Posted on 03/01/2005 5:37:44 PM PST by OXENinFLA
For those who may not have seen it, Mr. Smith (Goes to Washington) is the fictional story of one young Senator's crusade against forces of corruption, and his lengthy filibuster, his lengthy filibuster for the values he hold dear. My how things have changed. These days, Mr. Smith would be called an obstructionist. Rumor has it that there is a plot on foot to curtail the right of extended debate in this hollowed chamber. Not in accordance with its rules, mind you, but by fiat from the Chair. Fiat from the Chair. The so-called nuclear option. Hear me! The so-called nuclear option.
This morning I asked a man, "What does the nuclear option mean to you?" He said, "Oh, you mean with Iran?" I was in the hospital a few days ago with my wife. And I asked her doctor, I asked a doctor, "What does the nuclear option mean to you?" He said, "Well, it sounds like we're getting ready to drop some device, some atomic device on North Korea." Well, the so-called nuclear option puports to be directed solely at the Senate's advice and consent prerogatives regarding federal judges. But the claim that no right exists to filibuster judges aims an arrow straight at the heart of the Senate's long tradition of unlimited debate.
James Madison, James Madison wanted to grant the Senate the power to select judicial appointees, with the executive relegated to the sidelines. But a compromise brought the present arrangement. The appointees selected by the executive, with the advice and consent of the Senate confirmed. Note, hear me again, note that nowhere, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States is a vote on appointments mandated.
It will be the Office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose - they can only rafity or reject the choice he may have made.
So you can see what it means to the smallest states in these United States to be able to stand on this floor and debate to their utmost. Until their feet will no longer hold them, and their lungs of brass will no longer speak in behalf of their states in behalf of a minority in behalf of an issue that affects vitally their constituencies. Unfettered debate.
One of the main bulwarks against the growing power, is free debate in the Senate. So long as there's free debate, men of courage and understanding will rise to defend against potential dictators. The Senate today is one place where no matter what else may exist, there is still a chance to be heard. An opportunity to speak. The duty to examine. And the obligation to protect. It is one of the few refuges of democracy.
Minorites have an illustrious past full of suffering, torture, smear and even death. Jesus Christ was killed by a majority. Columbus was smeared. Christians have been tortured. Had the United States Senate existed during those trying times, I'm sure those people would have found an advocate. Nowhere else can any political, social or religious group finding itself under sustained attack receive a better refuge. Well, Mr. President, Senator Jenner was right. The Senate was deliberatly conceived to be what he called a better refuge, meaning one styled as a guardian of the rights of the minority. The Senate is the watchdog because majorities can be wrong, and filibusters can highlight injustices, and history is full of examples.
Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State. The correct order of events was first to secure access to that power of the State, and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality. He never abandoned the cloak of legality. He recognized the enormous, psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made his illegality legal. And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do. To Rule 22 of the standing rules of the Senate. I said to someone this morning who was shoveling snow in my area. "What does nuclear option mean to you?" He answered, "Oh, you mean with Iran?" The people generally don't know what this is about. The nuclear option seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissable the rule.
As Fred Barnes said tonight on Brit Hume, "when you've started comparing your opponents to Hitler, you've wandered off into the swamps of Demgoguery and should just be left there."
I think there are not enough votes to uphold the point of order. And I think Harry Reid knows it.
GOP Senators are the most neutered bunch in politics. They literally will not stand up to defend the Constitution from these obstructionists.
From NRO's Beltway Buzz:
__________________________________________
"This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past … The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time … So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate … It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote."
— U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, Jan. 15, 1979
In fact, Sen. Byrd led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 - including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents...
______________________________________
It seems the "distinguished gentleman from West Virginia" isn't.
I am not happy with OUR guys either---I had been touting my senator, Senator Cornyn, because he had been giving some good rebuttal speeches on the Senate floor, BUT---
Where is he now, where was he when I begged him to vote against Specter as Chairman?
And more importantly, WHO is the judiciary committee member that told Major Garrett of Fox News, that the democrats "have us over the barrel" or something like that, in regards to the judicial nominees---I want to know who the lilly-livered give-up boy is, who would say something like that to the press!!!!
Because they are a poor state and they get a lot of 'stuff' from his being in office.
That comes from a co-worker who still votes in WV. Oh, and he never voted for Byrd.
Quick, post that over on the thread I just pinged you to; I want everybody to read that!
Appreciate the ping. The guy is a fruitcake! Always over the top - thar he blows! But the left never cares about their role in anything..
What a bleeping hypocrite
"Our guys" don't get away with lying to the same degree as Byrd and co.
Not even close. Since the MSM will accuse us of lying even when we're telling the gospel truth.
I think the Hitler thing has been rendered pretty much meaningless.
I have been compared to Hitler by Conservatives on Shiavo threads, and a liberal constitutional deconstuctionist on SCOTUS threads tonight.
Add to that the inferences that I am a liberal illegal alien employer on immigration threads , a Nazi storm trooper on National ID threads........and so on.
I think some Conservatives right here on FR have managed to dilute any possible meaning of the word and rendered it useless.
I am teeered and goin to bed. These off season periods are getting my goat.
What the Rats wail about the most....they are usually guilty of!
Well .. the idiot is comparing "Mr. Smith's" fillabuster to the dems fillabuster of JUDICIAL NOMINEES. I have a comment about that - which I posted on another thread - and if it's allowed, I'll bost it again - because Byrd is way off the mark and people need to know that:
The Constitution does not permit FILLIBUSTERS FOR JUDICIAL NOMINEES!!
What is it about THAT FACT that escapes everybody ..??
The Senate, under Daschle, changed the SENATE RULES, to require 60 votes for judicial nominees - instead of 51. THIS IS ILLEGAL!!!!!!! THIS IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
What Frist needs to do is CHANGE THE SENATE RULE TO GO BACK TO SUPPORTING WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS - 51 votes is all it takes to confirm a judge!!
If the dems want to play hardball and try to make the repubs pay for UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION - which the dems also SWORE TO UPHOLD .. let them. If the dems want to fillabuster everything else - FINE! Let them! When November, 2006, comes around the Senate will have more than the 60 needed and all their whining will be moot anyway.
TO HELL WITH THE DEMS - they do not have America's interests foremost on their agenda - they are only interested in their own power. They are pathetic.
byrd may be senile, and too long past his date with the grave, but at least he's got his history right.
I know it's illegal to filibuster judicial nominees and am glad you're posting it in more than one place because I'm not sure how many people know it.
And why the gutless Pubbies don't have press conferences - major press conferences - is a mystery to me.
Aside from the WOT, I consider judicial nominees to be of primary importance.
What bugs me is .. if people would just read the Constitution, they would see there is a ";" (a semicolon) between the issues which require a 2/3 vote (or 60 votes in the Senate) and "advice and consent" on judicial nominees.
It's quite clear. And .. for the dems to stand up there and subvert the Constitution, which they have SWORN TO UPHOLD .. just to further their own power .. it's just despicable.
Well, our guys seem all too happy to play nice nice to get invited to parties and the right shows, etc. I'm sick of it.
So am I - and I think it's time we let them have it with emails and letters and faxes. This has got to stop.
This is not a party - this is WAR!!!
When are our Senators going to stand up for America - truth - justice - THE CONSTITUTION - and stop kissing the behinds of the democrats!!!
Mo, I think the Democrats are self destructing myself. I watched Scarborough tonight and he described what a DISASTER Howard Dean is as the leader of the DNC. So true. The guy literally has NO self control, he acts and talks like a bar room brawler. I am happy to say that the Democraps couldn't have picked a better leader. hehehehehehe!! Wonder when he'll have his FIRST meltdown?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.