I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sully- who wrote (6529)	4/10/2005 10:38:34 PM
From: Sully-	of 35834

Don't Fall For This "Checks And Balances" Crap By The Democrats Blogs for Bush As the fight over Bush's nominees rages on, the rhetoric of the Democrats gets increasingly self-righteous. Lately, the rhetoric has evolved into the Democrats attacking the Senate GOP's threat to the Senate rules to ban the filibuster of judicial nominees by equating the Democrats' obstruction with checks and balances... <<< "When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way," Reid, D-Nev., said in his party's weekly radio address. >>> I am no constitutional scholar, but I do remember quite a bit from my past education on our government and Constitution. So, let me give Senator Harry Reid a lesson on checks and balances, because clearly what I remember from a high school government class nine years ago is greater than the knowledge Reid has today. In our system of checks and balances, the President's check over the Judicial branch of government includes the power to appoint judges. Congress's check over the President includes the confirmation of judges, which is also a check over the Judicial. The system of checks and balances does not include a separate check by the minority party to obstruct any nominees they don't like by requiring a super majority to break a filibuster before giving a nominee an up or down vote. I can say right back to Senator Reid, "When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those out of power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way," and that would be more accurate. Posted by Matt blogsforbush.com apnews.myway.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next