You are so invested in originalism that you can’t even understand that many of us don’t view political issues through the lens of a strictly originalist perspective. rjung was not faulting the GOP for failing to honestly interpret the constitution. He was faulting them for the hypocrisy in holding to originalism when it’s convenient and reading novel rules into the constitution when that’s convenient. There is no reason to construe that as an endorsement of originalism. He was just pointing out their hypocrisy.
Let me draw an analogy. In another thread, I pointed out the hypocrisy of the “every sperm is sacred” crowd permitting the IVF process that produces these excess embryos that go on to slowly die on ice. You see, these people have no trouble with creating embryos that are inevitably going to die. However, their commitment to life comes into play when scientists wish to use those embryos - which are destined for death either way - for embryonic stem cell research.
By pointing out the inconsistency of their argument, I was not commiting myself to a pro-life restriction on IVF - just arguing that permitting IVF while not permitting embryonic stem cell research is hypocritical. Likewise, rjung does not believe in your strict form of constitutional originalism any more than I do. That doesn’t mean we’re hypocrites for observing the inconsistencies in the arguments of noted originalists.
The article I posted was a typical “Bush is evil” screechfest, not from the Congressional Record. I thought that someone who spoke the same language would have an easier time getting the point across.
So what exactly are the “Hitler rules”, anyway? Can he be involked to criticize an ideological foe or not? Do we excuse Santorum or vilify Byrd? You choose.
Can you outraged Dems explain one thing to me? Traditionally, judicial nominees come from the President and are subject to an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. I am not aware of a precedent for one party filibustering in order to prevent that vote from happening. What’s democratic about that, anyway? All the Democrats are fighting for is a tool to prevent the Senate as a whole from voting on the nominees, as the Constitution says they are supposed to do.
Just who is obstructing what here anyway?
(And before you get all up in arms screaming that the Republicans are proposing an unprecedented exception to the filibuster rule, they’re not. A number of things, most notably certain budget issues, are already excepted from normal filibuster rules)
What makes it democratic is that it is a tool that the party with a slim minority can use to help represent the interests of a significant number of citizens. It is another check or balance against the “tyranny of the majority”.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand that from a basic perspective that an up or down vote seems fair, but the situation is a whole lot more nuanced.
That’s what it was? Ok then, I suspect you do not expect a real answer to the phrase,” You choose.", but, to answer your question, when you make the statement “Someoneoranother is just like Hitler” verbatim, then you have clearly lost the argument. However, when someone directly claims there is a similarity between actually political acts, and then precedes to back the segment up, then it is clearly not under the “Hitler rules” Just for everyone’s benefit, here is Byrd’s actual statement, as posted by Ravenman earlier in another thread thread.
Care to point out to me exactly where the constitution specifies the procedure the Senate must follow in approving or rejecting nominees? 'Cause I’m not finding it.
Obstructing what exactly? So far, only about 10 nominees to the federal court were blocked out of what (?) almost 200. That is not obstruction. The concern is that there is a “go nuclear” movement to change the very rules and traditions that served the Republicans at one time. Now that it is in the way, they want to get rid of it.
What is really going to piss me off is if the Dems cave to some kind of so called compromise. Especially if it one that takes the nuclear option off the table in exchange for a vote. Fuck whats to prevent the Reps from bringing it back the next time?
I get so sick of hearing the whining “We just want a up or down vote” yea like there is any doubt about the outcome.
i WONDER IF THE rEPS WOULD BE SO AGAINST THE FILIBUSTER IF THE WERE THE MINORITY (oops hit caps lock by accident) with a Democrat President. Fuck, I really do not wonder. Those fuckers would be in front of every fucking TV in the universe with their bibles crying about how they are just fight ing for America. Pricks.
The fate of the Clinton nominees was determined by the fact that Clinton was a Democrat and the Senate Judicary Committee was controlled by Republicans. Had the nominations been voted out of committee, they probably would have been voted down in the full Senate.
In this case, both the President and Majority party in the Senate are the same party. Therefore, the only way the Democrats can thwart the will of a Senate majority is to prevent a vote.
There have been many predictions about how this will play out…and it will be interesting to see. I think one reason that Ben Nelson, (D) Nebraska, is working so hard for a solution is that it is getting increasingly lonely being a Democratic Senator in a red state.
So tell me rjung, is the issue here keeping nominees in committee? Because if it is, than you have just made an on topic point. It’s not? Well than what the fuck are you bringing it up for?
3 points:
#1. That as an attempt to filibuster, I don’t believe it actually worked. If I’ve remembered that incorrectly, well, see point #2 #2 Rjung, I know this is like asking a cow to breath water, but I’ll try again anyway. Just once try thinking with your brain and not jerking with your knee. If Republicans filibustered a nominee to prevent a floor vote, now or in the future, than that was/will be just as wrong as the Democrats doing it right now. You react to anyone who disagrees with you as if they are a blind partisan shill for the radical right, and that’s how you couch your diatribes. As I’ve told you time and again, I’m not even a Republican, nor am I from Tennessee. So tell me, please, what exactly anything Bill Frist does has to do with me. #3 Am I to assume from your posts that you heartily approve of Senator Frist’s attempting to filibuster a judicial nominee in 1996 then? If you don’t, then you’re a hypocrite.
That’s what this is really all about, isn’t it? The Democratic Party failed to convince enough people last time around that it’s message was the correct one, and as a result they not only lost the Presidential election to an unpopular dweeb, but also lost ground in the Senate and the House, and because of this they no longer have the votes to advance their agenda. Well boo fucking hoo, crybaby. Suck it up for the time being, if your positions really have merit, advance them in the mid-term elections of '06 and the big one in '08. Meanwhile, you don’t get to change the rules because you lost the elections.
Ofcourse thats what this is really about. Its about preventing rightwingnuts from turning this country in something resembling a cross between the Stepford Wives/1984/Farenheight 451/THX1138/The Passion…
You are so damn cute when you’re having hysterics. Tell me Mr. Little, what exactly are the major changes that you see coming in the next 3 years, and if they are changes that the majority of Americans voted for, why you feel that you and people like you (a minority) have the right to say that they shouldn’t be made?
