Posted on 07/09/2005 2:47:15 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Should a temporary majority of 50.7 percent have control over the entire United States government? Should 49.3 percent of Americans have no influence over the nation's trajectory for the next generation?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, duh, Dionne. That's what happened when the Dems were in charge. Karma sucks, don't it?
"Should 49.3 percent of Americans have no influence over the nation's trajectory for the next generation?"
NO!
Sounds almost like he's advocating the election of SCOTUS justices....(but I didn't read beyond his initial whine.) Of course, I'm sure he'd be OK with RAT presidents nominating SCOTUS justices in perpetuity.
The link is here: More "heads I win, tails let's call it even" thinking from a partisan Democrat
It starts out, "E.J. Dionne keeps trying, but he never gets any better."
Oddly enough, I agree.
Politics shouldn't matter in confirmations, as the judiciary isn't supposed to be political. Much of the ugliness springs from frantic attempts to ignore the fact that this is no longer true.
I think conservatives could win a battle waged on originalist vs. activist terms.
That's how our representative government works. Read the Constitution.
This is what the American voter voted for. This is what the American people want.
Should we let a few left wing whiners ruin it for the larger part of our society simply because they're having a temper tantrum? No. Bush should appoint Conservative Judges, just as the American people wanted.
If Kerry had the 50.7 it would have been a thundering mandate for a Red SCOTUS.
was FDR's majority "temporary"? Should Clinton have been allowed to appoint a Justice for a 43% showing?
At any rate, to answer the question, when you win the majority of electoral votes you win the Presidency. The President appoints Supreme Court Justices according to the Constitution. The popular vote, while I love it after the four years 0f hearing "Gore won the popular vote, majority rules" tantrums, is inconsequential.
The Congress has two representatives from each state. Those that actually try to listen to their people and win elections, well, WIN ELECTIONS! Since you have chosen to spend near five years attempting to impeach this President and sabotage the war, don't blame us for the consequences of a Majority Republican Congress of 55 that stands to expand even further in '06.
A mature party would have accepted their losses with grace, than fought clean, hard and fair to rebound. Not you Di. Not your Party. Instead you hold mock trials, slander men and women that honorably serve this country whether on the bench or on the battlefield or pulling an honest days wage at home in a job that you wouldn't soil your hands doing, have Michael Moore block parties, filibuster any progress for the American people and sit around thinking up talking points to stab the administration with when an ally in the WOT is terrorized.
Right. The impeached former president clinton never received a majority of American votes for president - yet he was allowed two ultra-left selections. Sorry Dionne, you're still a wuss and you still are a loser.
Even his numbers are a lie. The vote was closer to 53 - 47 than 50 - 49
No one seemed to mind when a temporary majority of 43.01 percent, followed by 49.2 percent had control over the entire US government.
Should 49.3 percent of Americans have no influence over the nation's trajectory for the next generation?
I don't know. Did 56.9 percent followed by 50.8 percent have any influence?
Dionne, the Prez needs to ask one question to get a clear understanding of his mission: if the situation were reversed, would the demoncRATS regard input from the pubbies meaningful with any nomination to SCOTUS?
The right answer is YES!
What a sneaky statement! What does he conveniently leave out? Of course, it's the percentage of the vote for third party candidates! When the percentages are figured for 1992-04 they are R=44.6 (he even rounded DOWN), D=47.6, and other=7.8.
Dionne, of course, wants readers to infer that Democrates garnered more than 55 per cent of the vote. What a jerk.
LOL!!!
What a cry baby.
Somebody tell E.J. that Bush received over 50 percent of the vote, SOMETHING BILL CLINTON NEVER ACHEIVED.
Did he whine when Clinton appointed Ginsburg/Breyer...
"Why should a president who recieved only 43 percent of the vote get to appoint a Supreme Court justice?"
By all means, let's fight with candy-ass Dionne.
#1. Yes
#2. NO!
Because the figures invert, that's why; the (R) percentages are well higher than the (D) ones. The Carter presidency was very narrowly decided, while Nixon, Reagan, and GHW Bush all won very handily.
Dionne is just another sorry-ass, whiny, would-be spinmeister who is intellectually unable either A) to accept the rules as they are (hint, dumbshjt, they're collectively called 'the Constitution', or B) present an honest argument supporting his anti-Constitutionalist worldview.
1. Thou shalt not whine.
2. Thou shalt not pull false facts from thine a**.
3. Remember the internet. The truth will out.
etc. etc.
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.