Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/19/2005 10:26:40 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
To: neverdem

It would be nice to have 5 more senate seats...


2 posted on 03/19/2005 10:29:46 PM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Democrats say they would retaliate by bringing the Senate to a virtual halt...

Anything to stop this pork barrel spending.
4 posted on 03/19/2005 10:33:20 PM PST by Tuefel Hunden (Once a Marine, always a Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
More bilge from the Compost.

I am soooo sick of liberals and other assorted moonbats.

5 posted on 03/19/2005 10:33:37 PM PST by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
I would like ask George Will what he think we need to do if we don't use the constitutional option? Cave-in to the Democrats? For the record, no one is talking about eliminating the legislative filibuster. And it certainly does stand conservatism on its head to posit a super-majority vote is now required to confirm judges. The honest thing to do if you take that position is to amend the Constitution to institute such a requirement. But it is dishonest of Will to assert the notion one Congress's act binds its successors. Each Congress is free to decide what rules best work for it.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
6 posted on 03/19/2005 10:35:51 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Democrats say they would retaliate by bringing the Senate to a virtual halt

Fine .. BRING IT ON

As for Goerge Will ... please re-read the rules about Judges

8 posted on 03/19/2005 10:36:52 PM PST by Mo1 (Why can't the public see Terry - What are they afraid of ??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
But it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted.

It does not.

9 posted on 03/19/2005 10:38:44 PM PST by aposiopetic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

Just one more piece of evidence that the Compost and Liberalism are both nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.


13 posted on 03/19/2005 10:41:54 PM PST by BigSkyFreeper (You have a //cuckoo// God given right //Yeeeahrgh!!// to be an //Hello?// atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
".. The crucial, albeit unwritten, rule regarding judicial nominees was changed forever 18 years ago by the Robert Bork confirmation fight: Now both sides in the Senate feel free to judge and accept or reject nominees on the basis of their judicial philosophies. So, conservatives, think:

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.

14 posted on 03/19/2005 10:42:09 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

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.


15 posted on 03/19/2005 10:42:37 PM PST by blitzgig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

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.


16 posted on 03/19/2005 10:42:43 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Democrats say they would retaliate by bringing the Senate to a virtual halt


17 posted on 03/19/2005 10:42:56 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle (I feel more and more like a revolted Charlton Heston, witnessing ape society for the very first time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
But it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted. "

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.

18 posted on 03/19/2005 10:43:02 PM PST by FredZarguna (Vilings Stuned my Beeber: Or, How I Learned to Live with Embarrassing NoSpellCheck Titles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

What section of the USC is the filibuster in again? I've looked and looked, but cannot find it.


20 posted on 03/19/2005 10:45:53 PM PST by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

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.


21 posted on 03/19/2005 10:46:36 PM PST by aynrandfreak (If 9/11 didn't change you, you're a bad human being)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Wow. This is the most inarticulate column I ever saw come out of George Will.

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?

26 posted on 03/19/2005 11:05:14 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

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.


28 posted on 03/19/2005 11:09:18 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

I emailed my Dem Senator, Evan Bayh, this evening urging him to vote and not filibuster. I really don't expect him to agree.


30 posted on 03/19/2005 11:14:04 PM PST by rdl6989
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

On this issues, I reserve my constitutional right to tell George Will to go to hell!


32 posted on 03/19/2005 11:15:40 PM PST by RAY (They that do right are all heroes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem

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.


39 posted on 03/19/2005 11:31:56 PM PST by thoughtomator (Sick already of premature speculation on the 2008 race)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: neverdem
Besides, the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."

Doesn't this line defeat the whole pretext of Will's argument?

46 posted on 03/19/2005 11:47:02 PM PST by streetpreacher (The fires of hell burn hot and try to destroy me, I run to your will Oh God I know you’ll restore me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson