It would be nice to have 5 more senate seats...
I am soooo sick of liberals and other assorted moonbats.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Fine .. BRING IT ON
As for Goerge Will ... please re-read the rules about Judges
It does not.
Just one more piece of evidence that the Compost and Liberalism are both nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.
The future will bring Democratic presidents and Senate majorities. How would you react were such a majority about to change Senate rules to prevent you from filibustering to block a nominee likely to construe the equal protection clause as creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage? .."
Will's essay is full of crap. Robert Bork's story tells you all you need to know about the Democrats. We are in the age of politics to the knife and the GOP needs to start playing that way. Never expect genuine comity or mercy from those animals.
There is a lot of truth in what Will says, but I am skeptical about whether a supermajority vote requirement for judges is constitutionally acceptable.
Granted, the Republicans could use the issue to their advantage in the next election, but wouldn't that be tantamount to admitting that supermajority requirements are permissible to confirm judges? Based on the Constitution's wording on the matter, I don't think that the Founders believed that supermajorities were needed for judicial nominations.
Will seems in love with the idea of 60 GOP senators, when practically speaking, what he is really in love with is a lot of vacancies on SCOTUS and chokepoint appellate slots in DC and the 9th circuit, and a couple of other circuits that really matter. Grey moderate nominees simply won't cut it given how politicized the federal courts have become, and how abusive they have been in exercising power. Both parties will want to nominate only reliables given the stakes, and I don't blame them for that. I blame the courts.
The Post again thunderously affirms its hilarious cluelessness about conservatism with this genuinely preposterous line. One might be as conservative as Hamilton or as radical as Jefferson in one's reading of the Constitution, and still recognize that this is in fact what the Constitution itself actually says.
To wit,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. " (Amendment X).
Understanding the meaning of liberalism in the classical sense forces those of us who know history to remark that its stands the meaning of liberalism on its head for so-called liberals to defame the Bill of Rights as something that not even conservatives could be foolish enough to defend.
What section of the USC is the filibuster in again? I've looked and looked, but cannot find it.
He assumes that the Dems wouldn't just invoke the same nuclear option if they had the Presidency and a majority in the Senate. They have no honor.
First, he destroys the whole premise of his own argument:
Besides, the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."
Then he constructs a straw man:
Some conservatives say there is a "constitutional right" to have an up-or-down Senate vote on nominees.
"Some conservatives"? No. Many conservatives say simply that the Constitution's "advise and consent" provision has been turned on its head by the Democrats with their wanton, unprecedented use of filibusters of TEN judicial nominees, I don't recall any conservatives claiming that an up-or-down vote was a "constitutional right". George then goes on to claim that conservatives would "rue the day" they changed the rule because, well, what if the shoes were on the other feet?
What planet is this guy on?
(The following is from: GO NUCLEAR!)
During the Robert Bork confirmation hearings the Democrats devised and unveiled the smear tactic now known colloquially as "Borking". Over the next fifteen years or so, the Democrats fine-tuned and expanded this "art of the smear". At one point they conducted what was for all intents and purposes an inquisition of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Thomas himself referred to his "Borking" by the Democrats as a "high-tech lynching". Indeed it was. Fortunately, the Democrats' attempt to destroy Thomas failed and he was ultimately confirmed. It was also fortunate that the Democrats had not yet "progressed" to where they are today.
Fast forward a few years and today we see that the Democrats are filibustering any Republican nominee who appears to take the United States Constitution seriously. And they are doing so routinely!
* * * * * * *
As for the soon-to-be-outraged Democrats? Well, is there really any doubt that the party that invented "Borking" and has beaten the process down to the disgraceful low-point that we now have would "go nuclear" if the shoes were on the other feet? Please.... OF COURSE they would.
Is there really any doubt what the Democrats would do if the shoes were on the other feet?
What an idiot Will is on this one:
1. Continuous debate has never been used in 200+ years against judicial appointments until now.
2. The GOP is unlikely to ever use that in the future if they become the minority.
3. The clear solution then is to BY RULE return to the 200+ year tradition of the Senate. [Might I add a real conservative would favor a return to the tradition of the Senate in such matters.]
So this is really a no lose situation for the GOP in the Senate. By rule they will return to the tradition of the Senate that they would not in the future go away from anyway.
I emailed my Dem Senator, Evan Bayh, this evening urging him to vote and not filibuster. I really don't expect him to agree.
On this issues, I reserve my constitutional right to tell George Will to go to hell!
Even when they "shut down" the government, it still manages to spend over $1 billion a day. But the Democrats have no actual power to do that since they haven't a majority in either house of Congress.
Doesn't this line defeat the whole pretext of Will's argument?