A. The argument, as **Bricker ** put it, is indeed a strawman, and several other posters have agreed (but without drawing your attention).
B. Nothing you’ve posted puts Graham in a position of leadership in the Senate, or any of the others you’ve listed.
Do a better job of picking your targets.
Including Bricker apparently.
Nope.
Not even when you laughed off the dog-rape stuff, which has just as much real-world basis as your own ranting?
Hamlet, with your screenname you’re in the ideal position to call him Horatio, ya know.
But no judge is stupid enough (not since Church of the Holy Trinty, anyway) to come out and say, “Yes, I know the law doesn’t actually SAY this, but the result is just so wrong otherwise that we will impose a solution that assumes the law says something it doesn’t.” What is the principled distinction between the cases? Why DOESN’T the Constitution protect the right of the minority Senator to engage in filibusters? Enunciate it. Don’t just brush it off as ridiculous. tell me precisely why the SC can’t get involved here… and then let’s see if that principle also forbids other actions they’ve taken.
Now, I acknowledge that this may be a slippery slope argument. “If it’s OK for a cop on nighttime patrol to take a free dougnut and coffee from the grateful storeclerk who wants the police to stop by his store frequently, then it’s OK for the cop to ask the storeclerk for money to stop by frequently… right?”
And that’s exactly what I’m asking… for anyone to enunciate the precise principle at play that stays the hand of the Courts in this controversey, but permits it to act in others without specific textual support. WHAT IS IT?
Care to give an example of the courts over reaching? How about an example of the court acting without textual support?
Anyone else think its funny that only Raveman fell for Bricker’s trap? And he doesn’t even know it…
All I am saying is that quote you quoted does not advocate the judiciary stepping into the realm of legislature. If I were to sum up ** elucidator**'s argument it would be that the judiciary has a duty to strike down discriminatory laws that have no logical basis. That is not an argument for an interpetation just grabbed out of thin air rather it is a refinement of the rational basis test. Whether it be by bringing sexual orientation under the strict scrutiny test or refining concievible to logically consistant, factually supported or something along those lines.
Your replacing of “offer to gay citizens that which never should have been denied them in the first case” with [justice] strikes out a key portion of his statement. Certainly deciding whether a law violates the equal protection act is a legitimate function of the judiciary. Saying that the judiciary has a duty to restore those rights that should not have been denied in the first place is an accurate statement. It does not follow that ** elucidator ** believes that the judiciary should or even has the power to intervene in Senate debate rules.
This cock, my friend, will not crow.
Well, this is a new one. I’m apparently deeply involved in an argument, and didn’t even know it.
Friend Treis has it about right. But heck, I didn’t even know that I had an opinion on judicial interference with parliamentary rules. I reckon if pressed on it, I’d probably think not, that the Senate is privileged to run its show anyway it pleases, I suppose.
To me, its less about the rules as it is about a naked power grab. Compromise with our misguided brethren on the right is a healthy thing, its how things ought to be done. Hell, car’s gotta have brakes! And if voting rights for gay whales has to be compromised away so that the impeachment proceedings against GeeDubya can proceed, well, play hard, play fair.
What the Tighty Rightys are doing in this instance is very worrisome, it shoots the whole notion of negotiated compromise right in the ass. The Republicans have an election victory, they do not have a mandate to turn everything upside down. Hell, if the expressed will of the people were the reasoning here, then close to half of the judicial nominees would be of a liberal-centrist cast. I daresay this isn’t the case.
Well, elucidator, your side isn’t much in a negotiating mood either, and hasn’t been for some time. First blood in this judicial fracas was drawn by a bunch of aggrieved liberals who slandered a man who did not deserve it, it should not be forgotten.
If judicial nominations have become politicized, it started back in 1987.
I don’t like it. I really don’t. But I don’t expect my side to fight by Queensberry rules while their opponents hide brass knuckles inside of the glove.
I’m funny like that.
I fully realize that this isn’t the thrust of the debate here, but this answer is wrong. Standing Rule XXII specifically states that a motion to invoke cloture on a proposed change to Senate rules shall succeed only if two-thirds of Senators so vote. It is perfectly clear that rules changes are intended to be subject to filibuster, so the question is actually very lame. Text of Rule XXII.
However, the thrust of the nuclear option is that the Majority seeks to prohibit debate on a motion that seeks to alter the precidents (mot the standing rules) of the Senate, through a naked assertion that the question is nondebatable, even though the rules of the Senate make it perfectly clear that the question should be subject to debate and possible filibuster. This is why the Senate’s Parliamentarian says that the nuclear option violates the rules of the Senate.
Just for the sake of clarity here is Bricker’s revised question sans straw men
What he has failed thus far to do is establish that the courts have acted without textual support. How can we answer his question if he will not ask it?
I believe that is exactly the argument that **Bricker **is making.
Ravenman your confusing me. First I ask Bricker a question. He answers it. You explaine that Bricker is wrong and then you say the question was lame. WTF? Whos side are you really on you rabble rouser you. 
I’m on my own side. Alone, apparently.
Your second link indicates that the Minority Leader SAYS the parliamentarian says he believes the move will violate the rules of the Senate – the parliamentarian is not interviewed directly; the Minority Leader is repeating a conversation he claims he had.
There’s no question that this move changes the effective rules of the Senate.
There’s also no question that technically, they are not voting on a rules change; they are voting on the motion to table the decision of the chair, which is NOT a debatable motion.
How about some examples Bricker? Since you are so fired up about the Court acting ex text so to speak. WShen has the court done what you claim it has done? I really would like to know.
Sure. Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood stand for the proposition that there is a federal constitutional right to an abortion. This conclusion was reached by the court despite an absence of any mention in the text of the Constitution of abortion.
You know ofcourse that five Supreme Court Justices disagree. They said it better than I can. Read the opinion. I am sure you already have. Just because you disagree doesn’t make it wrong.
What specific laqnguage in that case do you suggest is unconstitutional?
Hey Bricker the Constitution doesn’t establish the power to create an Air Force either. Do you suggest that it is Unconstitutional?