Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (681975)	5/11/2005 12:13:20 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

"You deserve respect for admitting that the games get played both ways. There is a poster on the Formerly AMD thread who tries to sound reasonable, but IHO Democrat SH#T don't stink, and Republican do. There are rabid partisans on both sides. I am pleased to discuss issues of importance with a reasonable person." Thanks, Peter! "I may never be able to change your mind, but we can find some important common ground. Thanks." Sure you can! (I change my mind all the time....) "I still want the filibuster of judicial nominees ended." It's a reasonable thing to want (to give a President his head in staffing the Courts with simpatico nominations). I'm a little 'wishy-washy' on it though --- I can see advantages AND disadvantages in it. IMO, our Founders hit upon a most ingenious method for preserving our citizen's freedoms in the face of governmental encroachments: the division of powers principle. By realizing that no nation can COUNT on ALWAYS having wise and ethical (non-power-hungry) leaders, and that normal human nature will express itself given time... they tried to divide the government's power nearly as evenly as they could among three separate branches. I believe that most serious students of the American experience will conclude that --- since the days of our founding --- although ALL THE GOVERNMENT HAS INCREASED IT'S POWERS OVER THE CITIZENS, the one branch of government that has increased it's powers the MOST, and has increased it's powers the most viv-a-vie the other branches... is the Executive. Consequently, I'm less inclined to further increase the Executive's powers over the other two branches. In my opinion, I believe it would be more harmful then helpful, because the increase would be for ALL TIME, benefiting ALL FUTURE EXECUTIVES (and not just the current temporary occupant of the office). 'Creeping Authoritarianism' is not desirable... we can't count on ALL future occupants of the political office to be just, judicious, and wise....

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (681975)	5/11/2005 2:00:34 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

COMMENT: I Object! (You Should Too!) Dear A-Letter Reader: Like the old Stanback Headache Powders, some say that when you get old, some folks suffer from 'headache, neuritis and nostalgia.' Forgive me for a momentary case of the latter. As some of you know, in my eight years as member of the US House of Representatives I acquired a reputation as 'the watchdog of the House.' No less than the NY Times first bestowed that cherished title on me. I got it because I stayed on the House Floor during all sessions (I had near 100% attendance and voting record) and I objected to anything I felt was bad for my constituents and/or the American people. This made me a lot of enemies, especially among the majority Democrats, who were used to running over minority Republicans. But I knew the House Rules and used them, forcing unwanted roll call votes, blocking congressional pay raises and other legislative junk. The ultimate honor came when the Democrats changed the rules in order 'to stop Bauman.' But of course, they failed, because any rules can be used. There's been a whole lot of talk in Washington recently about the 'nuclear option' planned by US Senate Republicans to counter Democrats and their filibusters against some of Pres. Bush's judicial nominees. A 'filibuster' is defined, (if you oppose its objectives), as 'the use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the delay of legislative action.' Or it can be defined as the exercise of the minority's basic right to defend itself against the tyranny of the majority. In the 100-member Senate it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster (that's called 'cloture') and the Republicans, if they all stay in harness, have only 55. So some want to change the rules and allow a simple majority to end debate on judicial nominees. Some are even arguing that God Himself wants this rule change. I don't like Democrats opposing competent judges simply because they think the individual is too conservative. But even more, I dislike any rules change that crushes the minority's right to defend itself against the majority in every way reasonably possible. Lord knows the history of America is a chronicle of minorities overcoming and eventually changing the minds of majorities. The pendulum always swings back in politics, and it's only a matter of time before the Republicans will again be in the minority. And since they're now indistinguishable from Democrat big spenders and Big Brother government advocates, that minority day may come very soon. The Washington establishment cringed in 1939 when Frank Capra released his classic movie 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'. It was a slap in the face to the political elite. There was a backlash by some publications and uncomfortable politicians, but it got cheers from critics and audiences. Jimmy Stewart's filibuster as an apparently naive and gullible new senator steals the show, but makes a point current Senate Republicans ignore at their political peril; absolute power does corrupt -- and a little David on the right side of an issue sometimes can beat even a giant Goliath. As long as the rules aren't rigged against him. That's the way it looks from here. Bob Bauman, Editor --- from Sovereign Society daily email COMMENT LINKS: * Clash over judicial filibusters nears boiling point. washingtonpost.com * Collateral Damage from the Nuclear Option. David Boaz. cato.org * Nuclear Brinksmanship. cato.org * Congress passed national ID without any real debate. wired.com * Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. (1939) imdb.com