Free Republic

Or the guy who walks up to the bully and says "Your mother wears army boots." Obviously, the guy throwing the taunt is to blame for what follows.

To be sure, 'tis not wise to taunt a bully. And equally sure, Newsweek is despicable, biased, and out to bring a black eye on Western civ and the current administration. I don't have any sympathy for an idiot who taunts a bully, but I blame the bully for the beating.

The analysis is much different in this case too, because the liar is sending the bully to beat up some innocent dupe.

But the Senate DID vote on the Kyoto treaty (it failed, miserably), and and far as I know, it has brought to trial every article of impeachment brought to it.

My point is that there is never any discussion of whether or not the Senate can stonewall these decisions, yet the same Constitutional construct is there in each case. That is, the word DUTY does not appear. I assert that duty is implied. When the Senate refuses to exercise its judgement in treaties and nominees, it is stepping on the president's toes.

Obviously, the point is arguable. We are arguing it. ;-) You hold that I am wrong, that the Senate has no duty to try an article of impeachment, that it has no duty to vote at all when presented with a treaty, and that it has no duty to vote when presented with a nominee. I hold the opposite position.

I think that was the incident all along. As it first hit Isikoff's desk, it was a report that a Koran had been flushed. It was a leap to conclusion that a guard was doing the flushing.

My bully example was human-human interaction. Are you saying Islamists are like insects? Careful, you might incite them to violence. ;-)

I think the riots speak more to the nature of the rioters. We already knew that Newsweek aims to put Western civilization and the Bush administration in a bad light.

And I didn't suggest that you had absolved them. Both Newsweek and the rioters are in the wrong.

Like you said, If I insult a bully's mother, I might set in motion my own subsequent thrashing...

Do you hold that you would be responsible for your own thrashing?

We wouldn't be having this discussion if all the rioters had done was shout outrage.

Take as a given that both Newsweek and the rioters are in the wrong. I say the principle is "stick and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."

Or using the toss a match into gasoline analogy ... how can one justify the pool of gasoline represented by the ready-to-rioters? A match is not a bad thing, per se, it takes both, the match and the gasoline to make havoc.

Put in another way, am I not responsible if I yell fire in a crowded theater and people are subsequently trampled to death?

Indeed. But are you responsible for your injuries if you walk up to a bully and tell him his mother wears army boots? Not saying it's smart to do so, just wondering if you are, or if the bully is responsible for the resulting injuries.

When a Federal Court threw out the recently passed marriage amendment to the Nebraska constitution.

Similarly, nothing in the Constitution says the Senate SHALL try impeachments, just that it has the power to do so.

Nothing says the Senate MUST vote on treaties, only that if it does, 2/3rd are required for assent.

I think the only sensible read is that the Senate has a duty in all of these cases, and the duty is not discharged in a refusal to vote.

Why not?

'GREEDY MONSTERS' RULED CHURCH
Published By The Washington Times
May 15, 2002
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
BETHLEHEM, West Bank

Even in the Roman Catholic areas of the complex there was evidence of disregard for religious norms. Catholic priests said that some Bibles were torn up for toilet paper, and many valuable sacramental objects were removed.

'GREEDY MONSTERS' RULED CHURCH

Good question. What allegations, true or false, will incide some observers to violence, or otherwise create a foreseeable risk of injury (like a "Fire!" report does).

• That a Koran was desecrated
• That a Bible was desecrated
• That a flag was desecrated
• That police officers were acquitted in a trial alledging civil right violations
• That prisoners were forced to wear panties on their heads

At least two of the above are adequate justification for violence or foreseeably puts people at risk of injury? And anybody who falsely utters one of those things ought to be punished?

"Fire in a theatre," I doubt it. Sloppy, mean-spirited reporting, to be sure.

One beauty of impeachment by the legislature is that there is NO recourse to the courts. None. The legislature has COMPLETE authority to remove a judge, just because they feel like it, if they want.

In your dreams. Mine too!

He's a federal judge. Congress certainly has the POWER of impeachment. I doubt they will use it.

If the DEMs don't object to moving to the vote, there won't even be a need for a cloture motion.

The filing of a cloture motion is a concession that Rule XXII is a proper route to follow for judicial nominees, regardless of the outcome of the cloture vote that will come on the second day after the motion is filed. Some Democrats would have to vote for cloture in order to obtain the 60 votes required to move to the vote.

I don't have a prediction as to how it will play out, just summarizing a couple of paths that are short of a rules change (or rules reapplication, see Rule XXXI) the way that I understand them.

"Give in" as in not objecting to taking the vote on a Circuit Court nominee? That would avoid pulling the trigger on the "nuclear" or "Constitutional" option, would it not?

Over 15 years of Senate rules - from 1789 to 1806, had a method whereby a simple majority could move to taking the vote.

VIII. While a question is before the Senate, no motion shall be received unless for an amendment, for the previous question, or for postponing the main question, or to commit it, or to adjourn.

IX. The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from the Chair shall be: "Shall the main question be now put?" And if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put.

http://rules.senate.gov/history.html

Better than goose. "This goose is cooked, and yours will be too if you object to giving a nominee the vote."

I hear that, I just think in the long run, it concedes too much to the Senate. The Senate can make him think hard by rejecting the nominee. I don't want a minority of Senators standing in the way of the power granted to the President under the Constitution. If a minority of Senators has the power to block one or five or twenty nominees, then that same power can be used to impose a supermajority requirement on all of them, with the only balance being the political fallout.

I know this issue has been growing to a head for some years. Maybe a Constitutionally principled solution won't be accepted in practice. And I agree that saving face is a powerful motivator. But some of these folks are dug in real hard, and somebody is going to lose some amount of face, even if the "nuclear option" isn't triggered by an objection to vote on a nominee.

As for the vaunted minority voice, it can exercise itself in the field of legislation. That is the province of Congress. They can exercise in the entire field of Article I, and it is a big field indeed. "How much land does a man need," I ask, "How much land does a man need?"

Or the easier said and (for me) remembered, "forty millionths" of an inch.
.000 040