Posted on 05/24/2005 9:00:37 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Yesterday the Senate reached a Compromise on confirmation hearings on certain judicial nominees. But “compromise” normally means an agreement between opposing parties where both make concessions and commit to keeping the bargain. By that standard, this is no compromise. It is, as Shakespeare wrote in Macbeth, “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Allow me to prove the point.
The 14 signing Senators committed to vote to close debate on the nominations of Priscilla Owen, Janice Brown, and William Pryor for various Circuit Courts. They made no commitment on nominees William Myers and Henry Saad. Regarding other nominees for federal courts these Senators said, “Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances...”
In return for this promise, these Senators pledged “to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress” (in Rule XXII, the cloture rule).
Extraordinary circumstances will be defined by each Senator. Consider that Ted Kennedy and other rabid Democrats believe it is “extraordinary” any time a Republican (temporarily occupying the White House) makes any nomination.
If, not when, the Democrats filibuster an “ordinary” nominee, all bets are off. We are looking at two schoolchildren in a playground who’ve just reached a deal. Both have one hand behind their backs, fingers crossed.
Lastly, the Compromise demands certain actions of the President, who didn't sign the deal. It reaches the length of Pennsylvania and insists the President “consult” with the Senate before making any future nominations. No President from George Washington to Bill Clinton has routinely done this.
The MSM is hailing this Compromise as a “victory for the centrists in the Senate.” The press has the right number of syllables, but the wrong word. This is a victory for the cowards in the Senate. These Senators signed: Republicans John McCain, John Warner, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham and John Chafee; plus Democrats Robert Byrd, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Daniel Inouye, Ken Salazar, Mark Pryor and Joe Lieberman.
The Democrats are afraid to stick up for “the traditions of the Senate,” as Harry Reid has dishonestly portrayed it. The most fearful is Ben Nelson. He’s from Florida, which went strongly Republican in 2004. He’s running for reelection in 2006.
But the Republicans are also cowards. Collins, Snow and Chafee are doing their imitation of stray grapes in fresh fruit aisle at the Piggly Wiggly. They are squishy. The saddest entry is Lindsey Graham. He was a man of principle in the House, and when elected to the Senate. But like Joe Lieberman, when push came to shove, he found the political path too steep to climb if burdened with principles.
While we’re on that subject, consider Robert Byrd on his ancient feet, incessantly repeating himself like the elderly brothers in Barry Levinson’s Avalon. Byrd claims to defend “the institution of the Senate.” Why didn't any Senator rise and ask this question: “Is the Senator so senile that he has forgotten when he was Majority Leader and used a majority vote four times to change the procedures of the Senate?” Of course, in the decorous world of the Senate, it would have been phrased more politely
Because of the holes in its logic and terms, this Compromise is no agreement at all. It will fall apart shortly after the three judicial nominees have been confirmed. When Chief Justice Rehnquist resigns in a month and President Bush nominates Antonin Scalia to replace him, all Hell will break loose.
The orgy of mutual self-congratulation on the Senate floor Monday night was like the similar orgy six years ago when Congress declared the federal budget was balanced. The appearance of balance was manufactured by snapping up every penny of the Social Security surplus. The mutual agreement of Republicans and Democrats that they have jointly achieved some magnificent goal was worthless in the face of facts to the contrary.
Far from affirming the Senate as an institution, this Compromise has covered it in shame. The Senate has truly “stepped back from the precipice” – of making a decision. Instead it has substituted a fog of words for a difficult but important decision. The Gunfight at Not-OK Corral is still coming to a theater near you. Just you wait.
The Senate has solved nothing. And the Constitution (remember that, it was in all the papers) has been trashed again.
The Senate has only kicked the can down the road, to confront the same problem under worse circumstances in a month. If that doesn't meet Shakespeare’s definition of idiocy, what does?
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment attorney and author who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu
Actually, Nixon was leftist in many things. Remember his wage and price control schemes? Doesn't get much more left than that. Bush 41 was a miserable president, and was a liberal fuddy duddy who fumbled the Reagan legacy and helped to usher in the Clintoon debacle.
BTTT
Actually, Nixon was leftist in many things. Remember his wage and price control schemes? Doesn't get much more left than that.
Soooo....yeah? You liked McGovern better?
Nixon was a big-government liberal who gave us fine conservative policies such as racial preferences and abortion on demand. Reagan was a genuine conservative who made a mistake by bowing to liberals in his own party and appointing O'Connor (who didn't seem so horrible at the time, to be fair). and King George "Read my Lips" I yet another elitist big government liberal. His "conservatism" included raising taxes, kowtowing to the Chinese, yet more racial preferences in addition the moronic David Souter. His appointment of Clarence Thomas, generally a defender of the constitution, was one of the few bright spots in an otherwise Carteresque administration.
Two out of three of the presidents mentioned are clearly liberals. McGovern, Carter and Dukakis are leftists - as are Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins (to name merely three). McCain is nothing more than a mouthpiece for George Soros - bought and paid for. As I say, leftists (and corruptocrats like McCain) need to be removed from the Republican party. The sad truth is that leftists probably control something like 70 percent of the wealth in the country, so they generally get their way.
In no way do I underestimate the severity of the problem. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it is a moral outrage of the first order - 46 million innocents slaughtered.
I am really warning you (and other pro-lifers) to beware of the flim-flam artists in the Republican party who always ask for our votes - and do zero in return. (The Dhimmicrat party is run by Marxists, so there's little point in even discussing them - though there are occaisional exceptions to that rule on the local and state level, as I'll explain later).
Look at the actions of the Republican leadership. Bush and Co. appeal to pro-lifers because they know the language and are skilled at pushing all of the right buttons. It's paid off for them, too. Now we are nearly six years into a Republican administration, and a Republican-controlled congress, and what do we have to show for it? President Bush, to his credit, reversed Clinton's repudiation of executive orders from Reagan and Bush I forbidding the funding of abortion programs with US tax dollars overseas. That's all that has been accomplished in six years.
Yes, the President signed a law ostensibly banning partial birth abortion which was immediately overturned by the Federal judiciary. The whole law was a flim-flam scheme to buy pro-life votes in the first place. Why do I say this? The Supreme Court had already declared partial birth abortion to be a constitutional right the year before. Absent an Article III, Section 2 law that takes the matter out of the courts' hands or a constitutional amendment to prohibit this barbarism, it stands as the law of the land. Please don't try and tell me that the congressman and senators who voted for this phony law were somehow unaware that it would be struck down within weeks (which it was).
Continuing the flim-flam theme, there is the case of the senior Senator from Peensylvania, Arlen Specter. Specter has been an ardent supporter of abortion since day one. His entire record is remarkable for its consistency in this regard. What do the supposedly pro-life President and junior PA senator so in the primary campaign? Throw their support behind Specter so as to defeat the serious challenge from the pro-life Pat Toomey. Even worse, Specter is in charge of the judiciary committee responsible for vetting candidates for the Federal bench. Specter promised his pro-abortion media pals that they could breathe easy after he won the election - he'd make sure that there was no serious chance of the sacred Roe v. Wade or Doe v. Bolton being overturned. (He dissembled and backtracked when there was an uproar over this to make sure he was seated, of course.)
An enemy is an enemy whether he carries the little "R" after his name or the little "D." Don't be fooled by a bunch of plaid-pants used car salesmen who mouth platitudes while they work with leftists to destroy the country.
As to the Dems, one occaisionally runs into a dedicated pro-lifer in Democrat ranks. These folks are generally not allowed to run for federal office by the Marxists who control the Democratic Party. However, once in while it's the Dem who is actually the more conservative candidate. In the 1998 Governor's race in Illinois, the Republicans ran the pro-abortion crook RINO George Ryan (who won), while the Dems ran Glenn Poshard, a congressman from Souhern Illinois who was pro-life and pro-2nd amendment (despite some liberal pro-union leanings).
It was interesting to see the reaction of the Marxists in Chicago as well as that of the IL Christian Coalition. The Marxists knew the score and tacitly supported "Lyin' Ryan", who did not dissapoint. The clueless folks in the Christian Coalition likewise supported this abominable candidate as well because he made some pro-life sounding comments to buy their votes and bore the Republican label. Poshard would have been a far better governor. A Dem politician is putting his career on the line to publicly oppose abortion. Repubs can mouth opposition as much as they like, and pay little price politically if they betray us or do nothing. Pro-lifers are amazingly gullible in the bare-knuckes world of politics.
Wow. Sounds like we're doomed...so here's some less moody, but more pragmatic and realistic propaganda in response.
I know the names of a few students in Ohio who might say Nixon was a conservative when it came to keeping the order. I'd say Nixon was pro-capitalist much like Reagan and Bush. All three men shared a dislike for liberal protesters. The liberal Nixon and Bush were not embraced by hippies, criminals, terrorists, unions, media, and other liberals of their day? They all preferred JFK and Clinton. I wonder what percentage of the population you think is liberal moderate and conservative?
I hope you will grant me as given that some times in life you are faced with choices where no outcome results in perfection. IMO choices in elections are simple. You can choose :
1. Republican,
2. rat,
or 3. don't vote in protest/vote for a 3rd party certain loser/get baked and forget to vote.
I responded to your post #70 where you wrote "If that's the only reason you are staying in the Republican party, it's a false reason to do so." The issue is abortion and presidential nominees for judges. You went on to point out the liberal judges of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush.
I'm glad you remember Thomas, but you neglected to mention Rehnquist appointed by Nixon, and Scalia by Reagan. I am looking for the conservative judges rats have confirmed to the SCOTUS and I see none. O'Connor (who didn't seem so horrible at the time, to be fair), and Kennedy are preferable to Breyer, and Ginsburg. Given that the party in the majority has a distinct advantage over the other party, I believe the party is not strengthened by reducing it's members. I can illustrate it like this (55 Republican Senators - 1 RINO = 54 Republican Senators.)
I further believe that 3rd parties are like a crap shoot. Most times their supporters spend their money and time and have nothing to show for it except the promise that next election the voters will finally be feed up with the 2 party system. I was a little disappointed Joe Bellis (America's Party-Kansas) dropped out just as he was building momentum. Maybe a charismatic figure will putsch his way into the White House some day but he'd better be a billionaire if he wants a serious shot at winning.
The winner will almost always be a Republican or a rat. I think people should pick the most favorable outcome of those 2 choices. Given the choice of Nixon or McGovern, and Bush or Clinton, who would you choose?
Another Freeper wrote this comment earlier, but it fits me too. I was scolded by other freepers yesterday for not recognizing how great this all actually is. Perhaps there are some short-term benefits but our US Constitution has been degraded yet again, FGS! With possibly more hits to come.
Visions of tar and feathers....!
I wasn't really paying atention to the Demos involved, but it figures that my very own One Armed Bandit would be involved.
You're absolutely correct! That IS the way to go. :-)
Those who can't do either, here, have just shocked and amazed me no end.
Uh ... stinking Lincoln Chaffe is from Rhode island. Stinkin Warner is from Virginia
Leftists and liberals often hate each other as much as they do conservatives. Lenin was shot by a socialist, not by a Czarist. So leftists (and their fellow travelers like the hippies, criminals, terrorists you mention) protesting liberals such as Nixon or Bush I is par for the course. They hated Lyndon Johnson too. As far as the population goes, the nation seems to be split down the middle between liberals and conservatives, at least as far as a number of issues such as gay marriage and abortion.
"Given that the party in the majority has a distinct advantage over the other party, I believe the party is not strengthened by reducing it's members. I can illustrate it like this (55 Republican Senators - 1 RINO = 54 Republican Senators.)"
This is a fallacy. From the conservative point of view, it makes no difference whether the liberal senator is a Republican or a Democrat. RINOs like Olympia Snowe are going to vote for abortion - even partial birth abortion - every time. The same is true for a host of other issues. They are consistently leftist - a de-facto Democratic vote. That's why 46 Democrats plus 7 RINOs equals a de-facto Democrat majority in the Senate of 52-48. Why continue with the charade of party labels when "Republicans" like Snowe and Chaffee ignore the party's platform positions on issue after issue? What possible advantage is there in majority status when you have 6-7 folks who vote with the Dems more often than not? That's why we have such a miserable record.
Social conservatives need to become a lot wiser about the Republicans instead of endlessly assuming the position of a servile abused spouse who is constantly betrayed. They need to get much more involved in primary season, and even stay home or vote third party in extreme cases like Olympia Snowe. As far as judicial appointments, the liberal Nixon appointed two leftists (Blackmun and Stephens) and one conservative (Rehnquist); the conservative Reagan appointed two liberals (Kennedy and O'Connor) and one conservatve (Scalia) whle the liberal Bush I appointed one leftist (Souter) and one conservative (Thomas).
So, why is it that the one party that conservatives vote for, the Republicans, gives us liberals or leftists as judges two thirds of the time? Do you really think that two-thirds of Republican voters are liberals and leftists? The Dems have an absolute litmus test for judicial nominees while the Republicans have none. Why? The Republican leadership needs to address the concerns of its voters better than it has been. Part of the reason for this sorry mess lies in the fact that conservatives have been very gullible in believing empty promises from Republican pols. While Kennedy may be slightly preferable to Breyer, how is O'Conner any better than Ginsburg?
The big problem with third parties lies in the unfortunate tendency to throw their eggs in the presidential basket while ignoring local, state, and congressional campaigns. I think a better strategy would be to function initially as almost a party-within-a-party. For example, the Constitution Party could be part of the Republican coalition in the offices that they didn't have the funds or candidates to compete for effectively while they concentrated on getting people into office at the local and state level.
To be sure, McCain is indeed a spiteful twit with a Napoleon complex. He has a long-standing habit of sucking up to sugar-daddies, though. Master S & L scammer Charles Keating was a big supporter back in the 80s. McCain's been getting money from Soros since the late 90s. The whole "campaign finance reform" law was Soros' idea. It's not as tinfoil hat as one might think at first glance.
Well, that brings up another weakness of third parties: their tendency to attract whack-jobs. The libertarians put up a smurf for US Senate in Wyoming or Montana as I recall. (The guy ingested Silver to protect himself from some Y2K space aliens which turned his hair white and his skin blue.)
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.