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.