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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (114509)	5/18/2005 11:47:48 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793970

May 18, 2005, 10:59 a.m. Voting for Democracy The Democratic position on the filibuster comes down to this: Senators should not be allowed to vote up or down on judges, because judges have to stay in the business of keeping voters from being able to decide policy issues. Anti-democratic ends justify anti-democratic means. Almost everything else in the debate is a diversion. The text of the Constitution does not forbid the Senate to let the majority confirm judges, as Democrats preposterously insist; nor does it require it. Only somewhat less preposterously, the Democrats and their pundits have been arguing that the logic and structure of the Constitution support the filibustering of judges: The Constitution is designed to throw up counter-majoritarian obstacles to action. That’s true at a high altitude of abstraction; it does not mean that the particular obstructionist device of filibustering judges is constitutionally required or wise. Filibusters have never been routinely used against judicial nominees — never, that is, until Senate Democrats decided to block as many of the important judicial nominees of this administration as they could. There is no reason in principle to reject compromise. But no real compromise has been offered. Senate Democrats have floated various proposals, under all of which they reserve the right to filibuster “extremist” nominees. Their promiscuous use of the filibuster against “extremist” nominees demonstrates their elastic definition of the term. If Republicans accept these proposals, the Democrats will carry on filibustering — and Republicans will face the same choice as today. The Democrats’ hope is that they will face that choice under worse circumstances than they do now. They are trying to buy time. For Republicans to leave the filibusters in place now after months of demanding a change would be ignominious. The same pundits who are saying that the majority party should not insist on its prerogatives would turn around and say that the majority party is responsible and should be held accountable for everything the government does. More important, a surrender would tell everyone — conservative voters, Democratic senators and interest groups, and the White House — that Republican senators were irresolute in their support for judicial conservatism. It would thus set back the urgent cause of a reformation of the federal judiciary. “When the minority abuses its privileges, the majority is called on to take corrective action. This is such a time.” A majority of the Senate has to be able to set the body’s rules. It would be unwise for it to do so without regard for the minority. After all, every senator will be in the minority on some issue, and every senator is one election away from the possibility of being in the minority most of the time. But when the minority abuses its privileges, the majority is called on to take corrective action. This is such a time. The liberal minority in the Senate is trying to keep the courts in the business of imposing the left-wing agenda that the public won’t vote for on its own. This project should be brought to an end — by bringing an end to the filibustering of judges. * * * www.nationalreview.com

To: greenspirit who wrote (114509)	5/18/2005 12:06:09 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793970

<Anything is "possible" Karen. However, there are probabilities Indeed, and I offered my view of the probabilities earlier yesterday. I offered that I had no reason to disbelieve Newsweek's story because it was plausible and I couldn't come with any likely alternative. My message to DMA about possibilities was simply a friendly acknowledgment of his thoughtful position, which stands in marked contrast to much else that was written, and a recognition that, as you say, anything is possible. the high probability that Newsweek's anti-Bush agenda has spilled over in toward this case is pretty high. You haven't made a case for that other than to assert repeatedly that those #^%$@ MSMs are all out to get the administration and the military. I questioned why, if they were acting from that agenda they would bury their gotcha so thoroughly in one little sentence of one little blurb. And why none of their fellow #^%$@ MSMs picked it up and ran with it. And why they weren't all over the TV news shows touting their gotcha. Even the Post didn't pick it up, for heaven's sake--the first story the Post ran on it was on the apology. Yet you insist that the "high" probability is that it was an attack on Bush. Go ahead, say it again, louder this time. Maybe this time I'll buy it.