It sure is noisy in here!

March 20, 2002 | Texasforever

[hchutch]

But here's the thing. Suppose Daschle's noises about Defense were part of a threat used to force Bush to capitulate. IMHO, those noises from Daschle, Senator KKK, and others had to play a major part in this.

The Dems were able to make Bush choose between a campaign promise and the troops. Bush, like any wartime Commander-in-Chief should, chose the troops.

I say we spread that rumor out there, whether it's true or not. It'll be no different than the Mediscare ads. If that's what we gotta do, that's what we gotta do.

[hchutch]

The media would have covered for Daschle, espeically with CFR at stake. No, I do not see how that would happen. And fi there was a fight, the Dems would back Daschle on that. We should not kid ourselves. They threw out soldiers' votes, no problem. Why should any of this other crap be different?

[hchutch]

The media would have covered for Daschle, espeically with CFR at stake. No, I do not see how that would happen. And fi there was a fight, the Dems would back Daschle on that. We should not kid ourselves. They threw out soldiers' votes, no problem. Why should any of this other crap be different?

[hchutch]

The media would have covered for Daschle, espeically with CFR at stake. No, I do not see how that would happen. And fi there was a fight, the Dems would back Daschle on that. We should not kid ourselves. They threw out soldiers' votes, no problem. Why should any of this other crap be different?

[Dales]

If Bush had kept his word to me, I might be willing to play politics for him.

But he didn't, and I am not.

[NittanyLion]

The media would have covered for Daschle, especially with CFR at stake.

The media would have tried, but Bush has the opportunity to bypass the media and speak directly to the American public if he chooses. And remember, regardless of the media's view 90% of Americans favor Bush's handling of the war. Bush would merely need to come out and speak reasonably about how, "We may have our differences on domestic policy, but we must present a united front to the world unless we want a repeat of 9/11." That would have sent Daschle scampering back to his hole.

[hchutch]

Fine, but don't complain if Hillary or Al Gore get elected in 2004.

[hchutch]

The man is shameless, and the media shill for the Dems. Sorry, but you've got no clue about the strategy involved in D.C. It's ugly, and I won't deny it.

And if you really think we could have demolished Daschle, simple as that, we'd have done so. It just couldn't be done.

[Dales]

Time will tell. Believe me, I understand that risk.

I am very resentful of the fact that now I have to once again weigh every position I take against the pragmatic reality.

For once, I would like to be able to put my faith and efforts behind someone who actually cares about what they say they care about.

Right now, my perspective is that if he doesn't feel a backlash against this very stupid maneuver, if he expects blind support from the right because the threat of the Democrats is so bad, then he is more likely to make more decisions like this.

There was no reason for him to capitulate on this. And if he gets the support of people like me anyway, there will be no reason for him to think twice about doing it again.

This sucks, all around.

[DLfromthedesert]

The problem I have is that he is willing to expend poltical capital on this issue, by pressuring Congress about it. Why didn't he pressure Congress to enact a CFR Bill that didn't trash the First Amendment, or put more pressure on the Dem Senators in the Judiciary Committee on the Pickering nomination?

Are the Mexican citizens more important than the Bill of Rights ? Apparently, in his estimation.

[conserve-it]

"But it is also useful to remind ourselves that, while we do indeed have a Supreme Court whose job it is to interpret the law, we also are not out of place to expect that a) the Congress of the United States should not write flagrantly unconstitutional legislation and, b) if they should, that the President of the United States should not sign flagrantly unconstitutional legislation. Someone in the Bush Administration should make it his or her business to sit this President down and pound some sense into him that this legislation is unconstitutional before he does sign it. We should not just comfort ourselves to await a fight to the Supreme Court to be rid of it."

Ah!! Logic and reason becomes you!!

[Tauzero]

"You still don't understand. Only in a parlimenatry form of governance, can a fringe eliment have actual power INSIDE the governing body ! "

No, I understand that.

Fringers can cause you to lose when margins of victory are thin. You don't like that? Tough. Deal with it.

"Quite the contrary ; they make enemies !"

And you do such a great job of winning over the "fringe" that you "need".

RINOs and other party reptiles are appropriately recognized as enemies.

To paraphrase a great man, the party was made for Republicans, not Republicans for the party.

[Tauzero]

"You don't convince anyone to do something while calling them scum."

Oh really? I guess that's why our colleges are such citadels of freedom these days...

[Tauzero]

"The Government is not a collection of street gangs that schedule rumbles to decide what philosophy wins 100%. "

No, but it is a collection of street gangs.

"There is no 100% in politics it is usually 50-50"

Good news for the "fringe" that. Gives 'em leverage.

"when you get right down to it, this government really is a reflection of the people that elect it."

Ain't that the sad truth.

[Tauzero]

"Dems, no matter what, stick together ."

Sure. That's why Gore won, right?

Ah, such fond memories I have of Chicago '68. What a love fest and moment of solidarity that was.

[itsahoot]

Read a little further down the article, it definately says not subject
to Judicial Review.

As I was telling Tex I could not recall any specific cases, but something
came to mind. Dornan may have mentioned the Railroad act in his
discussion of the subject. Can't say with certainty though.

[JDGreen123]

Oh I know Byrd is all about politics and playing this to the Democrat advantage. I just pick my allies where I can find them on important issues. Even loony Byrd can be right about some issues.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Read a little further down the article, it definately says not subject to Judicial Review.

Yes those words are there, in a subparagraph to a paragraph not quoted. Once it gets that far in, I need to hear a lawyer's explanation. I do know that I have heard that the right of the Congress to withdraw jurisdiction from the courts has never been upheld by the court. Of course I only had an undergraduate course in Constitutional Law, so I am not convinced either way.

[itsahoot]

Sure. That's why Gore won, right?

I think if you check, you will find that a majority of the voters
did vote for him.(Barf!!!!!)

[itsahoot]

Did you read this one in your studies?

TITLE 15 , CHAPTER 88 , Sec. 6208.

US CODE COLLECTION

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 88 > Sec. 6208.

Prev | Next

Sec. 6208. - Limitations on judicial review (a) Determinations Determinations made under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 6207(a) of this title shall not be subject to judicial review. (b) Citations to and descriptions of confidentiality laws Whether an antitrust mutual assistance agreement satisfies section 6211(2)(C) of this title shall not be subject to judicial review. (c) Rules of construction (1) Administrative Procedure Act The requirements in section 6206 of this title with respect to publication and request for public comment shall not be construed to create any availability of judicial review under chapter 7 of title 5. (2) Laws referenced in section 6204 of this title Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the availability of judicial review under laws referred to in section 6204 of this title

Search this title:


Notes
Updates
Parallel authorities (CFR)
Topical references

Prev | Next