Posted on 03/17/2005 7:06:09 PM PST by smc
Now the truth comes out.
The dumbest member of the United States Senate, California's very own Barbara Boxer, took to the podium next, and did something remarkable. She forgot to keep up the lie. She told the truth about the strategy of the Democrats. She let what their view of the Constitution truly is. If Rose Woods, Richard Nixon's legendary secretary, worked at either MoveOn or C-span, the following part of the tape would be missing:
Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.
No kidding. She said it. Here's the audio so you don't have to look for it in an hour and a half audio file.
In one small paragraph, if this passage gets picked up around the 'sphere and on radio, the Democrats just lost their argument. The truth of the matter is it is the Democrats who indeed are changing the Constitutional requirement, because Democrats like Barbara Boxer don't think the current political makeup is fair. Not only should there be a supermajority, which is clearly unconstitutional, but appointed judges should stand for elections. I wonder if that weathered, pocket-sized edition of the Constitution did backflips in Robert Byrd's shirt pocket when she said that.
Game over. Dems lose. Spread the truth far and wide, bloggers.
Exactly.
Hmmmm.... Well, that would explain why we have such a bunch of fools on the Supreme Court, wouldn't it? If there had been a 60 vote requirement, they wouldn't be there.
Text please. My speakers don't work.
Just.....damn.
Now wait a friggin minute. I'll put Patty Murray up against anyone for the title of dumbest Senator any day of the week.
Or would they all be a bunch of milquetoast wienies, a la Justice Souter?
Now they're in the minority, and guess what? They're for minority rule!
Oh. And Boxer is a useful moron.
(steely)
My guess is that there wouldn't be a Supreme Court. But that wouldn't be so bad.
I admit there's a lot of competition, but it's hard to imagine a Senator dumber than Patty "Osama Mama" Murray...
Good luck with that. Do you by any chance have some headphones?
bttt
I doubt it. The Constitution is a roadblock to their socialist utopian dreams, & must be either ignored or have its original meaning misinterpreted for their own desires. She knows what she's doing...& BOTH major political parties are guilty in this crine.
The Constitution REQUIRES a Supreme Court--but methinks the best thing to do would have Congress eliminate ALL other lower federal courts.
Does the Constitution mandate life-long tenure for members of the higher courts?
And I'll see your Lynn Woolsey and raise you a Jim McDermott.
All it sez is that the Justices must be nominated by the Prez & Senate, & hold their office during times of good behavior, if I remember correctly. No time limit is given.
Lynn Woolsey is dumber than Major Owens or Sheila Jackson Lee?
If this isn't sedition, the word has no meaning.
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.