I suggest one of these to solve that problem .. These things ROCK!
I can even hear when outside
Sennheiser RS-120 New On Hook Charging Wireless Headphone
Posted on 02/01/2005 5:01:00 AM PST by OXENinFLA
Hehe, Schumer says that one of the crazies that Bush wants appointed said that "The purpose of a man is to be subjugated to a woman." I think he got that one wrong ;)
I think that was Pryor, quoting the Bible.
Ephesians 5:22
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. (23) For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. (24)Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
OMG, somebody quoted the Bible.
RESPONSE TO TERRORISM
Intel Chiefs on World Threat
The Senate Select Intelligence Cmte. holds a rare open hearing on the world threat to the United States. Witnesses include FBI Director Robert Mueller, Central Intelligence Director Porter Goss, DIA Director Lowell Jacoby, Acting DHS Sec. James Loy, and others. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) chairs the hearing.
WEDS., C-SPAN3, 10AM ET
Norm Coleman up talking about Social Security...........
Mueller just said they (FBI) have identified "extremists" IN THE US and are monitoring them..
I wish we got C-Span3 so I could watch.
Steven Emerson has done a good job of identifying the extremists in our country.
You can watch it on the web.....
Honorable Porter J. Goss Director of Central Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency
Mr. Robert S. Mueller, III Director Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
I have so much to do around the house that I can't be near the computer much longer.
Good to hear even in a Senate meeting the head of the CIA is up to date on things.
Oh crap Levin up..........
I think we already knew that
Just turned it on .. thanks for the ping
I suggest one of these to solve that problem .. These things ROCK!
I can even hear when outside
Sennheiser RS-120 New On Hook Charging Wireless Headphone
LOL. I bought a set of wireless headphones about a year ago and use them when I walk. Now I don't try to time my walks around Rush and Laura.
I have a question...do you think C-Span3 was on the radio?
10:00 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, resume consideration of S. 306, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2005.
NOMINATIONS -- (Senate - February 16, 2005)
[Page: S1457] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will spend a few minutes correcting the record in response to a question of press availability on Tuesday about whether Democrats were opposing as a caucus all of the renominated judges that previously were denied an opportunity for an up-or-down vote when a bipartisan majority stood ready to confirm them last year.
The Senate minority leader said, ``Renomination is not the key. I think the question is, those judges that have already been turned down in the Senate''--in other words, he said these judges, even though they commanded the support of a bipartisan majority of the Senate during the last 2 years and were not permitted to have an up-or-down vote, he characterized those judges who have now been renominated by the President as judges who have, in fact, been turned down by the Senate.
So my question is, to whom is the distinguished Democratic leader referring? None of President Bush's nominees have been turned down by the
none, zero. The nominees he referred to were denied a vote altogether. In fact, all of these nominees would have been confirmed last Congress had majorities been allowed to govern as they have during the entire history of this country and the entire history of the Senate--save and except for the time when Democrats chose to deny a majority the opportunity for an up-or-down vote.
So I would say, correcting the record, it is a little difficult to turn down a nominee, as the minority leader has said, if the nominee never gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
Now, the second part I would like to correct is that when the Democratic leader was asked whether obstruction would create a 60-vote threshold for all future judicial nominees, he said:
It's always been a 60-vote for judges. There is--nothing change[d].
He said:
Go back many, many, many years. Go back decades and it's always been that way.
Well, we took his advice, and we did go back over the years. It turns out it
[Page: S1458] GPO's PDF
has not always been that way. Indeed, there has never, ever, ever been a refusal to permit an up-or-down vote with a bipartisan majority standing ready to confirm judges in the history of the Senate until these last 2 years. Many nominees have, in fact, been confirmed by a vote of less than 60 Senators. In fact, the Senate has consistently confirmed judges who enjoyed a majority but not 60-vote support, including Clinton appointees Richard Paez, William Fletcher, and Susan Oki Mollway; and Carter appointees Abner Mikva and L.T. Senter.
Specifically, the distinguished Democratic leader, yesterday, when he said this had been used by Republicans against Democratic nominees, mentioned Judge Paez. Well, obviously, that is not correct because Judge Paez, indeed, was confirmed by the Senate and sits on the Federal bench today.
So it reminds me of, perhaps, an old adage I learned when I was younger, when computers were not as common as they are now, and people marveled at this new technology, and those who wanted to chasten us a little bit would say, well, they are not the answer to all of our concerns, and they said: Garbage in, garbage out. In other words, if you do not have your facts right, it is very difficult to reach a proper conclusion.
So I thought it was very interesting--and I thought it was important--that the Democratic leader would make this claim, first of all, as I said, that these judges had been somehow turned down by the Senate when, in fact, they had been denied an opportunity for an up-or-down vote; and, secondly, that somehow there is a 60-vote requirement, and it has always been that way, because the facts demonstrate that both of those conclusions are clearly incorrect.
Finally, he said something I do more or less agree with, although I would differ a little bit on the contentious tone. He said: We're hopeful they'll bring them to the floor so there will be a fair fight. Well, I think I knew what he meant. I hope he meant a fair debate. Frankly, the American people are tired of obstruction and what they see as partisan wrangling and fighting over judicial nominees.
In the end, that is what happened during the Clinton administration when, perhaps, judges who were not necessarily favored by our side of the aisle did receive an up-or-down vote and did get confirmed. And that is, of course, what happened during the Carter administration. In fact, that is what has happened throughout American history--until our worthy adversaries on the other side of the aisle decided to obstruct the President's judicial nominees and they were denied the courtesy of that fair process, that fair debate, and an up-or-down vote.
Let me just conclude by saying this really should not be a partisan fight. Indeed, what we want is a fair process. We want a process that applies the same when a Democrat is in the White House and Democrats are in the majority in the Senate as we do when a Republican is in the White House and Republicans are in the majority in the Senate.
We want good judges. The American people deserve to have judges who will strictly interpret the law and will rule without regard to some of the political passions of the day. A judge understands that they are not supposed to take sides in a controversy. That is what Congress, the so-called political branch, is for. That is why debate is so important in this what has been called the greatest deliberative body on Earth. But we do not want judges who make political decisions. Rather, we want judges who will enforce those decisions because they are sworn to uphold the law and enforce the law as written. Members of Congress write the laws, the President signs or vetoes the laws, and judges are supposed to enforce them but not participate in the rough and tumble of politics.
So it is important that the process I have described produces a truly independent judiciary because we want judges who are going to be umpires, who are going to call
balls and strikes regardless of who is up at bat. So I think the process we have seen over the last couple years, which, unfortunately, it sounds like, if what I am hearing out of the Democratic leader is any indication, is a process that has not only been unfair because it has denied bipartisan majorities an opportunity to confirm judges who have been nominated by the President, but it is one which, frankly, creates too much of a political process, one where it appears that judges who are sworn to uphold the law, and who will be that impartial umpire--it has made them part of an inherently political process.
Now, I want to be clear. It is the Senate's obligation to ask questions and to seriously undertake our obligation to perform our duty under the Constitution to provide advice and consent. But, ultimately, it is our obligation to vote, not to obstruct, particularly when we have distinguished nominees being put forward for our consideration, when they are unnecessarily besmirched and, really, tainted by a process that is beneath the dignity of the United States. Certainly none of these individuals who are offering themselves for service to our Nation's courts in the judiciary deserve to be treated this way.
So, basically, Mr. President, what we are talking about is a process that works exactly the same way when Democrats are in power as it does when Republicans are in power. That, indeed, is the only principled way we can approach this deadlock and this obstructionism. I hope the Democratic leader--who I know has a very difficult job because he, no doubt, has to deal with and reflect the views of his caucus on this issue--I hope he will encourage his caucus, the Democrats in the caucus, and we will all, as a body, look at the opportunity to perhaps view this as a chance for a fresh start, a chance for a fair process, one that is more likely to produce an independent judiciary that is going to call balls and strikes regardless of who is at bat.
Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Cornyn is a great asset.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA) conducts a hearing on the FY '06 Defense Budget. Sec. Rumsfeld and JCS Chairman Gen. Myers speak about the authorization request. They also take questions about the FY '05 Defense Supplemental and the war in Iraq.
THURS., C-SPAN3, 9:30AM ET
WTF...........Why does C-span have to go to Hillary when she comes in??.....(Late, I might add)
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.