Perhaps not the conservative after all...

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Who do you think? The man who essentially wipes W's a$$ after he ****tes - Karl Rove.

I didnt really think aout him because I've always seen him as so confrontational and didnt think he's have the "Sense" to push someone like Miers. I figured he say F**K everybody, it's Owen or Brown.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

I didnt really think aout him because I've always seen him as so confrontational and didnt think he's have the "Sense" to push someone like Miers. I figured he say F**K everybody, it's Owen or Brown.

He knows W probably cannot win a fight right now because W's numbers are so low. Thus, this was a calculated bet by Rove, who does not want to see W bloodied anymore than he already is.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

The real question I have is who was THE one behind the Miers pick?

Karl Rove.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by DavidMn

I didnt really think aout him because I've always seen him as so confrontational and didnt think he's have the "Sense" to push someone like Miers. I figured he say F**K everybody, it's Owen or Brown.

I find it kind of funny that Miers was on the team to find a replacement for O'Connor, just as Cheney was on the team to find a VP.

[DavidMn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

He knows W probably cannot win a fight right now because W's numbers are so low. Thus, this was a calculated bet by Rove, who does not want to see W bloodied anymore than he already is.

Good point. Hadn't thought of that angle.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

Well let's not start talking about the filibuster and Democrats...my LORD!

I agree, then we will definetely have to talk about the Republicans and their filibuster history. Like when the Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas as Chief Justice in 1968...although in 2004 they claimed a filibuster has never been used on a judicial nominee---man these people do live in a fantasy world.
Republicans also casually forget about their tactics during the Clinton Administration. So yeah we won't go there buddy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

I agree, then we will definetely have to talk about the Republicans and their filibuster history. Like when the Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas as Chief Justice in 1968...although in 2004 they claimed a filibuster has never been used on a judicial nominee---man these people do live in a fantasy world.
Republicans also casually forget about their tactics during the Clinton Administration. So yeah we won't go there buddy.

Hmmmm - let's see - do as I say, not as I do

Filibustering the Truth

by Judd Legum and Christy Harvey

The greatest impact of George W. Bush's second term will likely be from his judicial nominations, including the appointment of one or more Justices to the Supreme Court. The President's selections will have long-lasting effects on all aspects of American life, including our health, our freedoms and our privacy. Senate conservatives, led by majority leader Bill Frist, have already launched a determined campaign to insure that any potential opponents are silenced--principally by attacking the Senate's most effective tool, the judicial filibuster. A closer look shows right-wing arguments for doing so are based on a series of myths about the Constitution, history and the right wing's own conduct.

Myth 1: Judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. Frist and other Republicans adamantly argue that efforts to challenge Bush's judicial nominees via filibuster are unconstitutional. This past November Frist said, "After much debate and compromise, the Framers concluded that the President should have the power to appoint. And the Senate should confirm or reject appointments by a simple majority vote. This is 'advice and consent.'"

Frist and company love talking about the Constitution and what the Framers intended. But they should get their facts straight. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring the Senate to "confirm or reject appointments by a simple majority vote." The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires the consent of the Senate before judicial nominees are appointed. The Rules of Proceedings Clause gives the Senate the power to determine the method of consent. It doesn't matter how many times Frist says it: There is no requirement for the Senate to confirm or reject a nomination. No vote means no consent: And that's OK.

In 2003 Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group, filed an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against the Senate, claiming that the judicial filibuster was unconstitutional. Although no text supports its argument, Judicial Watch argued that it's implied that the Senate's "advice and consent" power must be exercised by a simple majority vote, because it's consistent with the "ordinary principle of majority rule." Nice try, but that position is actually antithetical to the intent of the Framers, who were careful to make sure the majority didn't always rule. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers that "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." The Senate was created, in part, to prevent the problems associated with the tyranny of the majority.

The real culprit here is Bush, who has ripped the "advice" out of "advice and consent." He has stubbornly refused to substantively communicate with any senators who oppose his nominees. When the Senate fails to confirm his nominees, Bush just reappoints them or, worse, bypasses the Senate altogether and installs them on the bench during a recess. This kind of toxic environment makes judicial filibusters more likely.

Myth 2: Judicial filibusters are unprecedented. Republicans insist that judicial filibusters never happened before. Frist put it this way: "In February 2003 the minority radically broke with tradition and precedent and launched the first-ever filibuster of a judicial nominee who had majority support." In truth, no one should understand the legitimacy of judicial filibusters better than Bill Frist. On March 9, 2000, Frist participated in a filibuster of Richard Paez, President Clinton's nominee to the Ninth Circuit. When confronted about his vote late last year, Frist claimed he filibustered Paez for "scheduling" purposes. Not true. A press release by former Senator Bob Smith titled "Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judicial Nominees" plainly states that the intent of the filibuster was to "block" the Paez nomination.

In fact, Paez was only one of at least six filibusters Republicans attempted during the Clinton years. Senator Orrin Hatch and others argue that these filibusters don't count because they ultimately weren't successful in blocking the nominees. All that proves, however, is that Clinton's nominees were moderate enough to secure sixty votes. It also suggests the remedy to Bush's problem: Stop nominating extremist judges to the federal bench.

Myth 3: Republicans have the moral high ground. According to Republicans, their opposition to judicial filibusters is motivated by a nonpartisan commitment to law and decorum. Frist said Republicans in the Senate "are the stewards of rich Senate traditions and constitutional principles that must be respected." Frist talks a good game. In reality, Republicans aren't motivated by a desire to protect the hallowed pages of the Constitution. Rather, right-wing zealots have shown themselves ready to do anything--and everything--to force through their judicial nominees while blocking those of their opponents. One of the more egregious examples of dirty tricks occurred in 2002-03, when Republican staffers from the Judiciary Committee hacked into Democratic computers and stole hundreds of files. Fifteen of those confidential memos, which detailed Democratic strategies for fighting the most extreme Bush judicial nominees, were then leaked to friendly conservative media outlets like the Washington Times, columnist Bob Novak and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

That wasn't the first time Republicans contaminated the judicial nomination process. During the Clinton years, they used a slew of questionable legislative ploys to smother judicial nominations quietly while in committee. One favorite tactic: In 1994 Senator Hatch added language to the Senate rules for confirming nominees. His objective: to allow a single senator to easily--and secretly--block nominations from leaving committee. It worked. Judge Marsha Berzon's nomination was secretly stymied for more than two years. (Senator Bob Smith finally admitted his role.) The nomination of Judge Ronnie White, who had bipartisan support in the Senate, languished in committee for almost two and a half years. Judge Helen White waited four years for a hearing; she never got one. This behind-the-scenes scheming proved to be so popular, Republicans were able to block more than sixty of Clinton's nominations. (To no one's surprise, as soon as Bush took office, Hatch abandoned this procedure, allowing nominees to sail through.) The bottom line: While a filibuster requires at least forty-one Senators on board to block a nominee, under Republican leadership, it took only a single dissent.

Myth 4: Filibusters are more appropriate for legislation than judges. Hatch claims that filibusters of judicial nominations are unacceptable. However, "filibusters of legislation," he argues, "are different." He's got it backward. Yes, the filibuster plays an important role in protecting minority interests when it comes to legislation. But unfair laws can be overturned or amended at any time. If minority interests are trampled, the aggrieved parties can take their case to the American people and set the country down a new path. Federal judges, however, are nominated for life. Those confirmed by this Congress will be issuing important rulings long after the current group of politicians is history. These judges should not be hard-line ideologues for the controlling political party. They should be acceptable to a broad range of Americans. In other words, if a judicial nominee can't secure sixty votes in the Senate, he or she is not a good choice for the federal bench.

Bush may make the nominations, but federal judges interpret the law for all Americans. Members of the Senate have the responsibility to use every tool they have to make sure the right judges are confirmed. There is no reason that taking a hard look at every nominee precludes a civil, substantive and productive process. But the first step toward ending the acrimony over judges in Washington is putting a stop to Frist's partisan propaganda campaign.

Copyright © 2005 The Nation

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-29.htm

[strandinthewind]

Also

http://www.factcheck.org/article324.html#

[markolas]

I think the next time I make a big move, it will be to Canada or the UK. Things are about to get very bad for gay people in this country, methinks.

This wingnut is certainly no friend to the gay community, and neither is Roberts.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by markolas

I think the next time I make a big move, it will be to Canada or the UK. Things are about to get very bad for gay people in this country, methinks.

Things are about to get bad. They already are but no one has come right out and said it. Between the deficit, the war and the aftermath of Katrina, we are in one hell of a mess.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Things are about to get bad. They already are but no one has come right out and said it. Between the deficit, the war and the aftermath of Katrina, we are in one hell of a mess.

But we MUST stay the course..we MUST you know that!

Chris

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Things are about to get bad. They already are but no one has come right out and said it. Between the deficit, the war and the aftermath of Katrina, we are in one hell of a mess.

Yep - essentially and even though we print the money, our currency will be soo debased that it will suffer. Put it this way, would you loan money to someone as in debt as we are, esp. if that person was continuing to expand that debt with no end in sight?

I also hate to say it, but the only way I can see to pay back that debt is to raise taxes, which as you know, I am loathe to say because (1) we pay too much for the govt. waste as it is, and (2) higher taxes will initially hurt the economy. But, thanks to the R's we are once again in a mess just like we were after Nixon/Ford, Reagan/Bush, etc.

BA&TARDS

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Yep - essentially and even though we print the money, our currency will be soo debased that it will suffer. Put it this way, would you loan money to someone as in debt as we are, esp. if that person was continuing to expand that debt with no end in sight?

I also hate to say it, but the only way I can see to pay back that debt is to raise taxes, which as you know, I am loathe to say because (1) we pay too much for the govt. waste as it is, and (2) higher taxes will initially hurt the economy. But, thanks to the R's we are once again in a mess just like we were after Nixon/Ford, Reagan/Bush, etc.

BA&TARDS

Yes but they wont do that, they want the next President to have to do it..because they probably know it will be a Democrat, and that will make him look like just another tax raising liberal...and the average idiot voter just wont get it, they will think it's all his fault..I firmly believe it's all in their big plan.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by markolas

I think the next time I make a big move, it will be to Canada or the UK. Things are about to get very bad for gay people in this country, methinks.

anyone else in this country who doesnt goosestep along to the Bush administration and their "Final Solution" for this country.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

Yes but they wont do that, they want the next President to have to do it..because they probably know it will be a Democrat, and that will make him look like just another tax raising liberal...and the average idiot voter just wont get it, they will think it's all his fault..I firmly believe it's all in their big plan.

They got it with Bill Clinton - of course Bush I had raised them already.

Interestingly, W and Rove have painted themselves into a corner here in that they have alleged revoking the tax cuts is "raising" taxes as opposed to returning them to previous levels. So, they cannot even do that. They will, though, most certainly have to raise taxes by whatever method. It is likely they will cut the states' funding so much that the states will have to raise taxes, but that will only go so far IMO.