.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Thursday, April 07, 2005

Gauntlet Thrown Down? Check! Ducks In A Row? Almost...

This week, because I am still a bit under the weather, I have been a bit neglect in tackling some issues. But this is something that I cannot let slide. The Washington Post threw down the gauntlet this morning, as my partner pointed out. And despite his ranting, some new information has come to light.


I highlight both sites because they are quite important. Hugh Hewitt is, in our opinion, one of the finest legal minds in this nation, and his talk show is one of the best.

RadioBlogger has the transcript posted on his site of the conversation that Hugh had today with John Kyl, and it was quite the eye-opening interview.

The Terri Schiavo case has reinvigorated a drive by congressional conservatives to discipline and curtail the power of federal judges, just as Senate Republicans are trying to repel Democratic claims that the GOP is extremist and overreaching in its bid to shape the federal judiciary.

This idea is absurd. The Terri Schiavo case did not reinvigorate anything. We have always stood firm in the defense of the Constitution, and that is what the GOP is attempting to do; set right a wrong. And we're not trying to curtail the power of the federal judges. We want the judges abiding by the rules established under the Constitution. In other words, they do not write law, they interpret the law. And we want judges on the bench that do interpret the law. Their personal beliefs--revealed through illegal litmus tests conducted by the absent Democrats on the Judiciary Committee--are that which has fallen under scrutiny.

The debate is causing tensions within the Republican Party, whose Senate leaders distanced themselves this week from an attack on judges leveled by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.).

The Post, again, gets it wrong. DeLay didn't attack any of the judges. He warned them of their accountability to Congress, and that their power could get clipped should Congress decide that they have far too much; a distinct possibility should Congress ever have the guts to invoke term limits on justices. And it's amazing that the Post will pick up and run with the attack that Sen. Kennedy launched into yesterday, using similar rhetoric, and yet not credit it to him. And bloggers thought we had it bad for getting credit where credit is due.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said yesterday, "The Schiavo case cast a bright light on the dark forces behind the . . . campaign" to change Senate rules and bar judicial filibusters. Noting that federal judges are asking Congress for an extra $12 million for security systems in most of their homes, Kennedy said: "I urge President Bush and [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist to call a halt to the reckless Republican rhetoric that is endangering judges' lives."

To Sen. Kennedy: First of all, you were a part of those "dark forces" because you voted in favor of--with a unanimous Senate--the bill to order a de novo review of the Schiavo case. That order was disregarded by a piddly trial judge in Florida, and the entire Congress backed down from him. A motion from Congress I still shake my head at.

This all leads up to the fight that is about to explode within the next six weeks as the GOP makes sure that every duck they need is in a row, on the same page, and ready to go. Which, thanks to Hugh Hewitt's great interview with Sen. John Kyl--my senator from Arizona-- who sits upon the Judiciary Committee, we now know what is on the slate.

The GOP hasn't given up on the issue. They have not given up on the judges. Kyl pointed out today that for weeks, the Democrats have refused to show up to the committee meetings. They have done so because they know that the potential justices will probably pass out of the committee. Then they're right back where we always have been. But Frist has the power to stop it. All he needs are the votes.

Now, some of the usual suspects are a bit wobbly on this issue. I do not know if it because they are really that ignorant on how these filibusters are damaging the Constitution, or if they are truly that stupid and greedy to want to keep the filibuster possibility for themselves. Frankly, I am sick and tired of the "schoolyard rules" that are being played in the Congress.

To the Congress: You operate at the sufferance of the American people. You also operate under the rules and laws of the United States Constitution; a document you swore an oath to uphold and defend. This is not how one defends this document, nor is this how business should be done in Washington. We, the people, put you in office, and we can remove you just as easily. (Sen. Kennedy, now that qualifies as a threat, or is it more like a promise?)

The Constitutional option is a necessity. To all those out there that think that this move is a mistake, no offense, you don't get it, so keep quiet. Pay attention and learn. This must be done, overall, to restore the Constitution, and to restore the Senate back to where it belongs. That being a place of progress, and not illegal grid-lock.

The Bunny ;)


Blogger Teaparty said...

I have a story on Pelosi, who said yesterday that the GOP thought it was "above the law," in regards to Delay. But what has ,she been up to:


In regard to judges, this is great analysis here:

"But a filibuster for the sole purpose of preventing a Senate majority from confirming a Supreme Court nominee violates the appointments clause. In such cases, the filibuster rule is unenforceable against the will of the Senate. Under parliamentary rules, a Senate majority is empowered to override a filibuster on the grounds of unconstitutionality and bring a Supreme Court nomination to a floor vote."

Here's the rest:


Happy reading.

7:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product