Posted on 05/11/2005 9:44:07 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
I generally like the Republicans that Sean Hannity has on his show, but George Will really got on my nerves when he defended keeping the ability to filibuster judges based solely on partisan politics.
His first statement that got me going was to the effect of, "Sean, we don't want to place limits on what requires a supremajority in the Senate. You would have it that anything not allowed by the Constitution is forbidden. Such limits are antithetical to a free society".
HELLO?!!! Mr. Will, please READ the Constitution before you ever dare to utter another idiotic statement like this. The ENTIRE Constitution was written SPECIFICALLY to define the powers of the various branches of government and to LIMIT THOSE POWERS. A great majority of what Congress and the president and the judiciary are completely unconstitutional because there is no provision that gave the government the power to do it.
His second statement was to support the status quo because, in his words, "the Republicans are going to be in the minority within the next decade". This simp is PLANNING on losing instead of pressing the conservative agenda.
And the next statement that got me yelling at the radio was when he said, "Sean, there IS a solution that doesn't involve changing the rules: give us 60 Republicans in the Senate."
Mr. Will, (or should I call you Pinhead) you are PLANNING on losing yet you think that Americans should follow your lack of leadership and elect MORE Republicans? Do you REALLY think that people WANT to support a party whose primary concern is planning on what to do once they are LOSERS?
Hell, they already ARE LOSERS with that attitude!
To quote Admiral David Farragut: "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!"
Rant off.
Demo rats are running true to form.
BTW the junior senator from illinois is a white man passing as a black man, and supporting the old KKK Leghorn bobbi "KKK" byrdie of w-VA.
Want to end the filibuster standoff?
Require the Dimocrats to conduct a real filibuster! Make them hold the floor 100% of the time. Let the public see them drone on and on while nothing gets done. I believe they'll lose the PR war within weeks.
All I can say is, when a Democrat is in the WH, our guys better BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK any and all liberal judges. If this is the game, then it's the game for us too.
Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you. I've proposed this so many times I've about given up, but no one else has picked it up. I think the Dims would have no chance of winning the ensuing PR war when it's Dims the public sees droning on and on, day after day.
Geroge Ilwi?
I suspect he's simply not a big Bush fan.
It would be just as valid for the President to declare that the Constitution requires advice and consent, and the failure to provide it implies consent, and so from here on, all nominees that have not received a vote within 90 days after nomination will take their place as fully functioning appointees. The Senate declaring that an internal rule can allow 40 Senators to block a president's appointment in violation of the Constitution is the Senate imposing its view of the Constitution on the President.
I agree. He is wrong from time to time, as is everyone. On his view of a power shift in the next ten years, he is probobly correct. NO party holds the nation forever. And to be honest the thought that one could possibly do so is somewhat frightening. The party on the outs usually has to look at itself in that time and recharge, re-energize, change a bit to rally the troops for the next battle.I am still on the fence about the fillibuster issue. There is something about checks and balances in the system I kind of like.
Will is wrong. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to make their own rules. One of the exisiting rules outlines how to change the rules. Therefore, it is well within the rules to change the rules. The rule to change rules has been used in the past to change rules, so therefore, there is not only a rule, but precedent in which the rules have been changed by following the rules.
That's that with that.
He also may be fraternizing will the libs too much, which clouds objectivity.
Correctomundo! These senators know this. The hold that the elites have an ALL of them is what at issue. We, the internet, talk radio has exposed them & they either go with their elite puppeteers who finance them or with us who got them elected. We the people are not willing for compromise anymore. Better believe that if not for us the pubbies would have caved long ago.
I find it appalling that the interest groups demanding that the liberals block judges are the same interest groups in our courts 24/7 suing to get out of judges what they can't get out of legislatures. It disgusts me. What kind of government is this?
He is the very definition of "country club Republican." He didn't used to be, though. He was a strong Reaganite in the early 80s. He got caught helping Reagan prepare for the 84 debates, and was chastened, and has not been the same since.
Didn't he also get a lot of grief because his wife was working in some way to help either Bush '41 or '43. I just remember somewhere in the deep recesses of my brain something about this.
Ken Starr is wrong on this issue as well.
First, he states that the Constitution limits powers of the federal government.
Then, you call him a fool for saying that, because the Constitution LIMITS powers of the federal government. Huh?
You are both in agreement and right on that. You just don't like--and I also disagree with him on it--the conclusion he draws from it. Is it because he later said that the Republican majority will be gone in 10 years? That would have been a preposterous conclusion 3 years ago, but I'll wager any amount of money you wish to bet--we'll have to go to Nevada or someplace where it is legal--that he is correct. The conditions to maintain that majority are being squandered rapidly. Before you accept, you might ask yourself what prominent Republicans even have a conservative agenda, much less would push it, "damn the torpedos."
Just ask yourself, with the exception of blather and minuscule tax cuts, just what Mr. Bush has done in his administration that is different from what Lyndon Johnson did or would have done.
You're exactly right! The 'rats would use the "nuclear option" in a heartbeat if and/or when the situation is reversed.
This crap that we need to preserve the right to filibuster judicial nominees is ridiculous. The 'rats will laugh at the Republicans if they compromise away the "constitutional option"
I wish everyone would realize this.
The Democrats would be ripping our heads off!!!!
I'm starting to get the impression that he is or is becoming an elitist.
Will never argues that the senate is forbidden to change the rule, just that it would be unwise. But the democrats will change the rule if the republicans ever filibuster a judicial nominee.
Unlike some, I believe the senate majority has a right to set a rule that requires a supermajority to take action. But I believe a majority also has a right to interpret those rules.
Let me argue this way. Certainly each senator has a right to vote in whatever way they see fit. So, if a senator feels it is important to have a bipartisan or supermajority concensus, that senator can, if he supports something, announce that he will vote against it if his vote is the deciding vote.
If 10 majority senators decided that, it would in effect require 60 votes to pass anything. And that would be perfectly legal, even if only a majority was necessary.
If 10 majority senators are allowed to decide that they would withhold their vote if there aren't 50 others, then those 10 could get together with a minority of 40 and pass a majority rule to require filibusters on anything they wanted.
Therefore, a majority of senators should be allowed to change the rules, but the rules should be allowed to dictate any policy they want, since a majority can impose their will anyway through individual votes.
That in fact is why there is a filibuster rule at all. The majority has, and for historically good reasons, decided that it is better to reach a consensus.
Filibusters should NOT be used for judicial nominations because the checks and balances are already built into the process (could argue the same for all filibusters).
Every person in the united states gets to vote 3 times. One for a congressman, one for a senator, and one for president. For legislation, it requires TWO bodies to pass legislation. If the 2nd body (president) agrees, it is law. But if that 2nd body rejects the legislation, it now takes 2/3 of the legislature to pass.
For judicial nominees, there are two bodies involved. If the president doesn't nominate, the nominee is rejected (OBVIOUSNESS ALERT). If he nominates (one body) the second body can withhold approval. But that is the check. That body doesn't need a further check between those that SUPPORT the nomination and those that OPPOSE the nomination.
The democrat fallacy is to treat a political affilation as a BODY which can assert rights. Political affiliations have no place in constitutional discussion. Checks and Balances have nothing to do with protecting minorities, rather they are to protect ALL of us from tyranny of GOVERNMENT (which is the true meaning of tyranny of majority). The Constitution protects us as well (or used to before the judiciary re-wrote it).
The Republican's have done the legwork on this. The democrats will use it if they get the majority. We need to pull the trigger.
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.