Skip to comments.
SF Chronicle Editorial: Will the end justify the means?
SF Chronicle ^
| 4-17-03
Posted on 04/17/2003 3:50:23 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:42:17 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-23 last
To: Pharlap
The whole credo of those on the left is, and always has been, that the end justifies the means. This is why it is necessary for the Democrats to control 50 "Americans" in the US Senate - so that they can control the 2000 or so federal judges, who are appointed for life.
These judges are slated to enact the Left's agenda through the courts, bypassing the legislative and executive branches.
I don't read about this "end justifying the means" judicial strategy a whole lot in the SF Chron, do you? ;-)
To: an amused spectator
Actually, the NYT has an editorial in today's edition praising the use of a filibuster to prevent a vote on certain of President Bush's judicial nominees. The Times says that "the Senate has been right to use [the filibuster] against the nomination of Miguel Estrada." Of course, this position is a total distortion. If the "Senate", rather than a minority of senate Democrats, opposed Estrada there simply would be a vote and he would not be confirmed. But, as it takes 60 votes to achieve cloture, only 41 senators are needed to sustain a filibuster. For what it is worth, it is my opinion that it is unconstitutional to filibuster a presidential nominee under Art. II, Sec. 2 (which deals with the President's power of appointment and the Senate's mandatory obligation to provide its advice and consent, i.e., vote, up or down, on a nominee). The filibuster is a procedural mechanism adpoted by the Senate under Art I, Sec. 5, which deals with the legislative powers of the House and Senate, and the making of rules in regard to the exercise of his power. The remedy, which I have suggested in emails to the White House Chief Counsel and the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is to seek a declaratory judgment from the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to use a filibuster to prevent a vote by the Senate under Art. II, Sec. 2.
22
posted on
04/17/2003 10:53:11 AM PDT
by
Pharlap
To: lawnguy
Hey, is that Joe Camel? Did he also have asylum in Iraq?
Naw, he's the camel who fell in love with Paulie Shore and just loves a man in uniform ;)
23
posted on
04/17/2003 4:08:40 PM PDT
by
JustPiper
(Anti-War Protestors Are The Terrorist's Bodyguard!!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-23 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson