|
Good news for Americans and the World
"Thirty-five percent sided with changing Senate rules, 19 percent agreed
on keeping the filibuster and 34 percent wanted filibuster rules to remain intact but for nominees to receive a full Senate vote." (So 69% of those polled are siding with the Republican's *stance* on the judicial nomination issue...) "48 percent said they favored the Democrats in the dispute and 40 percent favored the GOP." (...but 48% favor the Democrats in the dispute?) These polls are a joke, because the respondents are idiots. Who the hell even takes the time to respond to the pollsters when they call? |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Thirty-five percent sided with changing Senate rules, 19 percent agreed on keeping the filibuster and 34 percent wanted filibuster rules to remain intact but for nominees to receive a full Senate vote." (So 69% of those polled are siding with the Republican's *stance* on the judicial nomination issue...) "48 percent said they favored the Democrats in the dispute and 40 percent favored the GOP." (...but 48% favor the Democrats in the dispute?) These polls are a joke, because the respondents are idiots. Who the hell even takes the time to respond to the pollsters when they call? Polls are just another way for the media to make up news stories. That being said, the Democrats will lose their effort to not allow an up or down vote on judicial nominees. They've gotten away with their obfuscation way too long and it's way way overdue for the Senate to get back to established rules and procedures. CN |
On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:30:51 -0400, =?Windows-1252?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?=
wrote: Polls are just another way for the media to make up news stories. That being said, the Democrats will lose their effort to not allow an up or down vote on judicial nominees. They've gotten away with their obfuscation way too long and it's way way overdue for the Senate to get back to established rules and procedures. Established rules and procedures like the filibuster? Unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since it's beginnings. The filibuster can be ended with cloture, if the Republicans have the votes. The system has worked for over 200 years, quit your whining. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 May 2005 20:30:51 -0400, =?Windows-1252?Q?Capt._Neal=AE?= wrote: Polls are just another way for the media to make up news stories. That being said, the Democrats will lose their effort to not allow an up or down vote on judicial nominees. They've gotten away with their obfuscation way too long and it's way way overdue for the Senate to get back to established rules and procedures. Established rules and procedures like the filibuster? Unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since it's beginnings. The filibuster can be ended with cloture, if the Republicans have the votes. The system has worked for over 200 years, quit your whining. The filibuster is a US Senate rule. It is not based upon law nor is it in the US Constitution. The rules of the Senate can be changed by the Senators at anytime as the US Senate has done for over 200 years. The US Senate should return to being comprised of members elected from the several states legislatures rather than being popularly elected. This will remove a tremendous amout of money out of politics as so many on the left desire to happen. And, the biggest reason is we are the United STATES of America not the United PEOPLE of America. |
On Tue, 24 May 2005 07:26:43 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote:
Established rules and procedures like the filibuster? Unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since it's beginnings. The filibuster can be ended with cloture, if the Republicans have the votes. The system has worked for over 200 years, quit your whining. The filibuster is a US Senate rule. It is not based upon law nor is it in the US Constitution. The rules of the Senate can be changed by the Senators at anytime as the US Senate has done for over 200 years. BS. The filibuster is not a rule. Unlimited debate is the rule. A filibuster is the name given to the process of holding the floor to prevent a vote. The Constitution dictates the Senate "Advise and consent" the President's judicial appointments. Would you have the Senate abrogate their sworn duty? Where were your complaints when the Republicans filibustered Clinton's Paez nomination? Or when they blocked 16 of his appellate court nominees? The system has worked for over 200 years, now you want to change the rules? The US Senate should return to being comprised of members elected from the several states legislatures rather than being popularly elected. This will remove a tremendous amout of money out of politics as so many on the left desire to happen. And, the biggest reason is we are the United STATES of America not the United PEOPLE of America. That was changed for one reason, a direct vote is more democratic, small d. Democracy is a bitch isn't it? The checks and balances our forefathers put into this system mean this country will be ruled from the center, not from the right or the left. Why is it the Republicans always want to change the rules? |
The filibuster is a US Senate rule. It is not based upon law nor is it
in the US Constitution. The rules of the Senate can be changed by the Senators at anytime as the US Senate has done for over 200 years ********** It isn't wise to rewrite the rules of the Senate every time the majority changes. Right now, the Ripuplickin's have a couple of vote advantage. The day come when the Demoncraps are on top again, and when that day comes you right wingers will once again be *very* interested in the traditional senate respect for the voice of the minority. If you want to marginalize the minority, when have 100 Senators at all? Send the 48 non-Republicans home, save the taxpayers the money for their salaries, and you guys can just run roughshod over the government like it's your private feifdom. |
|
How else is representative government supposed to operate if majority
doesn't rule? Repubs have the majority of the votes in the Senate, House, and the White House. What else do they need to get a few judges approved? How is it fair for the minority (however close in numbers) to just say "We're taking our ball and going home."? Are you a democrat? You're satisfied that the representative that you voted for and are paying won't do his job and vote yes or no on a nominee? The dems tried this crap in the Texas state legislature a few years ago. They actually left the state twice en masse and shut down the legislature. In my book, that amounts to mob rule. They should have all been impeached. I would have been just as mad if it was the repubs pulling that crap, as I'm sure you would. |
|
|
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!) |
|
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. |
|
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..... |
On Thu, 26 May 2005 02:30:39 +0000, Gorf wrote:
"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..... In this particular case, I would say the moderates have won. |
On Wed, 25 May 2005 22:52:00 -0400, thunder wrote:
On Thu, 26 May 2005 02:30:39 +0000, Gorf wrote: "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..... In this particular case, I would say the moderates have won. Most assuredly. Owens will take her seat, the rest will follow soon, and then we'll be back at square one! -- 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!) |
"Gorf" wrote in message ... "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???? You mean like they did for forty years? This is time to restore the mess the liebrals created over that time period. My personal opinion is - too bad the moderates from BOTH parties have lost..... Y |
THIS IS A REC BOATS FORUM TALK ABOUT BOATS DUMB ASS!
|
Freddy the Troll wrote:
A few have made this group their dumping station for anything they are ashamed to post to the apprpriate group. I frequent many groups, rec.boats is the worst. It needs a thorough cleaning. Like Don White said, call a spade a spade, even though he thinks he is a heart. He is still a spade no matter how he sees himself. Hey...I asked my mum and the wife...they both said 'heart'. |
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? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com