OT: Ashcroft, Bush and Cheney Un-American Traitors?

[FULLREFUSAL]

[quote]Originally posted by WOW: [b] [quote] The Dems have a right to voice their opinion [/quote]Yes, AND they also have a job to do, so VOTE on the damn judges and be done with it. If the judges lose, then they lose, but at least lets hope the Senators will do their basic duty and vote on them.[/b][/quote]Wow, why don't you quit posting on political threads and lets see if you in fact have anything to add in regard to audio or any musical talent instead. Your Banter has grown tiresome. I only hope for your sake, that's not all the creative juice you have in you. I'm going to take my spiteful reference to you out of my signature by the way... :wave:

[_Sweet Willie_]

I've been avoiding this thread like the plague. Lord knows why I'm poking my head in here. Oh well. Filibusters are part of politics. Republicans filibuster, Democrats filibuster, and Independents filibuster. It's been a part of the process used by the legislative branch of government forever, and has its place -- as frustrating as it can be at times. One of the most classic examples of a filibuster is a fictional one -- Jimmy Stewart in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." (I think I've got the actor and movie correct.) The job of the senator is to represent his/her constituents ( that means the people who voted him/her into office; that means the interest groups who contributed to his/her campaign). Obviously the senator does not represent the perspective of every individual in his/her state, and if he/she takes positions, filibusters, votes, etc. in such a way and to such an extent that the majority of voters disagree, then he/she will presumably be voted out of office come election time.

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote] Wow, why don't you quit posting on political threads and lets see if you in fact have anything to add in regard to audio or any musical talent instead. Your Banter has grown tiresome [/quote]Do you have ANYTHING to add about the Senate OR are you just here to get ANOTHER thread "locked" by Craig?

[Philter]

[quote]Originally posted by WOW: [b] [quote] The rules are the rules. Bottom line is, it takes 60% approval to get a judge confirmed, simply because of the rules congress plays by [/quote]No it does not, it takes 50% until NOW. The Senate rules have just been changed. Blame it on whoever you want to.[/b][/quote]Cry me a river. The filibister is older than you are. Do yourself a favor and look this one up. The Democrats play by the same procedural rules as the Republicans. The only bad thing about the few judges stopped by the Dems is that it's only a few.

[Saint Johnny B]

Both sides block judges they don't like, this is not news. What is news is that I heard a BBC broadcast that Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Asscroft all want to go back to their cowardly roles and cut and run from Iraq because it is turning out to be terrible diaster. Too bad these bastards never saw any front line duty, but they'd rather play dress-up, talk tough, and make backroom deals with their oil buddies. Thanks for the info on these jerks trying to poison Americans, by way of filthy air and water that is unfit for women and children to drink. Trying to infect Americans with disease and kill Americans with poison so Bush, Cheney, Rummy and Asscroft can get more money is an act of treason. The entire Bush Crime Family are a bunch of traitors, and they are all guilty of the high crime of treason. Some people believe that jail and imprisonment is too good for them, but I feel that if they each receive a life sentence in a maximum security prison, then justice will have been served.

[kylen]

I just got a flu shot then got sick immediately with the flu. They're supposed to have dead virus. Mr. Bush is President. Mr. Gore is not. Gray Davis was Governor, now it's Arnold. John Mayer was on Austin City Limits last night and played some smokin Blues Guitar - of all [unexpected] things [from his current pop 'branding']. Whose watch is it ? You watch my back - I'll watch yours. I guess we could make friends with those guys in the trees over there and team up so there's more of us and take turns. Hope that helps ! kylen

[Peake]

[quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [QB]First the dems have THEIR OWN interests at heart....[/quote]Oddly, clean air and water are part of the Democrat's interests... Are they yours as well? philter, WOW avoided answering your question about whether he was for or against the issues at hand.

[Saint Johnny B]

Glad you saw some smokin blues guitar, sorry you got the flu and got sick. When I see children born that are deformed because their mothers were forced by the Bush Regime to breathe poison air and drink poison water it makes me sick too. Sometimes they just die after a long, lingering and painfull stay in the hospital. Bush and Cheney should be forced to drink some of their poisoned water when they are in their maximum security cells.

[dementia13]

Thanks, alcohol, for that "Veterans for Common Sense" link. That's a great one. Personally, I think we need to reexamine our ideas about what's "Unamerican". In our lifetimes, that's basically meant anybody who's traitorous, and, basically, Communist, right? So what was Unamerican before Communism? Well, a wealthy and powerful ruling class that restricts the freedoms of its people. Since the '50s, the government has successfully been able to teach us that disagreeing with the government's course of action is Unamerican, by scaring us with tales of how the Russians are going to come over and take all our freedoms away. Meanwhile, they've campaigned against civil rights, manipulated a once-free press, and battled against the rights of workers to earn a decent living and care for their families. This is basically what this country was founded not to be.

[Saint Johnny B]

Great points!

[kylen]

[quote] When I see children born that are deformed because their mothers were forced by the Bush Regime to breathe poison air and drink poison water it makes me sick too. Sometimes they just die after a long, lingering and painfull stay in the hospital. [/quote]Fair enough - that's a bad one. Unfortunately we all may either 'have a hand' or 'have no hand' in crazy stuff to some degree directly or indirectly. I'm trying to work with my congressmen & congresswomen concerning the evaporation of American jobs on the main continent here - I'll be on the 'doles' again in 2 months when my contract runs out so that's on my mind right now. I'll see what I can do there - short of running for office. American Industry, in certain respects, has crushed sectors of the American workforce and economy that the Soviet Union or any Communist country could only have dreamed about in the 60's ! Question everything ! Believe no ONE, listen to EVERYone, formulate the true picture. Your gut will tell you if you're right (assuming a well balanced psycho-gastro-system and regular dental checkups!). kylen

[Chuck Moore]

Oddly enough.... I don't recall anyone ever running on a platform of "I'm for dirty water". I think everyone is for clean air and water. I just don't like worshiping at the alter of environmental extremism. Bush poisoning the water?? C'mon try and keep at least ONE foot planted in reality. And as far as that Senate thing goes.. yes both sides block judges occasionally, but the use of the filibuster to block judges that HAVE the votes and meet all the qualifications to serve is a first. It most definately has NOT been done before, and goes well beyond the constitutional authority of advise and consent. The constitution says 51 votes. Senate rules allow for 60 to end debate. The constitution trumps senate rules every time. The Supreme Court has held that in the past, and will likely be asked to re-affirm that in this case in the near future.

[alcohol_]

Well Chuck the Contitution says that the Senate can make their own rules. The Senate and the House making rules of procedure has a Constitutional basis. Filibuster and cloture has been in effect since 1949. If it was so un-Consitutional, why hasn't it been found that way and why have Republicans enjoyed its use? Also you're wrong that filibuster hasn't been used before to block judicial appointments. Republicans along with Southern Democrats, blocked the Johnson nomination of Abe Fortas with filibuster for chief Justice allowing Nixon to appoint the chief justice when Nixon got elected. Filibusters and clotures have been used in 35 nominations most of them since the 1980s according to an article in salon.com http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/11/13/senate_rules/ Also from the US Senate: [url=http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20801.pdf]www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20801.pdf[/url] Someone is feeding you bogus information Chuck. Makes you look like your being manipulated instead of being told the truth. Your bullshit detectors need to be turned on, because that was what your last post is. I don't fault you, I fault the people who are feeding you this bullshit.

[Dylan]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. [img]http://www.geocities.com/sgalore/kangkodos1.gif[/img]

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by Dylan PDX: [b]Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. [/b][/quote][img]http://www.seti.housenet.org/pics/kodos.gif[/img] [i]"When I was a boy, I dreamed of being a baseball.... But now I say we must move FORWARD not BACKWARD...UPWARD not FORWARD! And always twirling-twirling-twirling toward freedom!"[/i]

[Chuck Moore]

ahhh jeeeez man, you need to check your OWN information. Salon.com??? c'mon thats as bad as me using Rush Limbaugh as a refference. The second article you refferenced makesmy point for me if you actually READ it instead of just picking out a few lines to support your (erroneous) conclusions. The fact of the matter is that in nearly every case where a cloture motion failed, the nominees still got the benefitt of an up or down vote, and most were confirmed. Our current Cheif justice Rehnquist was one of those who didn't get cloture, and last I checked he was still serving. Of the three that were not confirmed, one was Judge Fortis in 1968, and he didn't even get 50 votes for cloture, and President Johnson subsequently pulled his nomination. The other two were for an ambassador's post and Surgeon general, NOT for the federal bench. So I stand by my earlier assertions, the systematic use of a filibuster to block qualilied nominees who HAVE the votes for confirmation is a new tactic and a considerable escalation of the confrontation between the parties in Washington. And I DO believe the high court will have to weigh in on this matter. That is unless the second Bush term sees an increase in Republican Senate seats to the mid 50s, which will likely make the whole arguement moot anyway.

[Chuck Moore]

ohhhhhhh and BTW, my bullshit detectors work quit well thank you

[Griffinator]

Boy, Chuck, you really are snowed under, aren't you? The fillibuster is unconstitutional?! Where in the Constitution does it say that the Congress does not have the right to define its own procedural conduct? Oh, yeah, it doesn't. You're such a goofball, dude. Go buy yourself a clue. I think they still sell them at Spencer's.

[Chuck Moore]

I've never said the filibuster is unconstitutional, congress most certainly does have the right to set the procedures for passing legislation. I'm once again reffering to the use of the Filibuster to block judicial nominees. The constitution spells out that you need 51 votes for nominees. The filibuster there is unprecidented and most likely unconstitutional, as it sets a de-facto standard of 60 votes for a nominee instead of the constitutionally mandated 51. So once again, I stand by my earlier statements. And if I find myself in need of a clue, I can always pick one up at the DNC headquarters.... they have dozens of them laying around unused over there if you don't mind dusting them off a bit.....they've been neglected for such a long time.

[Johnny Bitch]

[quote] Oddly, clean air and water are part of the Democrat's interests... Are they yours as well? [/quote]No , not at all, people that dont agree with democrats want to drink bad water, and we love to breath polluted air. :freak:

[Griffinator]

[quote]Originally posted by WOW: [b] [quote] Oddly, clean air and water are part of the Democrat's interests... Are they yours as well? [/quote]No , not at all, people that dont agree with democrats want to drink bad water, and we love to breath polluted air. :freak: [/b][/quote]That clears a lot of things up! :D

[Johnny Bitch]

Good to see ya Griff. :wave:

[alcohol_]

[quote]Originally posted by Chuck Moore: [b]ahhh jeeeez man, you need to check your OWN information. Salon.com??? c'mon thats as bad as me using Rush Limbaugh as a refference. The second article you refferenced makesmy point for me if you actually READ it instead of just picking out a few lines to support your (erroneous) conclusions. The fact of the matter is that in nearly every case where a cloture motion failed, the nominees still got the benefitt of an up or down vote, and most were confirmed. Our current Cheif justice Rehnquist was one of those who didn't get cloture, and last I checked he was still serving? [/b] Cloture has to do with ending debate, what connection does it have to Rehnquist still serving? [b]Of the three that were not confirmed, one was Judge Fortis in 1968, and he didn't even get 50 votes for cloture, and President Johnson subsequently pulled his nomination.[/b] That was the idea, Fortis would have had the votes, Johnson couldn't get the debate ended. [b]The other two were for an ambassador's post and Surgeon general, NOT for the federal bench. So I stand by my earlier assertions, the systematic use of a filibuster to block qualilied nominees who HAVE[/b] The controversy is also about using supermajorities for confirming executive decisions instead of only legislative decisions so the ambassador and Surgeon General references are germane, and consitute a prior practice. [b] the votes for confirmation is a new tactic and a considerable escalation of the confrontation between the parties in Washington. And I DO believe the high court will have to weigh in on this matter. That is unless the second Bush term sees an increase in Republican Senate seats to the mid 50s, which will likely make the whole arguement moot anyway.[/b][/quote]Salon wins, your sources lose.

[alcohol_]

US Constitution: Section 5. ........... Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, ............ The idea that the filibuster is unconstitutional is based on the idea that the Consitution expressed 7 instances of the use of a supermajority. The inference is that if the use of a supermajority wasn't expressly mentioned for cloture then it is unconsitutional. That interpretation conflicts with the Constitution direclty giving the right to the House and Senate to make it's own rules and procedures. The Republican interpretation is by inference and specious reasoning. The Democrat interpretation is by a direct reading of the Constitution and prior practice . The Republican stance is bulshit and it's belief is motivated by dirty politics plain and simple.

[Saint Johnny B]

You bring up Reinquist, but when he was in Arizona as a young republican he stood at the polls and tried to challenge every non-white person by saying they were not citizens and could not vote. His interference with the standard polling process brought the US Attorney to the polls to tell Reinquist to cut out harassing people. This came out during during the confirmation process, the US Attorney was brought in to testify against Reinquist. Too bad they did not fillibuster Reinquist, he generally sides with nig business and against the common people during every vote at the US Supreme Court, but he sometimes, although rare, does things the right way. Bush and Cheney have decidesd it's ok for Americans to be poisoned, so that's treason in my book. It's the same thing as shooting a gun into a crowd and then saying the individual who dies was not the one who was intended to be shot. It's still murder. Bush and Cheney are guilty as charged.

[Chuck Moore]

There is, once again, a huge difference in filibustering a piece of legislation, which congress has every right to set its rules upon, and judicial appointments which constitutionally require 51 votes. If that difference is lost on you then further debate on the subject is pointless.

[Saint Johnny B]

For something as important as a federal judgeship, there is nothing wrong with getting max agreement. Supermajority has its place in a free society. In some places around America, it's the same requirement to raise property taxes. It takes a Supermajority, it takes max agreement, and usu. that means people have to be convinced that the proposal is a good idea. Here, some of the proposed nominees did not make the cut, so what? The solution is simple enough, find some people that people can agree on. But going back to the topic of traitors and treason, now even staunch republicans are calling for repeal or major mods for the misnamed "Patriotic Act." Why? Because it's Un-American. Because Asscroft is a jerk who abuses the law's unprecedented grant of authority to invade your privacy and lock you up without a hearing. Asscroft has prohibited people from calling a lawyer or even their own families. Some of these people have been locked up for months and their wives don't know where they are. They just became part of the "disappeared." Sort of like the kind of system you've read about in third rate dictatorships. Only a neo-nazi facist or a corrupt regime could ever support this kind of treason. Only a traitor to America could support this kind of abuse. And we all know who the traitors commiting this treason are: Bush, Cheney and Asscroft.

[alcohol_]

Chuck, We live in a democracy. The Republicans crafted an energy bill in which no Democrats were allowed to take part. The Democrats which represent a significant part of the population are adamant about only five percent of judges not getting federal appointment. They claim and provide good argument that these justices are radicals that in their interpretation of the law can undue the legislation passed to protect the health, wealth and rights of the American people. Republicans generate bogus arguments against Democrats practicing traditional procedures in their advice and consent responsibilities for federal appointments You've demonstrated a lack of depth in understanding the situation. I'm glad you post so that we can all see how naked is the desire for Republicans to have power and how disingenuous they are in arguments about Constitutionality. We have our soldiers dying in Iraq and our wealth squandered in building up another country in the name of democracy. Yet here in the United States, democracy gets lip service from the President and the Republican party. Instead of a democratic spirit we have a spirit that seeks to exclude the representatives of a huge section of the US population purely on the basis of political power. In supporting that political power they descend to lying to rationalize its use. The Republicans are indeed evil. That is not an exaggeration.

[Griffinator]

Well, the hope here is that Democrats and Republicans alike around the country recognize what Bush and his accomplices in Congress (not all of them - there are indeed Republican Senators and House members that are turning on Bush, and rightfully so) are attempting to do to the country and respond accordingly in the voting booth next year.

[the stranger]

I think it's really sad that the judicial nomination and appointment process has become a partisan battlefield. The intent of the Supreme Court is to uphold the United States Constitution. Not to shape future policy through biased appointments. The judicial system is being manipulated by the legislative and executive branch. The balance of power is constantly shifting to favor the latter two branches of government. The principles of this country are very clear. It doesn't take a scholar to realize the obvious. And it should be obvious that our government is not functioning as it was intended. It still all comes down to a lack of representation. That and the total disregard for the tenth amendment. This thread is missing the real point. If the balance of power in this country was restored, a whole lot of what the federal system deals with will return to where it is most apropriate to makes these decisions. I do realize the laws of the states will still be subject to the Constitution, and will face scrutiny by the federal courts if the law is contrary to the Constitution. The problem is that the court is ruling NOT based on interepretation of the Constitution, but based on the rights of government. Most cases that go to the court are deciding between the rights of government and the rights of the individual. The constitution cleanly defines the rights of government and the individual, and the rights of each branch of government. It's not up to the court to decide when the government has the right to usurp the rights of the individual. That's what they are doing. The court has become a representative of government, rather than the guardians of the Constitution. And as usual, who is representing the people?