And, you must admit, how the Senate exercises it, and on whose behalf.
Those were thumbs in the eye of Jesse Helms, who held them up personally without even a hearing - as someone as scrupulously honest as yourself would admit. This action is a thumb in the eye to 49 percent of the Senate, and to everyone who’d like not to bring cross-burning into the 21st century. You can only plead not guilty to dishonesty by pleading simple pigheadedness instead. Believe it or not, there are still people, not including the current GOP leadership and its loyalists, who put country above party. Perhaps you’ve heard about that concept, somewhere in your distant past?
Or a little less Republican partisanship, such as renominating an already-rejected candidate just because a window of opportunity appeared to stuff the other guys.
Under current leadership, it’s a no-way street.
You know better, Mr. Tu Quoque. Or maybe you don’t, but you should.
Perhaps, in your mind, it is. It is not, however, the OP, which has to do with partisanship. Flipping the bird might be considered a form of “reaching out”, I suppose. Bit of a stretch, don’t you think?
It isn’t. Nobody said it was. You have firmly rebuked an argument not offered.
If I offer as an OP “Friend Dewey’s sister is a harlot!”, then that is the issue, no? If you counter-argue that mine is as well, you may be right. Simply because something is true does not make it relevent.
I think that what DCU is trying to posit is that if something can be shown to be S.O.P. by both parties on a fairly regular basis, then it isn’t really throwing bipartisanship out the window. That there is a tacit agreement that it’s fair play. I’ll let you decide if he has made his case strongly enough, but in order to prove his assertion he needs to refer to past actions by the other party. That makes it relevant.
Well, this is the Pit, so it’s hardly a “debate”. And, yes, it must be a good law. Good for the Democrats when they want to use it and good for the Republicans when they’re in office. It just sucks when the other side uses it, huh? :dubious:
That is true only of the Gregory appointment, where Helms, as a Senator from North Carolina, exercised his “blue slip” prerogative to kill candidates from his home state.
It is not true of the Lee or Hormel nominations.
Helms, as chair of the Foriegn Relations Committee, actualy gave Hormel a hearing without delay (surprising given Helm’s denial of a hearing to William Weld, an earlier Clinton appointee for the ambassadorship of Mexico).
It’s cute that you resort to slurs against the nominee in a thread about rabid partisanship.
Charles Pickering sought to get prosecutors to alter the charge – and thus reduce the sentence – of one of three men convicted of a cross-burning because that sentence was disproprortionate to that given the other two defendants. I’m wondering why it is, given that (IIRC) you think mandatory minimums are a misguided policy that do not serve the greater aims of justice, that you think this was a bad move on Pickering’s part – it certainly looks to me like a legitimate attempt to secure a more just sentence while still adhering to Congressional mandates.
:rolleyes:
And I suppose you and your cohorts represent this shining beacon of light unto a world enveloped in darkness? Spare me the preachiness.
Charles Pickering has never been rejected by the full Senate. His rejection by the Judiciary Committee was along a strictly party line vote, and a similar vote prevented his nomination from proceeding to the full floor of the Senate. Again, partisanship cuts both ways.
Spare me. But for lockstep Democrats in the Senate, this appointment wouldn’t be an issue. Pull the log out of your own eye.
“You to” is perfectly appropriate here. If recess appointments are a legitimate tactic for one, they are a legitimate tactic for all. You can’t have it both ways.
They’re ganging up on me! I’m being persecuted! Persecuted! Revenooers! Come-a-runnin’! Heeeey, Rube!
Point shrugged. Yeah, sure, ok. Can’t abandon what never existed in the first place. Of course, one can abandon the pretense of promising to seek bi-partisanship, but why bother bringing that up? After all, its not as though he had any credibility to lose.
Still…let’s chuck him out anyway! He needs to spend more time with his family. Think how grateful the Bush twins will be to have dear ol’ Dad underfoot!
It’s practically automatic. Any criticism of Bush is met by the Usual Suspects with an attempt to find something Clinton did that can be declared equal. Now, to the ignorance-fighting.
That was your own example. You brought it up, now you’re dismissing it. Yawn.
Still. Your point, that these stoppages of nominations in the Senate process were acceptable while the current ones are not, is not derived from any basis in principle.
Them’s the facts. Sometimes facts are ugly. Doesn’t make them nonfactual, or dismissable. But that’s the only way you have to dismiss the argument against Pickering? Even **december ** did better, and often, on this very point. No, you don’t deserve to have links found; you can do it yourself.
YDNRC. I have never addressed that point at all. You’re confusing me with yet another of your persecutors.
If you’ll spare us the manufactured, baseless outrage derived from nothing more than partisan kneejerkiness. But it’s true - some people do in fact place country above party once in a while. If you can’t understand the concept, more’s the pity.
As has been said, he was already rejected by the Senate, which in fact does delegate much of the work to a committee. But that’s the same basis for the OP’s and your demanding that he be approved now - a pure party line vote. What was that about preachiness, pal?
What explains the approval of 99 percent of Bush’s nominees anyway? Is this “lockstep” you disapprove of (when it’s the other guys) a random event?
Nope, obviously you are *not * capable of representing a differing viewpoint accurately, much less fairly. The discussion isn’t recess appointments at all, but this nomination, and the flouting of bipartisanship that used to be a great strength of our system. What is important to you, anyway? If it’s anything larger than party, you show no evidence of it.
In cases where the principal charge is lack of bipartisanship, it is perfectly appropriate to look to previous Democratic administrations to find similar fact patterns. Otherwise, you’re moving the goalposts – holding the same behaviors as disgustingly partisan when done by your opposition, but perfectly appropriate when done by your allies. If a given action is to be deemed “partisan,” let it be so deemed for parties of all political stripes.
I didn’t “dismiss” the example, I just pointed out the fact that your criticism only applies to one of the three individuals I mentioned. Your facts were demonstrably incorrect, and I called you on it.
The Gregory appointment is still a perfectly appropriate example to use. Indeed, if the reason for his recess appointment is what you claim – a personal shot at the senior senator from North Carolina – then that’s far worse than partisanship. That’s using the tools of government to settle personal vendettas.
Please do point out where I said the stoppages of Clinton appointees in the Senate were acceptable. Indeed, I’ve written extensively on this board of my belief that judicial and other appointments are largely a presidental prerogative and that the Senate should simply be giving advise and consent on competence. That is as true of Clinton’s appointees as it is of Bush’s. Both men, by virtue of their office, are entitled to shape the course of the judiciary, and the Senate ought not politicize their constitutional role.
And don’t think that “still” absolves you of using factually incorrect data in an attempt to draw a distinction between Clinton and Bush appointees.
Responding to this would be considerably easier if you would take a moment to define your pronouns.
Seeking a reduced sentence in that particular cross-burning case is no more an endorsement of cross-burning than is seeking a reduced sentence in a particular marijuana possession case an endorsement of drug abuse. Shame on you for spinning otherwise.
It’s funny that you’d talk about “manufactured, baseless outrage” here, given that it ain’t a Republican that started this thread.
And your notion that I put “party above country” is simply fallacious. I criticize Republicans in general and Bush in particular fairly regularly when they do things I think are inappropriate. See, e.g., farm bills and steel tariffs, signing campaign finance legislation, etc, etc, etc.
Fuck you, asshole. I am not a party flack. As noted, I take positions contra to that of leading Republicans on a regular basis. Indeed, my position on the role of the Senate in confirming presidential appointments is well-established.
Indeed, if you’re going to accuse me of being a mere shill, of not caring about anything larger than party affiliation, then the burden is on you to prove it. Go ahead, smart guy. Find a post, any post, where I’ve taken a stance on the appointment process that differs from what I’ve outlined above.
But of course I didn’t call it “unprecedented,” you lying fuck. I called it “almost unprecedented” for a reason – it had been done once in the past.
You intentionally and maliciously changed my quote to make a true assertion look like a false one. No one should ever, ever believe a word you say about anything. You have literally no credibility whatsoever.
<<It’s practically automatic. Any criticism of Bush is met by the Usual Suspects with an attempt to find something Clinton did that can be declared equal.>>
You continue to show that you are blind, Elvis. Dewey is hardly one of the Usual Suspects when it comes to defending Bush - or demeaning Clinton (I’m not even sure there are any Usual Suspects 'round here anymore - pretty much everybody has voiced displeasure with Bush at some time in the past couple years). As Dewey has demonstrated, your blindness has lead you once again into making totally inaccurate statements about the views and opinions of board members. Dumbass.
You must really enjoy these regular ass-kickings Elvis.
As always, consider the source when reading one of UncleBeer’s rants. Tell us, Unc, are you this bitter when you’re sober, too? Nice linking job by you and Ilsa, too - proving only that neither of you has the courage to make a point directly. Facts, pals, facts. Only those are convincing, and you ain’t got 'em. Integrity matters too, but you sadly ain’t got that in evidence either, or else you’d back up what you say.
And only a fellow GOP partisan like yourself would think Dewey was not one either - the self always considers itself objective, does it not? And one who could be opposed to virtually the entire GOP agenda, yet support it anyway, has little defense left against a charge of reflexive partisanship. Think a little.
manhattan, is it really true that in your version of English the word “almost” is an adverb of negation? That slipping it into a sentence makes it mean something exactly opposite? Well, if that’s the case, then on that count it makes you a simple *weaseling * sack of shit, not a lying one. Your family must be so proud of you. But that’s on that one count, and you provide no defense or explanation of anything else I called you out on. That constitutes a guilty plea to being a lying sack of shit. Are you that nasty when you’re sober, come to think of it?
Now to Dewey, who at least pretends to address actual arguments once in awhile, unlike any of you other worthies: First, yes, it’s appropriate to compare current situations to previous ones. But that is not what you’re doing - you’re taking for granted the conclusion you want drawn, that “You guys are just as bad, nyah nyah” and are looking for facts that can be interpreted in your own mind to lead to that. That’s a common rhetorical approach from those trying to rationalize current GOP behavior, but it is no more respectable for its repetition. Actually, I’m more amused by the version that goes “The Dems would do the same thing if they were in power”, even though they didn’t when they were. But that’s typical of the party hack.
Next, it’s more amusing than usual that you’d fall back to only 1 of 4 examples you presented having any supportability, but nevertheless indignantly claim that as evidence that my “facts are demonstrably incorrect”. Thanks for the laugh. You lose, 3-1, playing by your own rules.
It’s charming in a way that you’re now a bit annoyed with the GOP’s treatment of Clinton’s nominees. It’s also sad that you save your invective to the current situation, which by any numerical standard is much less severe. Claim not to be a party hack if it makes you feel better, but you’re still quacking like a duck. If you want to be thought otherwise, you have to show it by your own words and actions. One’s reputation is one’s own responsibility, with no “burden of proof” involved (that’s another tawdry **december ** tactic). We’ve previously discussed your habit of seeing every discussion in legalistic terms, haven’t we?.
Well, there ain’t no fact three. Just the obvious conclusion to me drawn from facts 1 & 2. That being, that have repeatedly applied inappropriate labels to your opponents. Also, you’re a dumbass.
As for integrity, who is it that when confronted with facts contrary to his statements in that thread I linked, turned tail and ran, rather than doing the honest and admirable thing—apologizing? The fact is, that person was somebody using the board name ElvisL1ves.
Direct enough for you, dumbass? And yeah, I’m always this bitter. But that’s only because I’m never sober. No actually, it’s because there’s a grey area of the rules that kinda precludes me from pitting your lying sorry ass directly.
Uh, what? A person opposed to something is by definition not a supporter. I have no idea what you’re trying to say. Oppose and support are fucking antonyms. For a guy bitching about manhattan’s English usage, you display remarkbly little understanding yourself. Your objection makes no sense, dumbass.
My beliefs swing towards the conservative, and thus generally correlate with GOP positions more frequently than they do with the Dems. I hardly think that makes me a “partisan,” at least in the “partisan hack” sense that you’re using the phrase. I generally support Republican initiatives because of my beliefs; I DO NOT, however, alter my beliefs to conform to Republican initiatives.
As UncleBeer points out, this sentence makes little sense. Surely you “could” be opposed to the Democratic agenda, yet support it anyway; does that therefore make you a “reflexive partisan”?
Please explain how that “is not what [I’m] doing.”
My position is that recess appointments such as the one at issue in this thread are a common and accepted practice by both parties, and therefore are neither unreasonable nor uniquely partisan. I’m marshaled examples from the previous administration demonstrating this that support that conclusion. That’s called “making an argument.” You should try it sometime.
You’re committing a version of the very tactic you decry. No one has made the “Dems would do the same thing” argument in this thread. No one has had to, since the Dems did in fact do the same thing when they were in power. You’re pointing out an argument that has not been made. What’s the point of that?
Not only are you illiterate, you can’t count, either. I cited three examples, not four, and they’re all valid.
I cited to Clinton’s appointments of Lee, Hormel and Gregory. You said “Clinton just did that to stick it in Helms’ eye.” I replied that that could only reasonably be said of the Gregory nomination. You mischaracterized this as an abandoning of the example of Gregory. I then replied, correctly, that the Gregory example was still valid because it was an example of a presidential end-run around Senatorial procedures. You have now tried to mischaracterize my correction of you regarding Gregory as an abandonment of the Lee and Hormel examples. Which is plainly false: they both remain perfectly valid – your only reply to them was your Helms argument, which was factually incorrect regarding those two appointees.
Christ, you’re pathetic: you posit an argument that is factually incorrect regarding two of my three examples, and then try to spin my dealing with the one example your argument could plausibly apply to into an abandonment of the other two. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
Please provide evidence that my position on the role of the Senate in judicial appointments is a new one. If you can’t, you’re just talking out of your ass.
Do you have a time machine? 'Cause I sure don’t, and given that my registration date here is August 2001, I’m pretty sure you don’t have the slightest goddamned idea what I was saying about Clinton’s judicial and other nominees during his term in office.
So you’ll just have to take my word on this: broadly speaking, I opposed those tactics. I was particularly annoyed by the rejection of Zoe Baird and Kimba Woods for AG.
And before you seize on that “broadly speaking,” you should also be aware that I have on these very boards stuck up for the Dem’s demanding certain information about Miguel Estrada’s judicial philosophy before allowing his confirmation to continue. Also look at the “N.B.” here, and this post here, and this post here, and this post here, and this post here and this post here and this post here, and frankly the rest of my posts in that thread. I don’t agree with the “Senate confirms on philosophy as well as competence” theory, but recognize it’s a legitimate theory and don’t begrudge those who cleave to it. (BTW, SDMB management – I love the new “direct link to post” links in threads)
Jesus Christ, are you a lying sack of shit. Why don’t you just admit you don’t have a goddamned idea what you’re talking about when you call me a partisan hack and avoid further embarassment?
I have. Repeatedly. That you haven’t been paying attention (and you participated extensively in that Estrada thread) is to your great discredit.
If you’re going to accuse someone of something, you should have evidence marshaled to support that proposition. You allege I am a party hack. The burden is thus on you to prove that I’m a party hack. You have no evidence to support that proposition. Ergo, your proposition fails.
Not true. I do have the pesky habit of bringing up the law in discussions about the courts (imagine that!), particularly in the context of constitutional law, but it’s silly to say that I do that for every political topic that comes along. I’d be interested to see an example of my doing this for a topic that doesn’t involve the courts. Not that I’m holding my breath or anything.
Well done, Dewey & Assoc., LPA. Rarely does one see the skeleton of a position picked so cleanly and thoroughly of its meat. Granted the meat Elvis served up was rotting and spoiled, and thus more easily cleaned from the bones, but still, that was very well done—I congratulate you.
I’d also note for Elvis that even though he calls both of us reflexive unthinking partisan, you and I have butted heads, albeit gently, several times in the past over issues of politics and administrative policies. A not too likely happenstance for such reflexive partisans.
I am loathe to interrupt this Love Feast/Victory Dance, especially as it involves such paragons of non-partisan objectivity, but, gentlemen…I have a quibble. A small matter, maybe, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
It has been suggested that GeeDubya’s installment of Mr. Pickering was a largely, perhaps entirely, political manuever designed to show off GeeDub’s disdain for his political opposition, a move to shore up his base amongst the Trog Right. As it happens, I find this entirely believeable. Not to suggest I have the utterly non-partisan view so clearly held by the redoubtable Manny, Dewey, and Tio Cerveza. Heaven forfend!
We are given to understand that the interim installment is an entirely ordinary procedure, nothing extraordinary about it. Perhaps so. The State of the Union address is an entirely ordinary procedure as well, scheduled yearly. If Our Leader shall mount the podium to decry Howard Deans support for a Constitutional Amendment to force Eagle Scouts into gay marriages, would we not regard that as a highly political manuever? Yes, I think we would. So it is not the ordinariness of the act, but its implications, no?
What motivates? We have testimony from a well respected expert on jurisprudence that Mr. Pickering is no prize, his assignment does not markedly advance the Republic. And, as noted, it clearly infurtiates his political opposition.
Are we to believe that GeeDubya is innocent of such political implications? No one on his staff to advise him of such consequences? Innocent lamb that he is.
Other than the political mileage to be gained, what other motive can you suggest?
The same motive as that behind the recess appointment of Bill Lann Lee: to put your chosen man in the position you want him.
Yes, this is a political decision. So what? Quit playing Captain Renault. Politicians play politics. It’s what they do. If this sort of appointment is within the bounds of what has been deemed ordinary political maneuvering in the past, then there’s nothing shocking or outrageous or Pitworthy about it. I think I’ve marshaled sufficient evidence that the Pickering appointment falls well within those established boundaries, so much so that I think it now incumbent on you to distinguish this recess appointment from those past similar recess appointments.
