Destroy the Constitution?

[Gustave Weber]

Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments. The Constitution requires super majorities for several
functions, including trials of impeachment and treaties, but this was
never meant for instances of advise and consent. How do I know? Look
at Article 2 Section 2:

"Article 2, Section 2 (2.) He [the President] shall have Power, by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of
Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

Note that in the same sentence requiring advise and consent, it requires
a two thirds majority for a different function, treaties.

The idea that changing the filibuster rules is "destroying the
constitution" is just another political lie from the political liars.

Gus Weber

[shape sweeney]

This isn't about filibuster's. None of Bush'es appointees have been
filibustered. Sounds like you have been the victim of a lie yourself.
Start by getting a broad range of news and opinion, and get your fat
head out of FOX and Rush Limbaugh the pill pusher.

Post by Gustave Weber
Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments. The Constitution requires super majorities for several
functions, including trials of impeachment and treaties, but this was
never meant for instances of advise and consent. How do I know? Look
"Article 2, Section 2 (2.) He [the President] shall have Power, by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of
Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Note that in the same sentence requiring advise and consent, it requires
a two thirds majority for a different function, treaties.
The idea that changing the filibuster rules is "destroying the
constitution" is just another political lie from the political liars.
Gus Weber

[Lone Haranguer]

Post by shape sweeney
This isn't about filibuster's.

Ummmm, yes it is.

None of Bush'es appointees have been

Post by shape sweeney
filibustered.

The threat of a filibuster if the vote comes to the floor has kept the
appointments in committee so actually the appointees HAVE been victims
of the filibuster.

Sounds like you have been the victim of a lie yourself.

What do you call the information you posted above? Just being
disingenuous?

Post by shape sweeney
Start by getting a broad range of news and opinion, and get your fat
head out of FOX and Rush Limbaugh the pill pusher.

Explain why Bush's appointments haven't come to the Senate floor for a
vote. Give it your best shot. Try not to quote the NY Times...
LZ

[shape sweeney]

I don't read the NYTimes. There has not been a filibuster in the Senate
in ages. So, it's the threat of a filibuster, or a filibuster? Which
is it? Our government is set up so that it is difficult to pass
legislation, make appointments, and wage war. The SENATE is the most
difficult hurdle to pass. Intentionally so, set up by our illustrious
founding fathers. If there isn't more than consensus in the Senate, it
ain't gonna happen, so quit whining. I know the difference between the
threat of a filibuster and and actual filibuster. Do you?

Which of Bush'es appointees haven't been confirmed? 4, out of several
hundred. The Republican congress gave Clinton a much harder time on his
appointees than the Dem's are giving Bush. So quit whining!

Keep up this divisiveness, keep making accusations, keep up with all of
your hate for Liberals. The Fascists will not be in power forever. You
will live to regret it. You will live to regret it when REAL
Republicans regain power. Perhaps then, we will have some moderation
and respect for the truth.

Post by Lone Haranguer

Post by shape sweeney
This isn't about filibuster's.

Ummmm, yes it is.
None of Bush'es appointees have been

Post by shape sweeney
filibustered.

The threat of a filibuster if the vote comes to the floor has kept the
appointments in committee so actually the appointees HAVE been victims
of the filibuster.
Sounds like you have been the victim of a lie yourself.
What do you call the information you posted above? Just being
disingenuous?

Post by shape sweeney
Start by getting a broad range of news and opinion, and get your fat
head out of FOX and Rush Limbaugh the pill pusher.

Explain why Bush's appointments haven't come to the Senate floor for a
vote. Give it your best shot. Try not to quote the NY Times...
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

shape sweeney wrote:

I know the difference between the

Post by shape sweeney
threat of a filibuster and and actual filibuster. Do you?

"Article 2, Section 2 (2.) He [the President] shall have Power, by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and
by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States

Notice that two thirds are required for treaties but NOT for
confirmation of appointees. The democraps are keeping appointments
bottled up in committee with THREATS of a filibuster and are now
threatening to halt ALL business in the Senate if they don't get their
way. This is not business as usual but simple blackmail.


The Fascists will not be in power forever. You

Post by shape sweeney
will live to regret it.

The Democrats will live to regret their politics by blackmail.

With Reid playing his games, the 2006 elections could see more losses
by the Democraps. The liberal news media fixing of elections is over.
LZ

[shape sweeney]

They are not keeping appointments bottled up in committee as you say.
They have objection to several judicial appointments and are working to
block them. That is their job.

The Fascists own the House, the Senate, and the Executive branch. Quit
whining. Appoint judges that all Americans can approve of. Like the
Clinton appointee that ruled in the Schiavo case.

Sounds like you want to live in a one-party state. I could recommend a
few if you'd like to move.

Post by shape sweeney
I know the difference between the

Post by shape sweeney
threat of a filibuster and and actual filibuster. Do you?

"Article 2, Section 2 (2.) He [the President] shall have Power, by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States
Notice that two thirds are required for treaties but NOT for
confirmation of appointees. The democraps are keeping appointments
bottled up in committee with THREATS of a filibuster and are now
threatening to halt ALL business in the Senate if they don't get their
way. This is not business as usual but simple blackmail.
The Fascists will not be in power forever. You

Post by shape sweeney
will live to regret it.

The Democrats will live to regret their politics by blackmail.
With Reid playing his games, the 2006 elections could see more losses by
the Democraps. The liberal news media fixing of elections is over.
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Post by shape sweeney
They are not keeping appointments bottled up in committee as you say.

Wrong.

Post by shape sweeney
They have objection to several judicial appointments and are working to
block them. That is their job.

Advise and consent. That means an up or down vote, something the
Democraps are blocking.

Post by shape sweeney
Sounds like you want to live in a one-party state. I could recommend a
few if you'd like to move.

I lived in Spain for 3 years when Franco was in power. Remarkably
similar to the way Reno and Clinton used federal thugs to keep the
population intimidated.

You probably lack similar experience to base your opinions on.
LZ

[Alan Balmer]

Post by shape sweeney
This isn't about filibuster's. None of Bush'es appointees have been
filibustered. Sounds like you have been the victim of a lie yourself.

Sounds like you have your own definition of filibuster. From law.com:

"Although Bush has had 204 judges confirmed so far, 34 of them
appellate judges, he has also had 10 blocked by filibuster. When the
Senate returns from recess next month, a showdown looms over a
possible Republican rule change, dubbed the "nuclear option," to end
the Democrats' ability to block judicial confirmation through
filibuster."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1112177112536

If the Democrats don't have any use for filibuster, why are they so
upset about changing the rule that they threaten to shut down the
Senate if they don't get their way?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44390

Post by shape sweeney
Start by getting a broad range of news and opinion, and get your fat
head out of FOX and Rush Limbaugh the pill pusher.

Post by Gustave Weber
Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments. The Constitution requires super majorities for several
functions, including trials of impeachment and treaties, but this was
never meant for instances of advise and consent. How do I know? Look
"Article 2, Section 2 (2.) He [the President] shall have Power, by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of
Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Note that in the same sentence requiring advise and consent, it requires
a two thirds majority for a different function, treaties.
The idea that changing the filibuster rules is "destroying the
constitution" is just another political lie from the political liars.
Gus Weber

[Vito]

Post by Alan Balmer
"Although Bush has had 204 judges confirmed so far, 34 of them
appellate judges, he has also had 10 blocked by filibuster.

Sounds like "filibuster" has suffered the same fate as "gay" - somebody
changed the meaning. A senator was said to filibuster when he got the floor
then talked on for hours, even days, until his opposition gave up. AFAIK
that hasn't happened since before Nixon altho I seem to recall Southern
Democrats filibustering some of JFK's bills. Republican minorities used the
*threat* of filibuster against Clinton and Democrat minorities have used it
against Bush. Next think we know shaking a fist at somebody will be called
murder.

[Alan Balmer]

Post by Vito

Post by Alan Balmer
"Although Bush has had 204 judges confirmed so far, 34 of them
appellate judges, he has also had 10 blocked by filibuster.

Sounds like "filibuster" has suffered the same fate as "gay" - somebody
changed the meaning. A senator was said to filibuster when he got the floor
then talked on for hours, even days, until his opposition gave up. AFAIK
that hasn't happened since before Nixon altho I seem to recall Southern
Democrats filibustering some of JFK's bills. Republican minorities used the
*threat* of filibuster against Clinton and Democrat minorities have used it
against Bush. Next think we know shaking a fist at somebody will be called
murder.

fil·i·bus·ter
Pronunciation Key (fl-bstr)
n.

1.
1. The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged
speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
2. An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.

It doesn't need to be days, and the opposition doesn't have to give
up, to be called a filibuster. The meaning hasn't changed.

What various people *want* it to mean apparently changes often.

[Vito]

Post by Alan Balmer
fil·i·bus·ter
1. The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged
speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
2. An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.

By that definition, nobody has actually filibustered for decades.

X threatens to filibuster if Y brings a bill to the floor, so Y never brings
the bill to the floor, ergo X never filibusters.

[Alan Balmer]

Post by Vito

Post by Alan Balmer
fil·i·bus·ter
1. The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged
speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action.
2. An instance of the use of this delaying tactic.

By that definition, nobody has actually filibustered for decades.

By that definition, the Senate (and the House, for that matter) does
little else. Did you actually read it?

Post by Vito
X threatens to filibuster if Y brings a bill to the floor, so Y never brings
the bill to the floor, ergo X never filibusters.

Even if that were all that ever happened (which it isn't), isn't that
in itself an obstructionist tactic for the purpose of delaying
legislative action?

[Vito]

Post by Alan Balmer

Post by Vito
X threatens to filibuster if Y brings a bill to the floor, so Y never brings
the bill to the floor, ergo X never filibusters.

Even if that were all that ever happened (which it isn't), isn't that
in itself an obstructionist tactic for the purpose of delaying
legislative action?

I prefer a more narrow, desctiptive definition - the actual "filibuster" on
the floor because, by the broader definition, all congress ever does is
filibuster.

What else happened besides threats?

[Lone Haranguer]

Post by Vito
X threatens to filibuster if Y brings a bill to the floor, so Y never brings
the bill to the floor, ergo X never filibusters.

Hey Vito! Were you broken hearted when your Radical Islamic
Fundamentalist government didn't win the elections in Iraq?

Your prediction track record is not as good as that of a TV weather klutz.

<snicker>
LZ

[Bob Hatch]

Post by Lone Haranguer

Post by Vito
X threatens to filibuster if Y brings a bill to the floor, so Y
never brings the bill to the floor, ergo X never filibusters.

Hey Vito! Were you broken hearted when your Radical Islamic
Fundamentalist government didn't win the elections in Iraq?
Your prediction track record is not as good as that of a TV weather klutz.
<snicker>
LZ

His prediction on that was as accurate as the one he made that Bush would
"Cut and Run from Iraq by March. Oh, wait, he didn't say what year.

[bill horne]

Post by Bob Hatch

Post by Lone Haranguer

Post by Vito
X threatens to filibuster if Y brings a bill to the floor, so Y
never brings the bill to the floor, ergo X never filibusters.

Hey Vito! Were you broken hearted when your Radical Islamic
Fundamentalist government didn't win the elections in Iraq?
Your prediction track record is not as good as that of a TV weather klutz.
<snicker>
LZ

His prediction on that was as accurate as the one he made that Bush would
"Cut and Run from Iraq by March. Oh, wait, he didn't say what year.

Predictions in here don't have a very good track record. I break into
a cold sweat everytime I lose my head and make one.

[Bob Hatch]

Post by bill horne
Predictions in here don't have a very good track record. I break into
a cold sweat everytime I lose my head and make one.

It is much easier if you wait until the event is over and claim that you
predicted it. But, I did predict that Bush would win in '04. Even offered to
bet one person a dinner, but he declined.

[Vito]

Post by Bob Hatch
His prediction on that was as accurate as the one he made that Bush would
"Cut and Run from Iraq by March. Oh, wait, he didn't say what year.

Refresh my memory - when did I say Bush would cut and run BY MARCH. He's
preparing to do so (training Iranians) but he won't cut and run til after
the new Iranian-type "Islamic Democracy" takes over. He'll want out before
Al Qaeda moves in.

Of course y'all will claim Bush won a great victory - Iraq will be a
"democracy" even if it is just like Iran.

[Lone Haranguer]

Post by Vito
Refresh my memory - when did I say Bush would cut and run BY MARCH. He's
preparing to do so (training Iranians) but he won't cut and run til after
the new Iranian-type "Islamic Democracy" takes over. He'll want out before
Al Qaeda moves in.

Where are we training Iranians? Are we sending them white flags?

Post by Vito
Of course y'all will claim Bush won a great victory - Iraq will be a
"democracy" even if it is just like Iran.

The great victory was taking Saddam out of power. I bet if Clinton
would have known it could be done in that time frame, he would have
tried it. After all he bombed Serbia for 78 days so we could occupy
Kosovo which is now becoming another Islamic state.
LZ

[Graphic Queen]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 15:50:33 -0500, Lone Haranguer

Post by Lone Haranguer

Post by Vito
Refresh my memory - when did I say Bush would cut and run BY MARCH. He's
preparing to do so (training Iranians) but he won't cut and run til after
the new Iranian-type "Islamic Democracy" takes over. He'll want out before
Al Qaeda moves in.

Where are we training Iranians? Are we sending them white flags?

Post by Vito
Of course y'all will claim Bush won a great victory - Iraq will be a
"democracy" even if it is just like Iran.

The great victory was taking Saddam out of power. I bet if Clinton
would have known it could be done in that time frame, he would have
tried it. After all he bombed Serbia for 78 days so we could occupy
Kosovo which is now becoming another Islamic state.
LZ

yeah, that was one great victory, beating an army that had been
defeated years before and never regained their strength. Yep, we
showed them. Of course the capture of Saddam was made up and everyone
knows it now. Set up for the tv cameras and nothing more.

GQ

[Lone Haranguer]

Post by Graphic Queen
yeah, that was one great victory, beating an army that had been
defeated years before and never regained their strength.

Even more true during the Clinton years but after Somalia he wouldn't
put troops on the ground.

Did I escape your filters already?
LZ

[Vito]

Post by Lone Haranguer
Hey Vito! Were you broken hearted when your Radical Islamic
Fundamentalist government didn't win the elections in Iraq?

What makes you think the Radical Islamic Fundamentalists didn't win? They
won a majority and the new Prime Minister is a radical Shiite with close
ties to Iran. Now he and that majority will devise a constitution. I am
afraid that an "Islamic democracy" just like Iran's, with a lot of autonomy
for Kurdistan, is even more likely now that the Sunnis shot themselves in
the foot. Next thing we know there'll be a civil war in Turkey with their
Kurds wanting out to join Kurdistan and Osama will have a villa and training
camps near Bagdhad. I loose either way. If my prediction comes true it
means that over 1500 Americans, including my neighbor's boy, died for less
than nothing. If wrong, I'll have to listen to you crow. I prefer the
latter.

[Lone Haranguer]

Vito wrote:
I loose either way. If my prediction comes true it

Post by Vito
means that over 1500 Americans, including my neighbor's boy, died
for less than nothing. If wrong, I'll have to listen to you crow.
I prefer the latter.

You lost when you assumed you knew what the Iraqis were thinking and
how they would react to the freedom to vote.
LZ

" War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed
and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that
nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for
which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than
his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance
of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better
men than himself."

John Stuart Mill

[William Boyd]

Post by Gustave Weber
The idea that changing the filibuster rules is "destroying the
constitution" is just another political lie from the political liars.

AKA Liberals!

[Ralph E Lindberg]

Post by Gustave Weber
Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments.

I see you boought the GOP line hook-line and sinker. Do a little
independent research

[Alan Balmer]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:41:46 GMT, Gustave Weber

Post by Gustave Weber
Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments.

Not true, and not germane to the rest of your post, which is accurate.

Post by Gustave Weber
The Constitution requires super majorities for several
functions, including trials of impeachment and treaties, but this was
never meant for instances of advise and consent. How do I know? Look
"Article 2, Section 2 (2.) He [the President] shall have Power, by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of
Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Note that in the same sentence requiring advise and consent, it requires
a two thirds majority for a different function, treaties.
The idea that changing the filibuster rules is "destroying the
constitution" is just another political lie from the political liars.
Gus Weber

[shape sweeney]

It won't destroy the constitution if the Fascists change the rules.
People change the rules when they can't win. This is a recurring theme.
The point is, is you want to split hairs and change the Senates agreed
upon rules, you ARE DESTROYING THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, THAT IS
THAT THE SENATE REQUIRES MUCH MORE CONSENSUS TO GET THINGS DONE. There
is good reason for this, well thought out by the framers.

Delay got the rules in the house changed because he broke the law. He
changed the rules in Texas when the Fascists wanted to redistrict and
couldn't otherwise. In the House, they violate the rules all the time
by calling votes in the middle of the night, having kept the text of
pending legislation from the opposition.

This is the way these people are doing business. Even though they own
all branches of the Federal Government, they can't seem to get enough.
So they change the rules. They are like children that can't win at
cards, so they change the rules afterthe cards are dealt.

Someday, in the far off future, the Liberals will be back in power. Do
we want them changing the rules to shut out the opposition? I don't
think so.

Appoint judges that the entire country can live with and quit whining.

Post by Alan Balmer
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:41:46 GMT, Gustave Weber

Post by Gustave Weber
Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments.

Not true, and not germane to the rest of your post, which is accurate.

Post by Gustave Weber
The Constitution requires super majorities for several
functions, including trials of impeachment and treaties, but this was
never meant for instances of advise and consent. How do I know? Look
"Article 2, Section 2 (2.) He [the President] shall have Power, by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of
Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Note that in the same sentence requiring advise and consent, it requires
a two thirds majority for a different function, treaties.
The idea that changing the filibuster rules is "destroying the
constitution" is just another political lie from the political liars.
Gus Weber

[Lone Haranguer]

Post by shape sweeney
Delay got the rules in the house changed because he broke the law.

Which rules? None that the Democraps have for their party.

BTW, if Delay broke the law, show us the conviction.

He

Post by shape sweeney
changed the rules in Texas when the Fascists wanted to redistrict and
couldn't otherwise.

And the Democraps went AWOL rather than follow the state's constitution.

In the House, they violate the rules all the time

Post by shape sweeney
by calling votes in the middle of the night, having kept the text of
pending legislation from the opposition.

Knowing that the Democraps don't leave the phone number of the
whorehouse where they spend the night.

Post by shape sweeney
This is the way these people are doing business. Even though they own
all branches of the Federal Government, they can't seem to get enough.

I want to see the title card.

Post by shape sweeney
So they change the rules. They are like children that can't win at
cards, so they change the rules afterthe cards are dealt.

Like the Floriduh Supreme Court?

Post by shape sweeney
Someday, in the far off future, the Liberals will be back in power.

Can't be too far for me.

Do

Post by shape sweeney
we want them changing the rules to shut out the opposition? I don't
think so.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Gasp, choke and snort!

Post by shape sweeney
Appoint judges that the entire country can live with and quit whining.

We can't live with those that Clinton appointed. Can we dump them?
LZ

[Alan Balmer]

Post by shape sweeney
It won't destroy the constitution if the Fascists change the rules.
People change the rules when they can't win. This is a recurring theme.
The point is, is you want to split hairs and change the Senates agreed
upon rules, you ARE DESTROYING THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, THAT IS
THAT THE SENATE REQUIRES MUCH MORE CONSENSUS TO GET THINGS DONE. There
is good reason for this, well thought out by the framers.

Due to your top-posting, I really can't imagine what part of my
statement you are replying to. The above was part of what I said was
accurate. The inaccuracy is in your claim that filibusters had never
been used against appointments before Bush.

Post by shape sweeney
Delay got the rules in the house changed because he broke the law. He
changed the rules in Texas when the Fascists wanted to redistrict and
couldn't otherwise. In the House, they violate the rules all the time
by calling votes in the middle of the night, having kept the text of
pending legislation from the opposition.

More nonsense. You should quit while you're ahead.

Post by shape sweeney
This is the way these people are doing business. Even though they own
all branches of the Federal Government, they can't seem to get enough.
So they change the rules. They are like children that can't win at
cards, so they change the rules afterthe cards are dealt.
Someday, in the far off future, the Liberals will be back in power. Do
we want them changing the rules to shut out the opposition? I don't
think so.
Appoint judges that the entire country can live with and quit whining.

Post by Alan Balmer
On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 02:41:46 GMT, Gustave Weber

Post by Gustave Weber
Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments.

Not true, and not germane to the rest of your post, which is accurate.

Post by Gustave Weber
The Constitution requires super majorities for several
functions, including trials of impeachment and treaties, but this was
never meant for instances of advise and consent. How do I know? Look
"Article 2, Section 2 (2.) He [the President] shall have Power, by and
with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided
two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint
Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments
are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by
Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of
Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Note that in the same sentence requiring advise and consent, it requires
a two thirds majority for a different function, treaties.
The idea that changing the filibuster rules is "destroying the
constitution" is just another political lie from the political liars.
Gus Weber

[Vito]

Post by Gustave Weber
Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments.

None of Bush's appointments were actually filibustered and IIRC Republicans
used the same *threat* of filibuster against Clinton. OTOH, the
Constitution never mentions filibusters or limits on debate.

[Wolf Leverich]

Post by Vito

Post by Gustave Weber
Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments.

None of Bush's appointments were actually filibustered and IIRC Republicans
used the same *threat* of filibuster against Clinton. OTOH, the
Constitution never mentions filibusters or limits on debate.

Yup. A few facts can be illuminating.

In my recollection, the Republicans and Southern Democrats
pioneered the technique in 1968 to kill Abe Fortas' nomination
to the Supreme Court.

More recently, Republicans blocked over 60 Clinton judicial
nominees.

As of November 2003 (last time I have a tally), President Bush
had sent up 172 judicial nominations and 168 of them have been
approved, a 98 percent approval rate.

While gutting the filibuster will remove one procedural impetus
toward moderation, it probably doesn't matter overmuch what
happens here. Politics will simply adapt. The country swings
right, it swings left, ...

Cheers, Wolf.


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 ***@mtpinos.com

[Ralph Lindberg]

Post by Wolf Leverich
Yup. A few facts can be illuminating.
In my recollection, the Republicans and Southern Democrats
pioneered the technique in 1968 to kill Abe Fortas' nomination
to the Supreme Court.

Actually it predates that also, but that was one of the more recent
cases. Of course the GOP claims that doesn't count because it was both
parties.

Post by Wolf Leverich
While gutting the filibuster will remove one procedural impetus
toward moderation, it probably doesn't matter overmuch what
happens here. Politics will simply adapt. The country swings
right, it swings left, ...

Exactly, or why I suspect the members of the GOP, that are looking at
the future, will not support this change. They -know- things will change
and they will be the minority party. Having the ability to filibuster
would be a weapon they will want then.

[shape sweeney]

Post by Ralph Lindberg

Post by Wolf Leverich
Yup. A few facts can be illuminating.
In my recollection, the Republicans and Southern Democrats
pioneered the technique in 1968 to kill Abe Fortas' nomination
to the Supreme Court.

Actually it predates that also, but that was one of the more recent
cases. Of course the GOP claims that doesn't count because it was both
parties.

Post by Wolf Leverich
While gutting the filibuster will remove one procedural impetus
toward moderation, it probably doesn't matter overmuch what
happens here. Politics will simply adapt. The country swings
right, it swings left, ...

Exactly, or why I suspect the members of the GOP, that are looking at
the future, will not support this change. They -know- things will change
and they will be the minority party. Having the ability to filibuster
would be a weapon they will want then.

Smart. Get along with everyone else in the playpen. By the way, I have
been trying to find a single controversial Supreme Court decision since
Bush took office that he was on the right (correct) side on. Does
anyone know of one? (his appointment to the presidency doesn't count).

[Lone Haranguer]

shape sweeney wrote: By the way, I have

Post by shape sweeney
been trying to find a single controversial Supreme Court decision since
Bush took office that he was on the right (correct) side on. Does
anyone know of one? (his appointment to the presidency doesn't count).

Monday, January 12, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Monday allowed the government to
keep secret information about hundreds of people rounded up under
suspicion of terrorism in the months following the September 11, 2001
attacks.
********************
You didn't try very hard and obviously don't know what the word
"appointment" means.
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Post by Lone Haranguer
shape sweeney wrote: By the way, I have

Post by shape sweeney
been trying to find a single controversial Supreme Court decision
since Bush took office that he was on the right (correct) side on.
Does anyone know of one? (his appointment to the presidency doesn't
count).

Monday, January 12, 2004
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Monday allowed the
government to keep secret information about hundreds of people rounded
up under suspicion of terrorism in the months following the September
11, 2001 attacks.
********************
You didn't try very hard and obviously don't know what the word
"appointment" means.
LZ

Hardly controversial.

Har. If it wasn't controversial, why was the Supreme Court even asked
to hear the case? Face it, you are either stupid or were caught lying.

Keeping information secret? The controversial

one was letting them have lawyers. Bush lost that one.

But he won the one I posted. The one you couldn't find.

I'll top post because it's proper netiquette, and I don't want to page
down on all posts. Follow along.

You top post because you are a stupid ass and proud of it.
LZ

[shape sweeney]

Hardly controversial. Keeping information secret? The controversial
one was letting them have lawyers. Bush lost that one.

I'll top post because it's proper netiquette, and I don't want to page
down on all posts. Follow along.

Post by Lone Haranguer
shape sweeney wrote: By the way, I have

Post by shape sweeney
been trying to find a single controversial Supreme Court decision
since Bush took office that he was on the right (correct) side on.
Does anyone know of one? (his appointment to the presidency doesn't
count).

Monday, January 12, 2004
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court Monday allowed the government to
keep secret information about hundreds of people rounded up under
suspicion of terrorism in the months following the September 11, 2001
attacks.
********************
You didn't try very hard and obviously don't know what the word
"appointment" means.
LZ

[Frank Tabor]

Post by shape sweeney
Hardly controversial. Keeping information secret? The controversial
one was letting them have lawyers. Bush lost that one.
I'll top post because it's proper netiquette, and I don't want to page
down on all posts. Follow along.

http://ursine.dyndns.org/Top_Posting

[Lon VanOstran]

I'll top post because it's proper netiquette, and I don't want to page
down on all posts. Follow along.

No! It's not proper netiquette.

Lon

[Alan Balmer]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:15:05 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"

Post by Wolf Leverich

Post by Vito

Post by Gustave Weber
Democrats are claiming that a rules change to prohibit filibustering of
Presidential appointments would "destroy the constitution", even though
until Bush's first term, filibusters had never been used against
appointments.

None of Bush's appointments were actually filibustered and IIRC Republicans
used the same *threat* of filibuster against Clinton. OTOH, the
Constitution never mentions filibusters or limits on debate.

Yup. A few facts can be illuminating.
In my recollection, the Republicans and Southern Democrats
pioneered the technique in 1968 to kill Abe Fortas' nomination
to the Supreme Court.

Some things precede your recollection. Try 1841 for the first recorded
use in the US Senate. (By Democrats, naturally ;-) It was worse than
now until 1917, when Wilson proposed the 2/3 cloture rule. He said at
the time, "The Senate of the United States is the only legislative
body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for
action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but
their own, have rendered the great government of the United States
helpless and contemptible."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102847,00.html

Post by Wolf Leverich
More recently, Republicans blocked over 60 Clinton judicial
nominees.
As of November 2003 (last time I have a tally), President Bush
had sent up 172 judicial nominations and 168 of them have been
approved, a 98 percent approval rate.

"President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been
confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to
prevent a floor vote."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4575047

Post by Wolf Leverich
While gutting the filibuster will remove one procedural impetus
toward moderation,

See President Wilson's remarks, above.

Post by Wolf Leverich
it probably doesn't matter overmuch what
happens here. Politics will simply adapt. The country swings
right, it swings left, ...

[Wolf Leverich]

Post by Alan Balmer
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:15:05 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"
Some things precede your recollection. Try 1841 for the first recorded
use in the US Senate. (By Democrats, naturally ;-) It was worse than
now until 1917, when Wilson proposed the 2/3 cloture rule. He said at
the time, "The Senate of the United States is the only legislative
body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for
action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but
their own, have rendered the great government of the United States
helpless and contemptible."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102847,00.html

My mistake -- I was imprecise in specifying what "the technique"
was. I meant use of the filibuster to block judicial appointments.
I am not aware of it being used for that purpose before 1968.

And yeah, I have very few direct recollections prior to 1956. (:

BTW, the use of the filibuster in 1841 was to block a banking bill.

###

Post by Alan Balmer

Post by Wolf Leverich
More recently, Republicans blocked over 60 Clinton judicial
nominees.
As of November 2003 (last time I have a tally), President Bush
had sent up 172 judicial nominations and 168 of them have been
approved, a 98 percent approval rate.

"President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been
confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to
prevent a floor vote."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4575047

Er.

Selective quoting is not helpful in trying to understand
what is really going on. The same article (in fact, the
same *paragraph*) you're quoting also reports that -0-
(as in "zero", "none", "zilch") of the President's appointees
to the district court level have been blocked.

The point remains that the Republicans procedurally prevented
60 Clinton judicial appointments from receiving their
up-or-down vote, while a much, much smaller number of Bush
appointments have been blocked.

###

Post by Alan Balmer

Post by Wolf Leverich
While gutting the filibuster will remove one procedural impetus
toward moderation,

See President Wilson's remarks, above.

Thanks -- if you know the history of the period and why
Wilson said what he said, Wilson's remarks precisely make
my point. Cheers, Wolf.


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 ***@mtpinos.com

[Alan Balmer]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:13:40 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"

Post by Wolf Leverich

Post by Alan Balmer
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:15:05 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"
"President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been
confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to
prevent a floor vote."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4575047

Er.
Selective quoting is not helpful in trying to understand
what is really going on.

But selective quoting is appropriate and adequate for disproving a
general statement that is wrong. You, quoting ancient statistics with
no reference, implied that there were only four nominations blocked. I
showed (and provided references) that there were at least ten.

[Wolf Leverich]

Post by Alan Balmer
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:13:40 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"

Post by Wolf Leverich

Post by Alan Balmer
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 19:15:05 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"
"President Bush has had 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Five never received hearings. Of the 52 who did, 42 have been
confirmed, but 10 were blocked by Democrats' use of the filibuster to
prevent a floor vote."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4575047

Er.
Selective quoting is not helpful in trying to understand
what is really going on. The same article (in fact, the
same *paragraph*) you're quoting also reports that -0-
(as in "zero", "none", "zilch") of the President's appointees
to the district court level have been blocked.
The point remains that the Republicans procedurally prevented
60 Clinton judicial appointments from receiving their
up-or-down vote, while a much, much smaller number of Bush
appointments have been blocked.

But selective quoting is appropriate and adequate for disproving a
general statement that is wrong. You, quoting ancient statistics with
no reference, implied that there were only four nominations blocked. I
showed (and provided references) that there were at least ten.

I said that in November 2003 only 4 of Bush's judicial
appointees had been procedurally blocked.

You said that as of 5 April 2005, 10 of Bush's judicial
appointees had been procedurally blocked.

Those two facts are consistent. You've disproved nothing,
though you *have* proved you can't build a logical argument.

###

When you quoted from the NPR article, you omitted the relevant
additional material that Congress had blocked -0- of Bush's
judicial nominees at the district court level. You are
either incompetent, or you were ineptly trying to overstate
the impact of the Democrats' filibustering using the trite
old biased sample fallacy.

If you want to be even more dramatic, you can (correctly)
assert that 100% of the judicial nominees who have been
blocked by Democratic filibusters have been blocked by
Democratic filibusters.

Every single one of 'em. (:

###

The point is that the Republicans procedurally held up
60 Clinton judicial appointees, and the Democrats have
(so far) held up a far smaller number of Republican
appointees.

What does it all mean? Beats me. But we all need to have
an accurate understanding of what's going on here. Both
Republicans and Democrats have used procedural rules to tie
up judicial nominees. Recently, Republicans have used the
technique much more than Democrats (60 is greater than 10).

Politics swings back and forth, left and right. Stripping
away procedural rules that allow substantial minorities to
block judicial appointments may seem like a good idea now,
but things may look different when we have President Hillary
and Senate Majority Leader Teddy.

Cheers, Wolf. <-- Who worries brainless rightwingers are
about to cheerfully do the old "foot
on land mine" trick again.


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 ***@mtpinos.com

[Alan Balmer]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:00:03 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"

Post by Wolf Leverich
When you quoted from the NPR article, you omitted the relevant
additional material that Congress had blocked -0- of Bush's
judicial nominees at the district court level.

Do you think 10 + 0 is 4? It was not relevant to the point I was
making. Now, since you seem to be unable to engage in a discussion
without calling names, and have yet to even provide a reference for
the "facts" you quote, there's no point in continuing this. Bye.

[Wolf Leverich]

Post by Alan Balmer
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005 17:00:03 +0000 (UTC), "Wolf Leverich"

Post by Wolf Leverich
When you quoted from the NPR article, you omitted the relevant
additional material that Congress had blocked -0- of Bush's
judicial nominees at the district court level.

Do you think 10 + 0 is 4? It was not relevant to the point I was
making. Now, since you seem to be unable to engage in a discussion
without calling names, and have yet to even provide a reference for
the "facts" you quote, there's no point in continuing this. Bye.

No, I personally believe 10 is greater than 4. I also believe
April 2005 is later than November 2003. Because the number of
blocked judicial appointments is presumably monotonically
increasing (unless the Democrats relent), the assertion
"10 in April 2005" is consistent with (rather than disproving)
"4 in November 2003".

Do you need a reference to demonstrate 10 is greater than 4, or
April 2005 is later than November 2003? What '"facts"' have I
asserted that are inconsistent with anything you've said?

And what "names" did I call you?

- Wolf <-- Perplexed ...


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 ***@mtpinos.com

[bill horne]

Post by Wolf Leverich
No, I personally believe 10 is greater than 4.

That may be, but when you're talking about fireant stings, it sure as
hell ain't better.

[Wolf Leverich]

Post by bill horne

Post by Wolf Leverich
No, I personally believe 10 is greater than 4.

That may be, but when you're talking about fireant stings, it sure as
hell ain't better.

No kidding.

When I did my time in Texas, fireants and coons were two
of my biggest headaches.

I finally used WMD on the fireants. There's a poison called
"Amdro" or somesuch that actually works, and I wiped the
little bastards living on my land out to the last nasty critter.

Couldn't bring myself to wipe out the coons -- I actually
enjoy their antics, when it doesn't involve killing my pets
or doing damage that's excessively expensive to repair. So
I used a .22 loaded with birdshot to encourage responsible
behavior on their part, and we settled into a kind of
backcountry detente.

Cheers, Wolf.


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 ***@mtpinos.com

[M***@juniper.net]

Gustave Weber wrote:

snipped

I voted for George Bush. BUT the more I see of his Government agenda and
the Republicans in Congress I want no part of any Judge that Bush may
support. Undoubtedly anyone he bring before the Congress is already in
bed with Big Business.
I'm a Conservative and my only persuasion is the total adherence to the
Constitution.

[shape sweeney]

If you are a true conservative, you are out of luck today. Don't think
for a minute that the Democrats, once back in power, will halt the total
control big-business has on our Federal government. The Democraps
(he-he) smartest move would be to adopt Ralph Naders platform in the
next election. And I must tell you, I felt the same way about Bush
until the big deficits and runaway government spending got going. The
only support Bush has left is with moralizing ultra right-wing
Preachers. The Constitution should have prohibited corporate control of
American politics.

Post by M***@juniper.net
snipped
I voted for George Bush. BUT the more I see of his Government agenda and
the Republicans in Congress I want no part of any Judge that Bush may
support. Undoubtedly anyone he bring before the Congress is already in
bed with Big Business.
I'm a Conservative and my only persuasion is the total adherence to the
Constitution.

[Wolf Leverich]

Post by shape sweeney
If you are a true conservative, you are out of luck today.

Amen, brother.

Who would have ever thunk a Republican administration could
do such a piss-poor job of fiscal policy, protecting individual
rights, and fighting wars?

Maybe it's just those damn Texans. I can't remember a mess
like this since LBJ ...

- Wolf "Don't Blame Me, I'm from Oklahoma" Leverich


--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 ***@mtpinos.com

[Figment]

Post by Wolf Leverich

Post by shape sweeney
If you are a true conservative, you are out of luck today.

Amen, brother.
Who would have ever thunk a Republican administration could
do such a piss-poor job of fiscal policy, protecting individual
rights, and fighting wars?
Maybe it's just those damn Texans. I can't remember a mess
like this since LBJ ...
- Wolf "Don't Blame Me, I'm from Oklahoma" Leverich

Ever notice that we have a lot of people declaring they want the
'guvment' off of their backs - except when it comes to making sure their
neighbor isn't doing something 'different' from them. They don't want
'guvment' looking at our business practices, Them just want them in our
bedrooms.

[shape sweeney]

Post by Figment

Post by Wolf Leverich

Post by shape sweeney
If you are a true conservative, you are out of luck today.

Amen, brother.
Who would have ever thunk a Republican administration could
do such a piss-poor job of fiscal policy, protecting individual
rights, and fighting wars?
Maybe it's just those damn Texans. I can't remember a mess
like this since LBJ ...
- Wolf "Don't Blame Me, I'm from Oklahoma" Leverich

Ever notice that we have a lot of people declaring they want the
'guvment' off of their backs - except when it comes to making sure their
neighbor isn't doing something 'different' from them. They don't want
'guvment' looking at our business practices, Them just want them in our
bedrooms.

That is why it is so important for our leaders to have broad,
cultural-based experience. And to exhibit tolerance in all that they
do. Tolerance has taken a back seat to bigotry and prejudice in the
last 5 years. I wonder why.

We were so quick to trade our freedoms for a little security, which is
really nothing. Ben Franklin warned us on this. I hear Bush talk about
spreading freedom around the globe and it makes me puke. Even 3rd world
countries have more freedom than we do, because they have less government.

The wisdom of the Separation of Church and State is the next to go,
pardner. Get ready for it. This is an idea that these "cultural
conservatives" can't grasp, it's too deep and complicated for them to
focus on for a minute or two. Their attention span lasts only as long
as the next commercial.

We should let the taxpayers decide what federal programs to pay for when
they file taxes. If you want your tax dollars to go to the military,
check a box. If you want your tax dollars to go to State funded
hospitals, check a box. More imagination, less reality, eh?