The following post was submitted to moveon's forum. Due to technical issues (what--password? ID? Better judgment? Internet runaround?) , it didn't get through.
I admit to having been "jstoner"; Occupation/Affiliation: "pamphleteer" when I tried to sign up there.
anyway, this was the text:
Very cool to link to the document itself, with the 14 signatures (two additional lines added by hand for reserve signees Chaffee and Inouye). Thank you.
You may have heard about abc news' contest for the best filibuster haiku, to while away the time of the judicial nominee debate. No prize was being awarded, so far as I know. Anyway, here's my entry. It should be intoned in the style of that great Zen poet, Yoda.
Pass the impasse, Yes.
We must; but Supreme Court soon.
Bushites hit the fan.
I was disappointed: mine was not mentioned. Can you guess why?
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Senate Judicial Fireworks: Final WP Posting here
I promise not to bring any more on this subject into my blog after this. for once I will put the entire dialogue into this blog.
From:
chinshihtang
May-19 9:58 pm
To:
winters0
(88 of 214)
4998.88 in reply to 4998.43
These nominees should've been killed in committee--or passed by a bipartisan vote. Here's a suggestion: change the Senate rules so that nominees for lifetime positions need 60% support in committee (and protect committee assignments by party). Basically, that's the majority party plus one.
This will ensure that judges with lifetime tenure that are sent to the floor are in line with the mainstream. If there is a strict partisan divide on the qualifications of the nominee (such as was the case with Bolton, though I'd treat Cabinet/Executive nominations differently), it shouldn't go forward.
On the floor, there will always be party-line voting, or else public posturing for electoral purposes. That's OK, but it's not very relevant to the qualification/mainstream issue.
If Republicans want to change the standing rules of the Senate (for example, so as not to carry rules from one Congress to the next), they need 67 votes. In other words, either a bipartisan-supported change or a whole heck of a lot bigger majority than what they have. Otherwise, to end debate takes 60 votes. Period. Senate majority may have the votes--with enough arm-twisting--to get their way in the showdown vote, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
It is the moderates who are being screwed in this debate by the extremists on both sides. They are slow to rouse, but their wrath is powerful--Bushites beware!
difess76:
*** If Republicans want to change the standing rules of the Senate (for example, so as not to carry rules from one Congress to the next), they need 67 votes. In other words, either a bipartisan-supported change or a whole heck of a lot bigger majority than what they have. Otherwise, to end debate takes 60 votes. ***
That's not in the Constitution and the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules. One can argue that each Senate is a new Senate so each new Senate gets to set it's own rules. We know that each Senate is separate because they each get a number, i.e., 108th, 109th, etc.
The Constitution seems to require only a majority vote for each Senate to set it's rules. Why would the 109th Senate be required to follow the rules of the 108th Senate which no longer exists? Both the 108th and 109th Senate have equal authority under the Constitution so one can't bind the other one. At least some Constitutional scholars believe this to be the case.
From:
chinshihtang
May-19 11:39 pm
To:
djfess76
(93 of 214)
4998.93 in reply to 4998.92
I don't know who these alleged Constitutional scholars are (paid mouthpieces of radical right-wing think-tanks, perhaps?), but the argument is spurious. One of the Senate's rules states very clearly that the rules will be carried over from the previous Congress. The reason for that should be obvious: so the Senate doesn't have to invent its rules (and develop a majority to support them) each time. It is intentionally to preserve some continuity in how the Senate works; it should be obvious that this is a "conservative" provision.
If the Senate Rules Committee decided this broad and general provision made no sense, they would review each rule for fairness (and, yes, whether the rule makes sense in today's society) and determine whether it should continue from Congress to Congress, then get a bipartisan majority to support a change in the rules so that only some of them would carry forward. I see no move in that direction; only a move by a narrow majority to vitiate any opposition.
From:
djfess76
May-20 5:12 am
To:
chinshihtang
(100 of 214)
4998.100 in reply to 4998.93
*** I don't know who these alleged Constitutional scholars are (paid mouthpieces of radical right-wing think-tanks, perhaps?), but the argument is spurious. One of the Senate's rules states very clearly that the rules will be carried over from the previous Congress. The reason for that should be obvious: so the Senate doesn't have to invent its rules (and develop a majority to support them) each time. It is intentionally to preserve some continuity in how the Senate works; it should be obvious that this is a "conservative" provision.***
Sorry, I should have taken the time to point the article by the law professor who wrote it. I don't know the politics of the professor, but here is the article: Can the Senate Bind Itself So that Only a Supermajority Can Change Its Rules? The scholar seems to be just one of those typical legal beagles who teaches law for a living.
From:
chinshihtang
May-20 5:26 pm
To:
djfess76
(199 of 214)
4998.199 in reply to 4998.100
OK, I read the piece you referred to above. There is an interesting theoretical argument that makes sense on the surface--that legislatures are not limited in what they can do by what has been legislated in the past. He gives an extreme example--if the Senate rules required a unanimous vote to pass legislation.
The problem with such a theory is that the rules in place are not so extreme. The rules have been designed with wisdom, to protect the minority. The greatest example of how the Senate rules protect the minority and still remain practical is the unanimous consent aspect--the Senate can do all kinds of things by unanimous consent. When there is not consensus, though, the body has to proceed carefully, by the rules. The breaking of the rules to change the rules violates the Senate's traditions and norms.
But is it unconstitutional? Strangely enough, the author makes the argument that the rules to amend the Constitution itself are subject to the same argument. The will of the people being supreme, he argues, why not change the constitution by simple majority vote, instead of the arduous and usually unsuccessful process specified in the Constitution itself?
Why, indeed? We see what a slippery slope we'd be on. Funny, he doesn't even mention the alternative provided in the Constitution itself which directly addresses his suggestion, of a new Constitutional convention which could make its own rules.
I think the piece is useful to prod some thinking, but way off-base in terms of understanding where the door may be in this impasse. I will give some credit though: the piece was written 24 months or so ago, and it anticipates much of the current argument.
One other point, in fairness: the author is a professor of law who was a former clerk to Justice Blackmun. So, probably not a far-right ideologue by trade--actually, that makes sense because his arguments are anything but conservative.
Edited 5/20/2005 5:31 pm ET by chinshihtang
From:
djfess76
May-20 6:30 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(202 of 214)
4998.202 in reply to 4998.199
*** One other point, in fairness: the author is a professor of law who was a former clerk to Justice Blackmun. So, probably not a far-right ideologue by trade--actually, that makes sense because his arguments are anything but conservative. ***
You noticed that I only pointed out the article and not the fact that the author did not seem to fit into a conservative mold at first glance. I have not researched his background, but suspect that you are correct.
The thing about the law is that it seems that when you follow a theme of thought you can arrive at a strange destination that seems to kill all the effort you spent getting to the end point. But it is logical to me that every numbered Senate should set its own rules and do it soon after they are sworn in. In my opinion, the setting of the rules should be part of the training given to all freshman Senators. They could even have a Rules Committee to help to speed things along.
I have concluded that most of the nominees put up by either side are qualified to be approved. Therefore, I believe that any nominee that gets to the Senate floor should be voted on by the full Senate.
I also think that the idea of one Senator from the state where the vacancy exists should not have the power to kill a nomination.
That leaves us with the Judiciary Committee and I have some doubts that it should have the power to kill a nomination. The Committee probably should hold whatever hearings that are needed and then just pass the nomination along and let the Senate vote. If there is a bad nominee based on the hearings then the Senators should go on record and not approve the nomination.
Then, there would be no need for the filibuster or filibuster rules with respect to judicial nominees.
From:
chinshihtang
3:04 am
To:
djfess76 unread
(214 of 214)
4998.214 in reply to 4998.202
Your tone is most smoothing, but I have to disagree with nearly every point you make after the opening pleasantries.
I would say the most general objection I have is the notion that the Senate needs to roll over more smoothly, like the House does (if you have the majority, or can twist arms sufficiently forcefully, as with the Medicare prescription legislation).
There is something to be said for deliberation; a little less alacrity in the resolutions supporting the invasion into Iraq would have been wise. What was the big hurry for, anyway, besides the re-election timetable? Don't tell me it was the local calendar: we managed to catch the mother of all sandstorms, after all, and we failed to get Turkish cooperation before the invasion. Of course, the bullying of the Executive, the scorched earth attack on anyone who questioned the military adventurism...would that the War Powers Act were a bit stronger or the requirement to declare war (it only takes a nanosecond, once there's resolve or a casus belli) a bit clearer. Who was it who leaked Valerie Flame's cover, anyway? I'm so glad the Executive is personally taking care of this one.
I think that if the Senate had to set its own rules, one of two things would result: 1) a party line vote with rules dictated by the Majority Leader (and thus, written by the M.L.'s staff); or2) chaos.
I think that the committee's hands should be strengthened to prevent placing onto the floor for advise and consent into lifetime positions those who cannot draw bipartisan support as to their qualifications, integrity, and temperament. Then it is a political question on the floor whether, given those attestations from the committee, the nominee should be given the post for life.
Although the circumstances in the Senate are not quite as clear as those I propose--both committee votes and floor votes are political, and both are around qualifications--these candidates did not get that kind of ringing endorsement, so protracted delay is justified (you know "protracted", he's Tom's cousin). I think both sides have fired their shots across the bow. The escalation can be ended if the Republicans give up their insistence on rolling up Senate debate at will. Then we can go on standby until the Administration has to come across with Supreme Court nominations. Then, if they're foolish once again, the Bushites will get "ventilated", so to speak.
And a good day to you, as well!
From:
chinshihtang
May-19 9:58 pm
To:
winters0
(88 of 214)
4998.88 in reply to 4998.43
These nominees should've been killed in committee--or passed by a bipartisan vote. Here's a suggestion: change the Senate rules so that nominees for lifetime positions need 60% support in committee (and protect committee assignments by party). Basically, that's the majority party plus one.
This will ensure that judges with lifetime tenure that are sent to the floor are in line with the mainstream. If there is a strict partisan divide on the qualifications of the nominee (such as was the case with Bolton, though I'd treat Cabinet/Executive nominations differently), it shouldn't go forward.
On the floor, there will always be party-line voting, or else public posturing for electoral purposes. That's OK, but it's not very relevant to the qualification/mainstream issue.
If Republicans want to change the standing rules of the Senate (for example, so as not to carry rules from one Congress to the next), they need 67 votes. In other words, either a bipartisan-supported change or a whole heck of a lot bigger majority than what they have. Otherwise, to end debate takes 60 votes. Period. Senate majority may have the votes--with enough arm-twisting--to get their way in the showdown vote, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
It is the moderates who are being screwed in this debate by the extremists on both sides. They are slow to rouse, but their wrath is powerful--Bushites beware!
difess76:
*** If Republicans want to change the standing rules of the Senate (for example, so as not to carry rules from one Congress to the next), they need 67 votes. In other words, either a bipartisan-supported change or a whole heck of a lot bigger majority than what they have. Otherwise, to end debate takes 60 votes. ***
That's not in the Constitution and the Constitution allows the Senate to set its own rules. One can argue that each Senate is a new Senate so each new Senate gets to set it's own rules. We know that each Senate is separate because they each get a number, i.e., 108th, 109th, etc.
The Constitution seems to require only a majority vote for each Senate to set it's rules. Why would the 109th Senate be required to follow the rules of the 108th Senate which no longer exists? Both the 108th and 109th Senate have equal authority under the Constitution so one can't bind the other one. At least some Constitutional scholars believe this to be the case.
From:
chinshihtang
May-19 11:39 pm
To:
djfess76
(93 of 214)
4998.93 in reply to 4998.92
I don't know who these alleged Constitutional scholars are (paid mouthpieces of radical right-wing think-tanks, perhaps?), but the argument is spurious. One of the Senate's rules states very clearly that the rules will be carried over from the previous Congress. The reason for that should be obvious: so the Senate doesn't have to invent its rules (and develop a majority to support them) each time. It is intentionally to preserve some continuity in how the Senate works; it should be obvious that this is a "conservative" provision.
If the Senate Rules Committee decided this broad and general provision made no sense, they would review each rule for fairness (and, yes, whether the rule makes sense in today's society) and determine whether it should continue from Congress to Congress, then get a bipartisan majority to support a change in the rules so that only some of them would carry forward. I see no move in that direction; only a move by a narrow majority to vitiate any opposition.
From:
djfess76
May-20 5:12 am
To:
chinshihtang
(100 of 214)
4998.100 in reply to 4998.93
*** I don't know who these alleged Constitutional scholars are (paid mouthpieces of radical right-wing think-tanks, perhaps?), but the argument is spurious. One of the Senate's rules states very clearly that the rules will be carried over from the previous Congress. The reason for that should be obvious: so the Senate doesn't have to invent its rules (and develop a majority to support them) each time. It is intentionally to preserve some continuity in how the Senate works; it should be obvious that this is a "conservative" provision.***
Sorry, I should have taken the time to point the article by the law professor who wrote it. I don't know the politics of the professor, but here is the article: Can the Senate Bind Itself So that Only a Supermajority Can Change Its Rules? The scholar seems to be just one of those typical legal beagles who teaches law for a living.
From:
chinshihtang
May-20 5:26 pm
To:
djfess76
(199 of 214)
4998.199 in reply to 4998.100
OK, I read the piece you referred to above. There is an interesting theoretical argument that makes sense on the surface--that legislatures are not limited in what they can do by what has been legislated in the past. He gives an extreme example--if the Senate rules required a unanimous vote to pass legislation.
The problem with such a theory is that the rules in place are not so extreme. The rules have been designed with wisdom, to protect the minority. The greatest example of how the Senate rules protect the minority and still remain practical is the unanimous consent aspect--the Senate can do all kinds of things by unanimous consent. When there is not consensus, though, the body has to proceed carefully, by the rules. The breaking of the rules to change the rules violates the Senate's traditions and norms.
But is it unconstitutional? Strangely enough, the author makes the argument that the rules to amend the Constitution itself are subject to the same argument. The will of the people being supreme, he argues, why not change the constitution by simple majority vote, instead of the arduous and usually unsuccessful process specified in the Constitution itself?
Why, indeed? We see what a slippery slope we'd be on. Funny, he doesn't even mention the alternative provided in the Constitution itself which directly addresses his suggestion, of a new Constitutional convention which could make its own rules.
I think the piece is useful to prod some thinking, but way off-base in terms of understanding where the door may be in this impasse. I will give some credit though: the piece was written 24 months or so ago, and it anticipates much of the current argument.
One other point, in fairness: the author is a professor of law who was a former clerk to Justice Blackmun. So, probably not a far-right ideologue by trade--actually, that makes sense because his arguments are anything but conservative.
Edited 5/20/2005 5:31 pm ET by chinshihtang
From:
djfess76
May-20 6:30 pm
To:
chinshihtang
(202 of 214)
4998.202 in reply to 4998.199
*** One other point, in fairness: the author is a professor of law who was a former clerk to Justice Blackmun. So, probably not a far-right ideologue by trade--actually, that makes sense because his arguments are anything but conservative. ***
You noticed that I only pointed out the article and not the fact that the author did not seem to fit into a conservative mold at first glance. I have not researched his background, but suspect that you are correct.
The thing about the law is that it seems that when you follow a theme of thought you can arrive at a strange destination that seems to kill all the effort you spent getting to the end point. But it is logical to me that every numbered Senate should set its own rules and do it soon after they are sworn in. In my opinion, the setting of the rules should be part of the training given to all freshman Senators. They could even have a Rules Committee to help to speed things along.
I have concluded that most of the nominees put up by either side are qualified to be approved. Therefore, I believe that any nominee that gets to the Senate floor should be voted on by the full Senate.
I also think that the idea of one Senator from the state where the vacancy exists should not have the power to kill a nomination.
That leaves us with the Judiciary Committee and I have some doubts that it should have the power to kill a nomination. The Committee probably should hold whatever hearings that are needed and then just pass the nomination along and let the Senate vote. If there is a bad nominee based on the hearings then the Senators should go on record and not approve the nomination.
Then, there would be no need for the filibuster or filibuster rules with respect to judicial nominees.
From:
chinshihtang
3:04 am
To:
djfess76 unread
(214 of 214)
4998.214 in reply to 4998.202
Your tone is most smoothing, but I have to disagree with nearly every point you make after the opening pleasantries.
I would say the most general objection I have is the notion that the Senate needs to roll over more smoothly, like the House does (if you have the majority, or can twist arms sufficiently forcefully, as with the Medicare prescription legislation).
There is something to be said for deliberation; a little less alacrity in the resolutions supporting the invasion into Iraq would have been wise. What was the big hurry for, anyway, besides the re-election timetable? Don't tell me it was the local calendar: we managed to catch the mother of all sandstorms, after all, and we failed to get Turkish cooperation before the invasion. Of course, the bullying of the Executive, the scorched earth attack on anyone who questioned the military adventurism...would that the War Powers Act were a bit stronger or the requirement to declare war (it only takes a nanosecond, once there's resolve or a casus belli) a bit clearer. Who was it who leaked Valerie Flame's cover, anyway? I'm so glad the Executive is personally taking care of this one.
I think that if the Senate had to set its own rules, one of two things would result: 1) a party line vote with rules dictated by the Majority Leader (and thus, written by the M.L.'s staff); or2) chaos.
I think that the committee's hands should be strengthened to prevent placing onto the floor for advise and consent into lifetime positions those who cannot draw bipartisan support as to their qualifications, integrity, and temperament. Then it is a political question on the floor whether, given those attestations from the committee, the nominee should be given the post for life.
Although the circumstances in the Senate are not quite as clear as those I propose--both committee votes and floor votes are political, and both are around qualifications--these candidates did not get that kind of ringing endorsement, so protracted delay is justified (you know "protracted", he's Tom's cousin). I think both sides have fired their shots across the bow. The escalation can be ended if the Republicans give up their insistence on rolling up Senate debate at will. Then we can go on standby until the Administration has to come across with Supreme Court nominations. Then, if they're foolish once again, the Bushites will get "ventilated", so to speak.
And a good day to you, as well!
Sunday, May 15, 2005
It's pronounced "Nucular Option" in the White House...
...so nobody gets confused and calls in the Strategic Air Command.
More Post Politics Talk:
From:
chinshihtang
1:30 am
To:
winters0 unread
(130 of 130)
4988.130 in reply to 4988.127
Although I would agree that the Constitution itself is not endangered in this struggle, I don't take the whole thing nearly as mildly as you. The ground which is seriously in play is the small range of federal power which lies outside the imperial Presidency buttressed by Congressional majorities.
Currently, we're in Year 3 of Caesar W. Bush II's reign, which dates from the '02 midterm elections. So, in that sense, we are talking exactly about that bit of American Republic--as opposed to Empire--that remains.
And don't get me started on this thread about how the voters will settle this. I'd be surprised if The Senate Nafu (or its other framing names: "Countering the Judicial Activism Threat", "future Supreme Court nomination wars", "Nuclear/Constitutional Option", etc.) ever pops into the top 3 concerns of voters in the next decade (though I admit something similar might have crept in there once in the past, during the Clinton-Gingrich impasse). The substantive bit here is the battle of rival elite organizations for power on the ground, not the circus of superficiality which is mass-media-driven electoral politics.
This is a classic Bushite manufactured crisis, developed to divert attention from the embarrassing absence of creativity to address any domestic or international issues of the moment. And a sop to true conservatives appalled by the Bushite practices of fiscal irresponsibility, centralization of power, poaching on civil liberties, and military adventurism. Though Bush himself has sought to keep himself personally out of it, the whole embroglio has been conjured up in the White House's political affairs area upon the death of the Social Security initiative.
From:
winters0
May-15 5:15 pm
To:
JohnFBDC
(127 of 130)
4988.127 in reply to 4988.126
Caswell may have been along straingt party lines but I think it too had an element of bipartisanship. That is what truly makes this case unique. We are facing the party leadership leading a fillibuster. Want to know what really irks me about this? You and I probaly now know more of the history of filibustering judicial nominees than our Senators. My wife won't watch the news with me now because she has gotten tired of me spouting out, "That's not true". :)
All said and done though our Senators will hear from the electorate and the issue will be solved in the next decade or so. The Republic will not collapse. It is just another bump in our political evolution.
and here's another bit, posted on buffalobeast.blogspot.com:
Chin Shih Tang said...
I was struck as I randomly fell into your blog that we're on the same wavelength for many things, such as the recent "Voinovich Cave", "The White House's Nucular Option", etc. I've been pounding away on the Washington Post forums lately under this pseudonym, if you're interested. When it comes to third parties (and fourth, etc.) I also agree. I'm most willing to encourage dissatisfied Republicans to find new homes, and Indpendents to find a political home, even if it's Green, Libertarian, or Whatsnot. It's a question of really knowing what you believe in. In that regard, though, I have to disagree with those abandoning the whole Dem party because a few sold out on the bankruptcy bill. In the anals of Bluedog Bushite Salad Tossing, this one's a relative dingleberry. (As compared to the Medicare prescription legislative log, or even some Democrat voting for Brick Bolton on the floor to safeguard those vulnerable Presidential prerogatives!)Before the Card Industry and I reached a mutually amicable separation recently, I worked in the credit shops for many a year, and I can tell you that bankruptcy fraud is big, and that honest consumers end up paying for it.Sure, the rejected amendments would've made it a more humane legislation, but there is a real rationale beyond the usual Affirmative Action for the Privileged one.
16/5/05 2:39 AM
More Post Politics Talk:
From:
chinshihtang
1:30 am
To:
winters0 unread
(130 of 130)
4988.130 in reply to 4988.127
Although I would agree that the Constitution itself is not endangered in this struggle, I don't take the whole thing nearly as mildly as you. The ground which is seriously in play is the small range of federal power which lies outside the imperial Presidency buttressed by Congressional majorities.
Currently, we're in Year 3 of Caesar W. Bush II's reign, which dates from the '02 midterm elections. So, in that sense, we are talking exactly about that bit of American Republic--as opposed to Empire--that remains.
And don't get me started on this thread about how the voters will settle this. I'd be surprised if The Senate Nafu (or its other framing names: "Countering the Judicial Activism Threat", "future Supreme Court nomination wars", "Nuclear/Constitutional Option", etc.) ever pops into the top 3 concerns of voters in the next decade (though I admit something similar might have crept in there once in the past, during the Clinton-Gingrich impasse). The substantive bit here is the battle of rival elite organizations for power on the ground, not the circus of superficiality which is mass-media-driven electoral politics.
This is a classic Bushite manufactured crisis, developed to divert attention from the embarrassing absence of creativity to address any domestic or international issues of the moment. And a sop to true conservatives appalled by the Bushite practices of fiscal irresponsibility, centralization of power, poaching on civil liberties, and military adventurism. Though Bush himself has sought to keep himself personally out of it, the whole embroglio has been conjured up in the White House's political affairs area upon the death of the Social Security initiative.
From:
winters0
May-15 5:15 pm
To:
JohnFBDC
(127 of 130)
4988.127 in reply to 4988.126
Caswell may have been along straingt party lines but I think it too had an element of bipartisanship. That is what truly makes this case unique. We are facing the party leadership leading a fillibuster. Want to know what really irks me about this? You and I probaly now know more of the history of filibustering judicial nominees than our Senators. My wife won't watch the news with me now because she has gotten tired of me spouting out, "That's not true". :)
All said and done though our Senators will hear from the electorate and the issue will be solved in the next decade or so. The Republic will not collapse. It is just another bump in our political evolution.
and here's another bit, posted on buffalobeast.blogspot.com:
Chin Shih Tang said...
I was struck as I randomly fell into your blog that we're on the same wavelength for many things, such as the recent "Voinovich Cave", "The White House's Nucular Option", etc. I've been pounding away on the Washington Post forums lately under this pseudonym, if you're interested. When it comes to third parties (and fourth, etc.) I also agree. I'm most willing to encourage dissatisfied Republicans to find new homes, and Indpendents to find a political home, even if it's Green, Libertarian, or Whatsnot. It's a question of really knowing what you believe in. In that regard, though, I have to disagree with those abandoning the whole Dem party because a few sold out on the bankruptcy bill. In the anals of Bluedog Bushite Salad Tossing, this one's a relative dingleberry. (As compared to the Medicare prescription legislative log, or even some Democrat voting for Brick Bolton on the floor to safeguard those vulnerable Presidential prerogatives!)Before the Card Industry and I reached a mutually amicable separation recently, I worked in the credit shops for many a year, and I can tell you that bankruptcy fraud is big, and that honest consumers end up paying for it.Sure, the rejected amendments would've made it a more humane legislation, but there is a real rationale beyond the usual Affirmative Action for the Privileged one.
16/5/05 2:39 AM
The Nuclear Option: It's a Mofo
Once again, Politics Talk at the Washington Post Forum.
I think we're getting to the real Profiles in Courage-type stuff, with the pressure on a few Liberal Republicans and Blue-dog Democrats.
From:
chinshihtang
3:49 am
To:
JohnFBDC unread
(117 of 117)
4988.117 in reply to 4988.116
I think you guys must be getting tired with your extended debate debate and the various technicalities of the judicial positions of these nominees--all of them technically proficient putzes who've been cloistered too much and exposed to the real world too little, so let me try a little different tack:
This fight is about majority rule and how far it can legitimately be taken in a democratic republic. Are we going to respect the checks and balances in the current system or not?
The article about Terrence Boyle (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051102029.html?nav=mb) which was supposed to set the stage for this particular forum was quite instructive. That article points out how Jesse Helms, using a privilege of the Senate in Committee, blocked the confirmation of judicial appointments Clinton sent for federal judges in North Carolina. Not 40 Senators, one. That wasn't even a rule; it was some kind of courtesy afforded Helms. Compared to this, I think the Democrats have plenty of "right" to block the up-down vote of any nomination as long as the Republicans do not have the votes to invoke cloture.
More to the point, Frist's plan seems to be to run roughshod over the Senate's rules, which I would characterize as having been designed to protect the minority but allow for purposeful debate.
It is to the credit of several Republican senators that they have openly protested this attempt to impose the tyranny of the majority. I feel some sympathy for Liberal Republicans that the extremists in their party force them into this position, in which they are pressured to vote against their judgment--and for what? to allow judges that they know should not be approved to reach the floor?-- but they have made their deal with this Bushite Revolution.
I do not believe the Democrats will shut down the Senate if they do not get their way this time. The minority leadership has clearly shown that they will fight, but that these judgeships are not important enough for a death match.
These judges are merely the opening skirmishes for the battle royal that will come with a future Supreme Court nomination. Not the replacement for Rehnquist--that's a reactionary's seat and a new reactionary will not alter the balance of the Court. Not even the Scalia elevation to Chief Justice--that's just symbolic. The real war will come when the first Bushite nomination to replace one of the more moderate judges comes. Then the Democrats will shut the place down, and they will be right to do so. The Senate minority is merely setting the stage for that drama now, and the majority shows no sign they will not push this to the brink at that time.
What can you or I do about this? I think we can warn our Senators of both parties that they will be punished if they permit this war to erupt--but they already know that. We can pray for wisdom to prevail, but I fear that the hands of these men and women are neither free nor driven inevitably by a Supreme Being to some righteous outcome.
For now, I pray for the health of the moderate and liberal Supreme Court judges. That seems the only check we have right now on the lust for power of the Bushites, who have nearly gained total political control over the greatest center of power on Earth, and have already repeatedly shown their inability to govern wisely.
I think we're getting to the real Profiles in Courage-type stuff, with the pressure on a few Liberal Republicans and Blue-dog Democrats.
From:
chinshihtang
3:49 am
To:
JohnFBDC unread
(117 of 117)
4988.117 in reply to 4988.116
I think you guys must be getting tired with your extended debate debate and the various technicalities of the judicial positions of these nominees--all of them technically proficient putzes who've been cloistered too much and exposed to the real world too little, so let me try a little different tack:
This fight is about majority rule and how far it can legitimately be taken in a democratic republic. Are we going to respect the checks and balances in the current system or not?
The article about Terrence Boyle (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051102029.html?nav=mb) which was supposed to set the stage for this particular forum was quite instructive. That article points out how Jesse Helms, using a privilege of the Senate in Committee, blocked the confirmation of judicial appointments Clinton sent for federal judges in North Carolina. Not 40 Senators, one. That wasn't even a rule; it was some kind of courtesy afforded Helms. Compared to this, I think the Democrats have plenty of "right" to block the up-down vote of any nomination as long as the Republicans do not have the votes to invoke cloture.
More to the point, Frist's plan seems to be to run roughshod over the Senate's rules, which I would characterize as having been designed to protect the minority but allow for purposeful debate.
It is to the credit of several Republican senators that they have openly protested this attempt to impose the tyranny of the majority. I feel some sympathy for Liberal Republicans that the extremists in their party force them into this position, in which they are pressured to vote against their judgment--and for what? to allow judges that they know should not be approved to reach the floor?-- but they have made their deal with this Bushite Revolution.
I do not believe the Democrats will shut down the Senate if they do not get their way this time. The minority leadership has clearly shown that they will fight, but that these judgeships are not important enough for a death match.
These judges are merely the opening skirmishes for the battle royal that will come with a future Supreme Court nomination. Not the replacement for Rehnquist--that's a reactionary's seat and a new reactionary will not alter the balance of the Court. Not even the Scalia elevation to Chief Justice--that's just symbolic. The real war will come when the first Bushite nomination to replace one of the more moderate judges comes. Then the Democrats will shut the place down, and they will be right to do so. The Senate minority is merely setting the stage for that drama now, and the majority shows no sign they will not push this to the brink at that time.
What can you or I do about this? I think we can warn our Senators of both parties that they will be punished if they permit this war to erupt--but they already know that. We can pray for wisdom to prevail, but I fear that the hands of these men and women are neither free nor driven inevitably by a Supreme Being to some righteous outcome.
For now, I pray for the health of the moderate and liberal Supreme Court judges. That seems the only check we have right now on the lust for power of the Bushites, who have nearly gained total political control over the greatest center of power on Earth, and have already repeatedly shown their inability to govern wisely.
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Politics Forum at Washington Post: Bolton
From:
chinshihtang
8:42 pm
To:
TraderCap unread
(252 of 253)
4965.252 in reply to 4965.250
The U.N. is still a place where representatives of member governments come and express their views. Thank goodness, they do a little more than that, too!
I don't think it is a menace to anybody--or particularly, to any member government--at this point. Any half-assed government can find an ally among the five permanent Security Council veto-holding nations, and thus whatever tyranny--and most any aggressive behavior--can be safely done without fear of the U.N. getting involved. A good example, in fact, is Iraq, where the U.S. did not get any permission to invade and occupy the nation, where the Secretary General properly points out the invasion was basically illegal, but that has no real weight on the situation.
Analytically, I think those who think Bolton's nomination means the Bushites mean to leave the U.N.--or wish it were true--are dead wrong. Although I see no evidence Dubya himself has any knowledge of history, I know Rove (and his father) do. They don't want #43 to become the guy who doomed the U.N. as an organization. The U.S. Senate got the blame for failure to endorse the Treaty of Versailles and get the U.S. into the League of Nations, and that has not been to their credit--no matter how lousy the League's setup may have been. Instead, Bolton's nomination signals the desire to continue to leave the U.N. out there hanging in the wind, irrelevant.
Bolton in some ways is the perfect choice to represent the Bush Administration of the U.S. federal government in the U.N. The problem is if he thinks he represents the American people--at best, he represents 51.5% of the 60% of (ruled) eligible voters who voted for the President.
With Sen. Voinovich's shameful cave (he wanted to do his duty but ultimately failed to do so, since a candidate he knows is not qualified will be advanced to the Senate floor with his cooperation), Bolton seems sure to make it eventually. No doubt the Bushite Ambassador to the U.N. will be under close observation--a tight leash, as it were--and will be on his best behavior. No doubt it won't be adequate to represent American interests, but that's good enough for the Bushite objectives.
I wish it were possible to have someone represent the American people's interest--as opposed to the U.S. federal government's interest--at the U.N. Perhaps if the posters get their wish, the Bushites will withdraw, and we could have Ted Turner become the American anti-Bushite Ambassador! He's already providing--personally--about as much funding as the federal government to the organization.
Replying to:
From:
TraderCap
6:41 pm
To:
drgonzaga unread
(250 of 254)
4965.250 in reply to 4965.217
The UN may have its use as far as being a body where countries may gather and express their views, however this function a long time ago was left behind.
Today it is a body that espouses collectivist ideas and is quite simply poisonous as well as being a menace to free nations.
The issue on Iraq for example, where a free nation, the United States, has to obtain "permission" to act against a tyrrany.
The United Nations is a poisoned organization and the United States ought to collapse it by withdrawing as a member.
chinshihtang
8:42 pm
To:
TraderCap unread
(252 of 253)
4965.252 in reply to 4965.250
The U.N. is still a place where representatives of member governments come and express their views. Thank goodness, they do a little more than that, too!
I don't think it is a menace to anybody--or particularly, to any member government--at this point. Any half-assed government can find an ally among the five permanent Security Council veto-holding nations, and thus whatever tyranny--and most any aggressive behavior--can be safely done without fear of the U.N. getting involved. A good example, in fact, is Iraq, where the U.S. did not get any permission to invade and occupy the nation, where the Secretary General properly points out the invasion was basically illegal, but that has no real weight on the situation.
Analytically, I think those who think Bolton's nomination means the Bushites mean to leave the U.N.--or wish it were true--are dead wrong. Although I see no evidence Dubya himself has any knowledge of history, I know Rove (and his father) do. They don't want #43 to become the guy who doomed the U.N. as an organization. The U.S. Senate got the blame for failure to endorse the Treaty of Versailles and get the U.S. into the League of Nations, and that has not been to their credit--no matter how lousy the League's setup may have been. Instead, Bolton's nomination signals the desire to continue to leave the U.N. out there hanging in the wind, irrelevant.
Bolton in some ways is the perfect choice to represent the Bush Administration of the U.S. federal government in the U.N. The problem is if he thinks he represents the American people--at best, he represents 51.5% of the 60% of (ruled) eligible voters who voted for the President.
With Sen. Voinovich's shameful cave (he wanted to do his duty but ultimately failed to do so, since a candidate he knows is not qualified will be advanced to the Senate floor with his cooperation), Bolton seems sure to make it eventually. No doubt the Bushite Ambassador to the U.N. will be under close observation--a tight leash, as it were--and will be on his best behavior. No doubt it won't be adequate to represent American interests, but that's good enough for the Bushite objectives.
I wish it were possible to have someone represent the American people's interest--as opposed to the U.S. federal government's interest--at the U.N. Perhaps if the posters get their wish, the Bushites will withdraw, and we could have Ted Turner become the American anti-Bushite Ambassador! He's already providing--personally--about as much funding as the federal government to the organization.
Replying to:
From:
TraderCap
6:41 pm
To:
drgonzaga unread
(250 of 254)
4965.250 in reply to 4965.217
The UN may have its use as far as being a body where countries may gather and express their views, however this function a long time ago was left behind.
Today it is a body that espouses collectivist ideas and is quite simply poisonous as well as being a menace to free nations.
The issue on Iraq for example, where a free nation, the United States, has to obtain "permission" to act against a tyrrany.
The United Nations is a poisoned organization and the United States ought to collapse it by withdrawing as a member.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Nuclear War: A Modest Counter-Proposal
Letter sent to Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) through his website:
I believe in the principle that judicial nominees endorsed by the Judiciary Committee should be entitled ultimately to votes of the full Senate; however, the cost is too high for the country if the Senate majority will insist on breaking the rules--on changing the Senate's rules themselves--in order to force cloture on the debate over this small number of nominations. In other words, there are principles on both sides of the argument, but the potential cost to the legislative potential of this Congress will harm all: both major parties, and the public wellbeing.
I believe that one must "show the door" to one's opponents in a lose-lose situation such as this case, and I think that you can do that here. The way out is a compromise in which Democrats will agree to rules permitting "eventual" vote on these few stalled nominees (and they will no doubt have a long debate beforehand on each and every one), tightening the requirements for future nominees to emerge from Committee (a 60% majority), and laying a foundation for future bipartisan cooperation by the majority's leadership inviting the Democrats to take the lead--for a change--in developing and offering "fair and balanced" electoral reform legislation.
The proposal I put forth above suggesting we raise the bar for advancing judiciary nominees for any lifetime position out of Committee would put the issue where it properly belongs. This would require a rules change or two, probably; unlike the proposal to limit debate across the board on judicial nominees, it could probably gain a 2/3 majority.
The objective of fair and balanced electoral reform legislation would be to ensure higher quality (in terms of confidence in counts, and consistency in the principles of eligibility to vote in federal elections) at much lower cost to the public. It would need to be nonpartisan legislation, and its result would be as good as a tax cut to the American people! Better, in that it would have a permanent benefit in terms of the legitimacy with which the public views our electoral process.
I believe in the principle that judicial nominees endorsed by the Judiciary Committee should be entitled ultimately to votes of the full Senate; however, the cost is too high for the country if the Senate majority will insist on breaking the rules--on changing the Senate's rules themselves--in order to force cloture on the debate over this small number of nominations. In other words, there are principles on both sides of the argument, but the potential cost to the legislative potential of this Congress will harm all: both major parties, and the public wellbeing.
I believe that one must "show the door" to one's opponents in a lose-lose situation such as this case, and I think that you can do that here. The way out is a compromise in which Democrats will agree to rules permitting "eventual" vote on these few stalled nominees (and they will no doubt have a long debate beforehand on each and every one), tightening the requirements for future nominees to emerge from Committee (a 60% majority), and laying a foundation for future bipartisan cooperation by the majority's leadership inviting the Democrats to take the lead--for a change--in developing and offering "fair and balanced" electoral reform legislation.
The proposal I put forth above suggesting we raise the bar for advancing judiciary nominees for any lifetime position out of Committee would put the issue where it properly belongs. This would require a rules change or two, probably; unlike the proposal to limit debate across the board on judicial nominees, it could probably gain a 2/3 majority.
The objective of fair and balanced electoral reform legislation would be to ensure higher quality (in terms of confidence in counts, and consistency in the principles of eligibility to vote in federal elections) at much lower cost to the public. It would need to be nonpartisan legislation, and its result would be as good as a tax cut to the American people! Better, in that it would have a permanent benefit in terms of the legitimacy with which the public views our electoral process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
