More Idiocy From The MSM…
I have never brought this paper up in any of my blogs. Mostly because they haven’t ever really shown the stupidity they showed yesterday. Marcie brought this to my attention. It’s called "Filibuster Fuss", and it was printed by the Arizona Republic on Tuesday. It was an unsigned editorial, so I can only guess that one of the editorial staff wrote this. Below are excerpts from the editorial, and my rebuttal to this piece of tripe that the "Repugnant" decided to print.
With tempers flaring in Washington over blocked judicial appointments, it may seem implausible to suggest that Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate should find a middle ground. But the vital middle is exactly where they need to go. And a sniff of the political winds suggest that is where a growing number of the less bellicose Senate leaders are trying to direct the debate.
There is no middle ground when it comes to the Constitution. It’s quite specific in the duties of the president, and the role the Senate has to play in this. I know that for a few—among them, I’m sure are the liberal editors at the "Repugnant"—they may be sick of this debate. To them I say, tell your party to quit obstructing these nominees. If you have the votes to stop them, then do so. Don’t resort to the tactics of a defeated party that has to resort to unconstitutional means to obtain your overall goal. That goal is to prevent the president his judicial nominees; nominees that are originalists in nature and demeanor.
The small number of blocked candidate disguises the relevant issue, which is that those blocked are people Bush may consider for Supreme Court vacancies he may need to fill in coming years. This fight is far less about who will populate federal circuit-court benches than who will be in line for the U.S. Supreme Court.
I’m not going to blow smoke up anyone’s skirt. The "Repugnant" actually got one thing right in this op-ed. This is about the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist is expected to step down at the end of the Court’s current session. One of these ten jurists will likely be appointed to the high court. And that has the Left howling because they don’t want to see an originalist on that court. They like the split they have on it amongst the various activist jurists already there in Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, O’ Connor, Breyer, and Stevens. Their job is to interpret the law, not make it up.
It has been a grating process, as filibusters - or the threat of them, at least - always are. The role of the Senate is to act on a president's political nominees, not avoid action. As Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist noted Sunday, it isn't "radical to ask senators to vote."
And that is all we’re asking. Just give them their vote. It’s a simple process where a simple majority either places them on the bench, or sends them home. We’re not afraid to lose a vote, if the Democrats can defeat the nominees. But they don’t want those nominees to have their chances on the floor, nor do they think they can stop them. They know that when push comes to shove—if Frist can muster the votes to break their filibuster—it could be possible that even with RINOs like McCain and Chaffee siding with the Democrats, the GOP can still pass these nominees onto the federal bench.
Changing the rule would be a significant matter - it would effectively allow the reigning majority to halt debate whenever the feeling struck - and critics are right to fear such a change might dramatically alter the very nature of the Senate. Still, the contention of minority Democrats that they are standing athwart the appointments of "right-wing, extremist" jurists is getting old. It flies in the face of recommendations of many of the blocked nominees by the historically liberal American Bar Association, to say nothing of the fact that U.S. voters have chosen conservative leaders for president, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Incorrect on the first point; it would end any inkling of debate over a nominee. There shouldn’t be any such debate over any nominee once they pass through committee. They are correct on the second point. (Miracle of miracles, they were right twice in the same column.) The ABA has given favorable to exceptional marks to these ten jurists. The Democrats argument vilifying them will not work. It isn’t working, and the more they stand by it, the nuttier the party looks.
Delaware's Sen. Joe Biden, a ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that he thinks "we should compromise" on a number of the Bush nominees threatened with filibuster. Biden suggested the threat might be lifted for seven of the 10 or so most hotly disputed nominees. This is progress.
Biden’s idea might have worked, except I wouldn’t have entertained the idea of a compromise. For the last time: THESE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR VOTE! And that isn’t the deal that Frist was presented by Harry Reid. Reid presented an compromise where only three our four would be passed, and they would tell Frist which ones would go home. No deal, Harry. Cry you little girlie man, because your reckoning is coming, and it’s not going to be pretty.
At the same time, it is in the best interests of Republicans not to flip the "nuclear option" switch. It is not a move that would help Arizona, certainly, since GOP Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl are split on support of this measure. Filibusters have a long, valued tradition, a tradition that today is being painfully abused. Getting rid of them, though, is no solution.
Quite frankly, I could give a rip about McCain. He’s chosen his lot, and now he can pay the price. He gets no mercy from me, and I will hammer him down every chance I get. Not only has he betrayed the party, but he’s betrayed his oath as a senator, and a former member of the Armed Forces. "Preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, Senator McCain, not wipe your @$$ with it. And why shouldn't the switch be pulled. We're out of options, and time is running out. We need to seize the moment now, and end this circus. Besides, Kyl has always been the better of the two, and I don’t care if they’re on opposite sides; quite frequently, they already are.
And in closing, the last paragraph shows how stupid the editors at the "Repugnant" really are. We’re not getting rid of all filibusters. We’re just axing the Democrats illegal one on nominees. If, when this is all said and done, Sen. Byrd wants to filibuster a piece of legislation, he’ll still be able to. (He is the only senator in the Senate right now to have done that.) But nominees should not have to go through yet another debate on the floor of the Senate. It’s bad enough that they’ll have to endure the vitriolic, spiteful, venomous rhetoric of the Democrats as they cast their vote, and make their feelings known. Fine. But just shut up already, and give these people their vote.
Publius II
I have never brought this paper up in any of my blogs. Mostly because they haven’t ever really shown the stupidity they showed yesterday. Marcie brought this to my attention. It’s called "Filibuster Fuss", and it was printed by the Arizona Republic on Tuesday. It was an unsigned editorial, so I can only guess that one of the editorial staff wrote this. Below are excerpts from the editorial, and my rebuttal to this piece of tripe that the "Repugnant" decided to print.
With tempers flaring in Washington over blocked judicial appointments, it may seem implausible to suggest that Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. Senate should find a middle ground. But the vital middle is exactly where they need to go. And a sniff of the political winds suggest that is where a growing number of the less bellicose Senate leaders are trying to direct the debate.
There is no middle ground when it comes to the Constitution. It’s quite specific in the duties of the president, and the role the Senate has to play in this. I know that for a few—among them, I’m sure are the liberal editors at the "Repugnant"—they may be sick of this debate. To them I say, tell your party to quit obstructing these nominees. If you have the votes to stop them, then do so. Don’t resort to the tactics of a defeated party that has to resort to unconstitutional means to obtain your overall goal. That goal is to prevent the president his judicial nominees; nominees that are originalists in nature and demeanor.
The small number of blocked candidate disguises the relevant issue, which is that those blocked are people Bush may consider for Supreme Court vacancies he may need to fill in coming years. This fight is far less about who will populate federal circuit-court benches than who will be in line for the U.S. Supreme Court.
I’m not going to blow smoke up anyone’s skirt. The "Repugnant" actually got one thing right in this op-ed. This is about the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist is expected to step down at the end of the Court’s current session. One of these ten jurists will likely be appointed to the high court. And that has the Left howling because they don’t want to see an originalist on that court. They like the split they have on it amongst the various activist jurists already there in Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, O’ Connor, Breyer, and Stevens. Their job is to interpret the law, not make it up.
It has been a grating process, as filibusters - or the threat of them, at least - always are. The role of the Senate is to act on a president's political nominees, not avoid action. As Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist noted Sunday, it isn't "radical to ask senators to vote."
And that is all we’re asking. Just give them their vote. It’s a simple process where a simple majority either places them on the bench, or sends them home. We’re not afraid to lose a vote, if the Democrats can defeat the nominees. But they don’t want those nominees to have their chances on the floor, nor do they think they can stop them. They know that when push comes to shove—if Frist can muster the votes to break their filibuster—it could be possible that even with RINOs like McCain and Chaffee siding with the Democrats, the GOP can still pass these nominees onto the federal bench.
Changing the rule would be a significant matter - it would effectively allow the reigning majority to halt debate whenever the feeling struck - and critics are right to fear such a change might dramatically alter the very nature of the Senate. Still, the contention of minority Democrats that they are standing athwart the appointments of "right-wing, extremist" jurists is getting old. It flies in the face of recommendations of many of the blocked nominees by the historically liberal American Bar Association, to say nothing of the fact that U.S. voters have chosen conservative leaders for president, the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Incorrect on the first point; it would end any inkling of debate over a nominee. There shouldn’t be any such debate over any nominee once they pass through committee. They are correct on the second point. (Miracle of miracles, they were right twice in the same column.) The ABA has given favorable to exceptional marks to these ten jurists. The Democrats argument vilifying them will not work. It isn’t working, and the more they stand by it, the nuttier the party looks.
Delaware's Sen. Joe Biden, a ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that he thinks "we should compromise" on a number of the Bush nominees threatened with filibuster. Biden suggested the threat might be lifted for seven of the 10 or so most hotly disputed nominees. This is progress.
Biden’s idea might have worked, except I wouldn’t have entertained the idea of a compromise. For the last time: THESE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO THEIR VOTE! And that isn’t the deal that Frist was presented by Harry Reid. Reid presented an compromise where only three our four would be passed, and they would tell Frist which ones would go home. No deal, Harry. Cry you little girlie man, because your reckoning is coming, and it’s not going to be pretty.
At the same time, it is in the best interests of Republicans not to flip the "nuclear option" switch. It is not a move that would help Arizona, certainly, since GOP Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl are split on support of this measure. Filibusters have a long, valued tradition, a tradition that today is being painfully abused. Getting rid of them, though, is no solution.
Quite frankly, I could give a rip about McCain. He’s chosen his lot, and now he can pay the price. He gets no mercy from me, and I will hammer him down every chance I get. Not only has he betrayed the party, but he’s betrayed his oath as a senator, and a former member of the Armed Forces. "Preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution, Senator McCain, not wipe your @$$ with it. And why shouldn't the switch be pulled. We're out of options, and time is running out. We need to seize the moment now, and end this circus. Besides, Kyl has always been the better of the two, and I don’t care if they’re on opposite sides; quite frequently, they already are.
And in closing, the last paragraph shows how stupid the editors at the "Repugnant" really are. We’re not getting rid of all filibusters. We’re just axing the Democrats illegal one on nominees. If, when this is all said and done, Sen. Byrd wants to filibuster a piece of legislation, he’ll still be able to. (He is the only senator in the Senate right now to have done that.) But nominees should not have to go through yet another debate on the floor of the Senate. It’s bad enough that they’ll have to endure the vitriolic, spiteful, venomous rhetoric of the Democrats as they cast their vote, and make their feelings known. Fine. But just shut up already, and give these people their vote.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home