is not how we elect the President either.



... What else do they need to get a few judges
approved?

Pick judges that aren't fascist whackoes.


In your opinion only.

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.

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.


... But it's not your job or priviledge to decide if
they are fascist. At this point it is the Senate's job and a minority
of Senators are holding up the process.

Which is the Senate's job & privilege.

Sorry, but the way this appointment stuff is working is exactly how it's
supposed to work. The President is not supposed to be able to pack the
judiciary with any old body he pleases, not when he's a liberal and not
when he's a uber-Christian proto-fascist



Did it amount to 'mob rule' in your book back in the early 1990s when
Newt Gengrich led the Republican minority in the exact same kind of tactics?


I already said ,"I would be just as mad if the repubs pulled this
crap", but you snipped it. I was too young at the time to care about
Newt, but yes it was dirty politics. Did you have a point?

That many people are spittin' mad about how those darn libby-rull
Democrats are trying to ruin all of President Bush's plan, never mind
the Constitution and never mind that the Republicans did the exact same
thing, only worse, when they were in the minority...

DSK

When it is changing the rules so the minority cannot practice their rights.

What "rights"? The right to stop the system? The right to the
filibuster? There is no right to a filibuster. 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. Minority
senators aren't being denied any rights at all.

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. Vote on appointments after an
appropriate, but not indefinite period of debate. Stalling the vote
indefinitely with the hope that it will just all go away is a move of
desperation. You keep saying that the far right doesn't have a
majority of votes. Then why are you scared of taking a vote?

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. 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. If the vote comes out 51 to 49,
that's not dictatorship. That's majority rule is a working
representative republic.


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. A representative government empowered to take action even if it
by the slimest of majorities. Anything else and we just have 500 some
odd congressmen sitting on the hill, drawing a paycheck and getting
nothing done. There is a referendum afterall on the president every 4
years and on every senator every 6 if you don't like what their doing.



... But it's not your job or priviledge to decide if
they are fascist. At this point it is the Senate's job and a minority
of Senators are holding up the process.

Which is the Senate's job & privilege.

Is that a question or a statement? It looks like a question except for
the period at the end. I'll assume the period is a typo and answer it
as a question. The Senate's job to "advise and consent" on judicial
appointments. Tradition has held that this consent take the form of an
actual vote, although the Constitution doesn't spell it out. So it is
the job of the Senate, by Constitutional law and tradition, to vote on
judicial appointment. In doing so, each and every elected senator has
the privilege of deciding if the appointee is suitable for the job. If
the president likes the guy enough to appoint and a majority of
Senators can't find anything wrong with the appointee, they should get
the job. That's how it should work anyway.


Sorry, but the way this appointment stuff is working is exactly how it's
supposed to work. The President is not supposed to be able to pack the
judiciary with any old body he pleases, not when he's a liberal and not
when he's a uber-Christian proto-fascist

That's not what anybody wants. Nobody wants the president to be able
to appoint his unemployed, drunk half-brother without an checks and
balances. What we DO want is the president's appointees to be able to
take the bench with the consent of at least 51 of the state's elected
representatives. That is checks and balances in action.

That many people are spittin' mad about how those darn libby-rull
Democrats are trying to ruin all of President Bush's plan, never mind
the Constitution and never mind that the Republicans did the exact same
thing, only worse, when they were in the minority...

You can't use the Constitution to defend the filibuster of judicial
nominees. And that IS a dare if you think you can. Go ahead, I'd like
to hear this.

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

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 May 2005 11:57:55 -0400, "P.Fritz"

wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...


DSK wrote:
wrote:
How else is representative government supposed to operate if majority
doesn't rule?

How about by not trampling on the minority... especially a minority
that
can summon a majority on many of the more right-wing proposals?

How is insisting on a vote trampling on the minority?



.... Repubs have the majority of the votes in the Senate,
House, and the White House.

Yes, but the far right does not have a majority, even within the
Republican Party. That's why the 'nuclear option' and arm-twisting...
why do several Republican Senators say that they've been 'beat up' by
the Bush cabinet?

What does that have to do with getting them to "just vote dammit"?




... What else do they need to get a few judges
approved?

Pick judges that aren't fascist whackoes.

In your opinion only. But it's not your job or priviledge to decide if
they are fascist. At this point it is the Senate's job and a minority
of Senators are holding up the process. The minority should not have
the power to shut down the system if they don't like what's going on.
The minority never does like what's going on, that's why they are the
minority. The dems only have to convince a few measly Senators that
these appointees are "fascist". If they can't do it, then what rights
should they have to block them from taking the bench?

Did it amount to 'mob rule' in your book back in the early 1990s when
Newt Gengrich led the Republican minority in the exact same kind of
tactics?

I already said ,"I would be just as mad if the repubs pulled this
crap", but you snipped it. I was too young at the time to care about
Newt, but yes it was dirty politics. Did you have a point?


NO, he just choose to lie....Newt G, was the speaker of the house , he
had
absolutely NO power in the Senate.

THe liebrals are desparate and will do anything not to give up
power......unfortunately, a few spineless moderate republicans don't know
how to act like a majority.



The 'Constitutional' option hasn't been dispensed with, its use has simply
been
postponed. If the Dems start their **** again, it will be put back on the
table.
The Republicans just got three judges approved without a fight.

I'll say again.....a few spineless moderate republicans don't know
how to act like a majority.

And then there is the democrat in hiding McCain.




--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to
resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:04:15 -0400, John H wrote:


The 'Constitutional' option hasn't been dispensed with, its use has simply
been postponed. If the Dems start their **** again, it will be put back on
the table. The Republicans just got three judges approved without a fight.

Really? You just don't get it. Those seven moderate Republicans just
broke ranks with the far right wing of the party. Do the math. Frist
doesn't have the votes for the "nuclear option." Once again, the checks
and balances our forefathers put into the system have worked. Deny it if
you will, but this country is still ruled by the center, not the far right
or the far left.

On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:51:55 -0400, thunder wrote:

On Wed, 25 May 2005 12:04:15 -0400, John H wrote:


The 'Constitutional' option hasn't been dispensed with, its use has simply
been postponed. If the Dems start their **** again, it will be put back on
the table. The Republicans just got three judges approved without a fight.

Really? You just don't get it. Those seven moderate Republicans just
broke ranks with the far right wing of the party. Do the math. Frist
doesn't have the votes for the "nuclear option." Once again, the checks
and balances our forefathers put into the system have worked. Deny it if
you will, but this country is still ruled by the center, not the far right
or the far left.

Believe what you will.

--
John H
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes (A true binary thinker!)

"P.Fritz" wrote in message

I'll say again.....a few spineless moderate republicans don't know
how to act like a majority.



Be careful what you wish for.....
Lets turn that around - IF the demo's were in charge then they should force
THEIR agenda down the Republicans throat????

My personal opinion is - too bad the moderates from BOTH parties have
lost.....