Skip to comments.
Senate Democrats get final word, and declare victory, in fight over judges
Boston Globe ^
| 11/15/2003
| Jim Abrams
Posted on 11/15/2003 6:26:11 AM PST by RJCogburn
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:11:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
After 40 hours of nonstop talking organized by Republicans to protest filibusters on judicial nominees, Senate Democrats added two more names yesterday to the list of judges they have stalled successfully.
Democrats declared the longest uninterrupted Senate debate in 15 years a victory for their side. Republicans said the Democrats' methods could come back to haunt them.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dems; filibuster; marathon; obstructionists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 last
To: duckln
and by the way, brainwashed?
Please, defend the Saturday Night Massacre. Ah, Nixon. A paragon of integrity.
To: Viva Le Dissention
All the appointees serve at the discretion of the president. Can't call it a Massacre, but the media was up to the task, and gullibles swallowed it.
Was it Cox that got replaced by Bork? A definite improvement IMO.
42
posted on
11/15/2003 10:28:21 AM PST
by
duckln
To: duckln
Cox was fired by Bork. Leon Jaworski replaced Cox.
I keep forgetting that in your world, the President is above the law and can do whatever he wants. Is there anything that you think the President CAN'T do?
In case you've forgotten, U.S. v. Nixon was 8-0.
Nixon got pissed all over for a reason. He was a bad, bad, President that broke the law and ignored the constitution.
To: Viva Le Dissention
and by the way, brainwashed? It can happen you know. It's happened to me when I was less estute. For years I swallowed the Democrat swill on Wisconsin Senator McCarthy. Finally I was set free by Ann Coulter's book.
44
posted on
11/15/2003 10:42:02 AM PST
by
duckln
To: freekitty
Okay, gotcha. Sorry I misunderstood your post.
45
posted on
11/15/2003 10:50:40 AM PST
by
Republican Wildcat
(November 4, 2003. The day the 32-year Democrat lock on Kentucky came to an end.)
To: duckln
Right. the Washington Post engineered the Watergate break-in. They engineered Nixon firing Richardson and Ruckelshaus. They engineered Sirica's ruling that Nixon was to turn over the tapes. The Post engineered Nixon refusing to comply with the subpoena and refusing to turn over the tapes. They engineered an 8-0 vote on the Supreme Court, in which Burger, Powell, and Blackmun--all Nixon appointees--voted against Nixon. Burger even wrote the opinion.
Well, that Washington Post is one powerful paper. I'm impressed.
To: Viva Le Dissention
Cox was fired by Bork. Leon Jaworski replaced Cox. As I recall, Cox was an independent prosecutor. Bork replace the person who refused to fire Cox. Leon was a district judge, he didn't replace anyone but was a political pick by the democrats to jail the Republican administration. He succeeded.
..there anything that you think the President CAN'T do?
There are limits and the constitution prescribes the impeachment process. Nixon was never impeached. There was no 8-0. Leon accomplished it all. To this day Liddy views him as a complete rat!
47
posted on
11/15/2003 11:01:52 AM PST
by
duckln
Comment #48 Removed by Moderator
To: Big Midget
Shoot! My bad...
To: Viva Le Dissention
And what did the 'tapes' prove? Where was the 'crime'. It's now perported that if Nixon had gone to trial he would have won.
A little while back, the Democratic feminazis in the senate got hold of Senator Packwood's diary, and they did a McCarthy on him.
Do you have a diary, is it something worth protecting?
The Supreme Court goofed, as they did in Roe, Michigan affirmative admission, and Sodomy in Texas. Silly for you to accept it to bolster your case. Conversations in the Oval office are protected, by exexutive privilage, and rightly so. Except you think Nixon should be treated differently.
50
posted on
11/15/2003 11:22:45 AM PST
by
duckln
To: duckln
Cox was the
special prosecutor. Once the Senate investigation found out that there were audio tapes, Cox subpoenaed them. Nixon, apparently thinking that he was above the law, decided that he didn't need to comply with a subpoena. After Cox wouldn't go away, Nixon told Elliot Richardson to fire him.
Richardson, one of the few people in the administration that had a spine, refused, and then resigned. Dpty. AG Ruckelshaus was told to fire Cox. He refused, too, and also resigned. Ah, but then we have Solicitor General Bork, who was willing to blindly follow orders. "Fire Cox? You betcha Mr. President!"
Nixon found all of this investigation very annoying, and announced that he was going to abolish the office of the special prosecutor. Although a nice try, Nixon was later forced to name another special prosecutor, and ABA President Leon Jaworski was named.
And don't forget, the only reason that Nixon wasn't indicted himself along with Liddy is that Jaworski told the grand jury that in his legal opinion a sitting President could not be indicted. Nixon was named an un-indicted co-conspirator.
It's worth noting, too, that Nixon surely would have been impeached had he not resigned. He spared himself *some* embarrassment in the whole mess. But not much.
To: duckln
Where do you POSSIBLY get the contention that executive privilege protects this?
It's not in the constitution, because there is no such thing as executive privilege in the constitution. Then again, given your previous arguments, I wouldn't expect you to actually look at the constitution when attempting to determine constitutional law. I keep forgetting that you're a "Presidential fiat" kind of guy.
If you are contending that executive privilege covers this sort of thing, present one iota of evidence backing your claim. Nixon couldn't. That's why he lost. Big. Huge.
Um, well, the tapes were pretty damning. They prove that Nixon knew about the break-in and tried to cover it up from the beginning. They don't call it the "smoking gun tape" for nothing.
I look the time to find a transcript of the tape for you:
http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23_smoking-gun.shtml
To: Viva Le Dissention
Very good post, you have a good memory. Line by line, how the opposition destroyed a unanimously elected second term president, all propagated by the democratic media. Same thing going on today in the reporting of the war in Iraq. To bad you don't see the fraud of it all.
By the way, seeing you're so sharp today, how many Democrats have ever been jailed? Dirty politics, breakin, and FBI files is the name of the democrat game. Hillary saw them all while Nixon was accused of having one file. And that was of a dissident sharing secret files with, I think, your Washington Post.
53
posted on
11/15/2003 11:52:42 AM PST
by
duckln
To: duckln
a unanimously elected second term presidentYou got a problem, fella.
54
posted on
11/15/2003 1:19:30 PM PST
by
RJCogburn
("You have my thanks and, with certain reservations, my respect.".......Lawyer J. Noble Daggett)
To: RJCogburn
What's your point?
55
posted on
11/15/2003 1:23:03 PM PST
by
duckln
To: Republican Wildcat
And I am sorry that I worded it that way.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 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