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

What "rights"?

The right to approve judicial appointments.

The minority doesn't have the right to approve judicial appointments.
Never did.

... The right to stop the system?

Actually, that is among the Congressional powers. Don't like it? Talk to
the Framers of the Constitution.

Give me a specific reference in the Constitution. Stating,
"Constitution, ha ha ha" is not a legitimate argument.


... 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.

The intent of the filibuster is to delay a vote long enough to ensure
thorough debate. Used correctly, it ensures that the minority view is
expressed fairly. A noble goal. The current use on these judicial
nominees is a disgusting misuse to prevent a vote completely,
effectively shutting down the Senate and is a refusal by the Senate to
do their Constitutional job, to advise and consent on judicial
nominees.

... 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?


It's dirty politics practiced by either side. I'm not scared of the
republicans losing the ability to use it in the future.

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.

Burying a specific piece of legislation in comittee is not against the
Constitution. There is no Constitutional responsibility to vote on
every piece of legislation ever put down on paper. On the other hand,
the Senate is specifically required to "advise and consent" on
presidential judicial nominations. In my opinion, the intent of the
framers was NOT "advise and consent whenever you get around to it or
feel like it."




... 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.

That's not what anybody wants. I want appointments with the consent of
congress. Nobody is calling for these nominations to bypass the
Senate. Talk about simplistic. Equating a popularly elected president
appointing judges to the bench with the consent of a majority of
elected representatives with a dictatorship is simplistic.



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.

The president is not behind the rules changes proposed in Congress.
Don't blame him. It's fed up Republican Senators behind it. Your
definition of a dictator is wacko.

dictatorship

n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator
(not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

dic=B7ta=B7tor ( P ) n.

An absolute ruler.
A tyrant; a despot.



A dictator doesn't need to use coersion because he holds absolute
power. If you answer to no one, there is no one to coerce. A dictator
holds on to power with the enforcement of the military. Our
president's powers stem from the Constitution. Bush may very well be
shamefully guilty of trying to sidestep the intent of the Constituion
in the name of homeland security, but not on this issue.

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.

If they have 51 votes, they are over the hump. For what it's worth. I
think you make a good point about Bush's arrogance. I'd hate to see a
democrat president come across as smugly arrogant as Bush does
sometimes. But I'm also disgusted by many of the decisions coming down
from the bench and if holding the White House and both houses of
congress doesn't give us the power to get some judges on the bench,
then nothing ever will.

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 whacko=
es.

If a minority of Senators think they are wackos, then I guess we'll
have to trust the president and the majority. We did elect them after
all.

... 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.

Sure it is. Exactly what is the magic percentage that congress IS
allowed to offend? Is congress empowered to pass legislation offensive
to 40%? How about 30% or 20%? Congress is empowered to offend 100% of
its constituents. There is nothing in law or tradition preventing them
from passing legislation with zero support from the populace. The
peoples revenge would be at the polls next time around. The income tax
ammendment passed with a supermajority, didn't it? You think if it
were put up for a popular referendum it would get even 20% of the
votes? In the 60's, necessary and just civil rights legislation never
would have passed if every Southern representative and senator had
voted according to the wishes of the majority of their constituents.
In the 1860's, against the wishes of a HUGE minority (the Confederate
States), the country declared war on itself to preserve the union.

The minority doesn't have the right to approve judicial appointments.
Never did.


No, but Congress... as a whole... does.

Ring any bells yet?



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.


The intent of the filibuster is to delay a vote long enough to ensure
thorough debate.

Says who? The intent of a filibuster is to delay a vote.... period. The
intent can vary widely.


... Used correctly, it ensures that the minority view is
expressed fairly. A noble goal. The current use on these judicial
nominees is a disgusting misuse

Oh, I see. You swallow the whole package don't you... those evil
Democrats are perverting the noble use of the filibuster!



... 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.


Burying a specific piece of legislation in comittee is not against the
Constitution.

Of course not.

... There is no Constitutional responsibility to vote on
every piece of legislation ever put down on paper.

You could read that into the Constitution without stretching too much
IMHO. But that's not the way Congress does it's business.


... On the other hand,
the Senate is specifically required to "advise and consent" on
presidential judicial nominations. In my opinion, the intent of the
framers was NOT "advise and consent whenever you get around to it or
feel like it."


And do you see any wording that the Senate must promptly vote... and
nothing else... on judicial nominations? Anything about how debate must
be limited in duration or to majority party members? Anything about how
the President should expect the arm-twisters of his personal caucus to
convince the mainstream to go along?

Nope.

In other words, the burden has been on the Bush Administration to either
nominate appointees acceptable to the Congress... and by implication, to
the nation... or do whatever back-room dealing necessary to get them
passed without tying up the country's business.

They didn't.

It's another example of the short-sightedness & close-mindedness of the
Bush Administration IMHO.


... 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.


Sure it is.

Really?

Better check with Tom Paine about that.

DSK

DSK wrote:
The minority doesn't have the right to approve judicial appointments.
Never did.


No, but Congress... as a whole... does.

Ring any bells yet?

You're right, Congress as a whole does, and majority rules. So let
them vote and we can all get on with our lives.

The fact that the President cannot simply appoint whom he pleases should
have occured to somebody in the cabinet long before this.

And why can't the president appoint anybody he wants? Of course he
can. And if the Senate doesn't like the appointee, they can reject
him/her.



The intent of the filibuster is to delay a vote long enough to ensure
thorough debate.

Says who? The intent of a filibuster is to delay a vote.... period. The
intent can vary widely.

What other LEGITIMATE use of the filibuster is there than to ensure
thorough debate so that the minority view can be heard?

... Used correctly, it ensures that the minority view is
expressed fairly. A noble goal. The current use on these judicial
nominees is a disgusting misuse

Oh, I see. You swallow the whole package don't you... those evil
Democrats are perverting the noble use of the filibuster!

I didn't say the democrats are evil. They are playing the game just
like the republicans are. So I won't hold it against the democrats if
you don't hold it against the republicans.

The mere fact that the republicans hold the white house and both houses
of congress should satisfy you that their views are not on the fringe
of popular thought but are in the mainstream. The democrats have
completely lost their way and stand for nothing but opposing the
republicans. That's why they lost the elections.

... 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.


Burying a specific piece of legislation in comittee is not against the
Constitution.

Of course not.

... There is no Constitutional responsibility to vote on
every piece of legislation ever put down on paper.

You could read that into the Constitution without stretching too much
IMHO. But that's not the way Congress does it's business.

Here, just as every other time you have invoked the Constitution, you
fail to give a reference. What are you talking about? How can you
"read that into" the Constitution?

... On the other hand,
the Senate is specifically required to "advise and consent" on
presidential judicial nominations. In my opinion, the intent of the
framers was NOT "advise and consent whenever you get around to it or
feel like it."


And do you see any wording that the Senate must promptly vote... and
nothing else... on judicial nominations?

No, only the common sense realization that vacancies on the bench
cannot go unfilled forever. We must have judges fill those spots. So
a system that can in theory and practice leave federal judicial spots
vacanct indefinitely, simply does not work and must be changed.

... 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.


Sure it is.

Really?


Yes, really. Once again, I'll challenge you to reference any US law
that states otherwise. I have already given several examples from
history when Congress has opposed the wishes of a large minority and
several where they have opposed the wishes of the majority. You
snipped all of them. And what is your reference to Tom Paine about?