More Incoherent, Inane, Illogical Ramblings From Sen. "Laurel"
I picked this up from RadioBlogger. It is the rest of Sen. "Laurel’s" diatribe from yesterday. As if our initial post regarding this fool was not enough, we have the rest of his insanity laid bare.
http://www.radioblogger.com/
From the outside looking in, our democracy appears broken to an awful lot of Americans. It certainly seems to be endangered by a one-party rule, not a super-majority, a simple majority, a very closely divided nation, a party rule that seems intent on amassing power to be able to affect it's will no matter what, often at the expense of the real work and the real needs of the American people. Now in recent weeks alone, we've witnessed a really disturbing course of events, probably as disturbing as I've seen in the 22 years I've been privileged to serve here. Republican leaders of Congress, in my judgment, and I say this respectfully, are crossing lines I think should not be crossed. The line that says the leader of the House of Representatives should never carelessly threaten or intimidate federal judges. The line that says the leader of the Senate should never accuse those you disagree with his political tactics of waging a war against people of faith. The line that says respect for core Constitutional principles should never be undermined by a political party's agenda. Most important of all, a line that says a political party's leader should never let the hunger to get done whatever that political agenda is overshadow the needs and the interests of respecting both the Constitution and the will of the American people.
Maybe to the "esteemed" (and I use that word loosely) senator from Massachusetts the system established by our Founding Fathers 229 years ago maybe in danger. But what he is describing is not the GOP. It is his own party. They had "one-party rule" in Congress for forty-plus years, and his party has exhibited nothing but "a party rule that seems intent on amassing power to be able to affect it's will no matter what, often at the expense of the real work and the real needs of the American people." This is the very crux of the battle over the Constitutional Option. America is sick of this oligarchical judiciary that is stripping away our rights and out identity on an almost-daily basis, it seems. And his party is wholly responsible for the majority of this chaos. They are the ones that put activist jurists on the bench. The GOP has tried for five years now to get originalists on the bench to end this improper behavior within the courts.
Twenty-two years that he’s served? Since when? This man ran like a scared little girl from his service in the Senate. He did not want to address any vote that he cast when he finally did appear to vote, and his attendance in the Senate is laughable, at best. GOP leaders are crossing lines? Which ones? The threat leveled at the judiciary was warranted, on the heels of a state judge in Florida thumbing his nose at a Congressional subpoena. That subpoena was voted upon and passed. Judge Greer refused to acknowledge it. The threat to hold judges accountable is not beyond the pale. It crosses no line. It falls to Congress—the Senate, more appropriately—to enforce the standards of good behavior on the judiciary.
And Sen. Frist’s comments regarding the issue of "waging war" on people of faith only comes on the heels of the Democrats attacking him for participating in a tele-conference with over 1000 churches that include three other guests. The topic is on the judicial nominees, and they are not appealing to the faith side of this argument, infinitesimal as it may be, but more to the fact that what is being done to these nominees goes in direct violation of the Constitution. There is no political agenda going on. I do not know what the senator is imbibing, but he is certainly not sharing, unless it is with John McCain. The president was duly elected, and he has the right to make appointments according to Article II of the US Constitution. The Senate has the duty of "advise and consent". As Thomas and I have both pointed out, "advise" comes in committee; "consent" comes on the Senate floor. The Democrats have added an extra step with this rule. It is a filibuster, and it is illegal.
Open your eyes across this country and look at what's happening in the Congress today, and you're quickly reminded that some of those who run the city have chosen to do so in a way that doesn't seek to find that common ground, that doesn't try to stay in touch with the mainstream values but pushes a narrower set of priorities. What does it tell you when an embattled majority leader of the House is willing to go on talk radio and attack a Supreme Court Justice, let alone a Supreme Court Justice appointed by Ronald Reagan, confirmed by a nearly unanimous Senate, a Justice who ruled in favor of President Bush in Bush versus Gore, Ronald's Reagan nominee to the highest court in the land can't even escape Tom Delay's partisan assaults, and yet here on the floor of the Senate, there's no outcry. No moderating Republican voice willing to say this shocking attack has no place in our democracy.
He is a big supporter of common ground, yet his party is the one holding these judges up. They found common ground in every other judge that has gone through the nomination process except this handful of "extremist" judges. Only deemed extremist by Sen. "Laurel" and his cronies because they believe in interpreting the law the proper way. And you have to love the fact that he brought up Bush v. Gore; a clear sign that the Democrats still cannot get over the election in 2000. As for "What does it tell you when an embattled majority leader of the House is willing to go on talk radio and attack a Supreme Court Justice…", does Sen. "Laurel" not remember when former Sen. Daschle attacked talk radio—specifically naming Rush Limbaugh—because people were questioning his obstructionist tactics then? How about the Ted Kennedy diatribe on the floor of the Senate: "Week, after week, after week, we were told lie, after lie, after lie."? How about Kennedy’s classless comment regarding the judicial nominees last year around Thanksgiving when he referred to them as "turkeys". And what is so shocking about what Rep. DeLay did? Sen. "Laurel" still cannot answer that question. So he criticized a judge. He did not call for the man’s head. He did not call for him to be shot or arrested. He simply stated that the Congress (Remember them, Sen. Laurel? They are the ones representing America) is sick of this kind of judicial fiat and activism, and a time will come when there will be change.
I guess none of this should be a surprise. When the majority leader announces what he's going to do on this Sunday. The majority leader plans to headline a religious service devoted to defeating and I quote, a filibuster against people of faith. Mr. President, I resent that. I'm a person of faith, and I do not believe we should lose our right to have a filibuster to stop things we disagree with, according to the rules of the Senate. It has nothing to do with faith. And when the leader of the Senate questions how any Senator applies their faith in opposing procedures of the United States Senate, we're going too far. You go beyond endangering rules that protect the cherished rights of the majority. You really wind up challenging the foundation of our democracy, and how this Senate is supposed to work.
That is not what this conference is about. It is about the fact that people should not have to choose between their faith and government service. That, Sen. "Laurel" is precisely what your party has done. The ABA has deemed that each and every awaiting nominee is more than qualified to serve on the federal bench. Yet, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have engaged in the use of illegal litmus tests to determine whether or not they are in favor of these judges. What they personally believe should have no bearing—let me repeat that, no bearing—on whether or not they can properly interpret the law. But according to Sen. "Laurel", and his clown-car full comedy rejects, their beliefs—their faith—is exactly what makes them so "extreme" in their view. These people are being filibustered for many reasons, and their faith is just the tip of the iceberg. That is a stance against faith, and that is not only wrong, but it is illegal.
I suggest that Sen. "Laurel" go back to law school, and reread his Constitution. It is not a hard, nor a long read. It means what is says. What his party has engaged in on the issue of judges has been illegal from the start. The filibuster and their discrimination of these jurists are clearly and inherently a violation of the Constitution. This issue is one where should it not be forced, we will have a severe problem when Chief Justice Rehnquist steps down. It must be forced. It is time for the GOP to toss aside the polls, toss aside fools like Sen. "Laurel", and restore the order in the Senate that is desperately needed.
The Bunny ;)
I picked this up from RadioBlogger. It is the rest of Sen. "Laurel’s" diatribe from yesterday. As if our initial post regarding this fool was not enough, we have the rest of his insanity laid bare.
http://www.radioblogger.com/
From the outside looking in, our democracy appears broken to an awful lot of Americans. It certainly seems to be endangered by a one-party rule, not a super-majority, a simple majority, a very closely divided nation, a party rule that seems intent on amassing power to be able to affect it's will no matter what, often at the expense of the real work and the real needs of the American people. Now in recent weeks alone, we've witnessed a really disturbing course of events, probably as disturbing as I've seen in the 22 years I've been privileged to serve here. Republican leaders of Congress, in my judgment, and I say this respectfully, are crossing lines I think should not be crossed. The line that says the leader of the House of Representatives should never carelessly threaten or intimidate federal judges. The line that says the leader of the Senate should never accuse those you disagree with his political tactics of waging a war against people of faith. The line that says respect for core Constitutional principles should never be undermined by a political party's agenda. Most important of all, a line that says a political party's leader should never let the hunger to get done whatever that political agenda is overshadow the needs and the interests of respecting both the Constitution and the will of the American people.
Maybe to the "esteemed" (and I use that word loosely) senator from Massachusetts the system established by our Founding Fathers 229 years ago maybe in danger. But what he is describing is not the GOP. It is his own party. They had "one-party rule" in Congress for forty-plus years, and his party has exhibited nothing but "a party rule that seems intent on amassing power to be able to affect it's will no matter what, often at the expense of the real work and the real needs of the American people." This is the very crux of the battle over the Constitutional Option. America is sick of this oligarchical judiciary that is stripping away our rights and out identity on an almost-daily basis, it seems. And his party is wholly responsible for the majority of this chaos. They are the ones that put activist jurists on the bench. The GOP has tried for five years now to get originalists on the bench to end this improper behavior within the courts.
Twenty-two years that he’s served? Since when? This man ran like a scared little girl from his service in the Senate. He did not want to address any vote that he cast when he finally did appear to vote, and his attendance in the Senate is laughable, at best. GOP leaders are crossing lines? Which ones? The threat leveled at the judiciary was warranted, on the heels of a state judge in Florida thumbing his nose at a Congressional subpoena. That subpoena was voted upon and passed. Judge Greer refused to acknowledge it. The threat to hold judges accountable is not beyond the pale. It crosses no line. It falls to Congress—the Senate, more appropriately—to enforce the standards of good behavior on the judiciary.
And Sen. Frist’s comments regarding the issue of "waging war" on people of faith only comes on the heels of the Democrats attacking him for participating in a tele-conference with over 1000 churches that include three other guests. The topic is on the judicial nominees, and they are not appealing to the faith side of this argument, infinitesimal as it may be, but more to the fact that what is being done to these nominees goes in direct violation of the Constitution. There is no political agenda going on. I do not know what the senator is imbibing, but he is certainly not sharing, unless it is with John McCain. The president was duly elected, and he has the right to make appointments according to Article II of the US Constitution. The Senate has the duty of "advise and consent". As Thomas and I have both pointed out, "advise" comes in committee; "consent" comes on the Senate floor. The Democrats have added an extra step with this rule. It is a filibuster, and it is illegal.
Open your eyes across this country and look at what's happening in the Congress today, and you're quickly reminded that some of those who run the city have chosen to do so in a way that doesn't seek to find that common ground, that doesn't try to stay in touch with the mainstream values but pushes a narrower set of priorities. What does it tell you when an embattled majority leader of the House is willing to go on talk radio and attack a Supreme Court Justice, let alone a Supreme Court Justice appointed by Ronald Reagan, confirmed by a nearly unanimous Senate, a Justice who ruled in favor of President Bush in Bush versus Gore, Ronald's Reagan nominee to the highest court in the land can't even escape Tom Delay's partisan assaults, and yet here on the floor of the Senate, there's no outcry. No moderating Republican voice willing to say this shocking attack has no place in our democracy.
He is a big supporter of common ground, yet his party is the one holding these judges up. They found common ground in every other judge that has gone through the nomination process except this handful of "extremist" judges. Only deemed extremist by Sen. "Laurel" and his cronies because they believe in interpreting the law the proper way. And you have to love the fact that he brought up Bush v. Gore; a clear sign that the Democrats still cannot get over the election in 2000. As for "What does it tell you when an embattled majority leader of the House is willing to go on talk radio and attack a Supreme Court Justice…", does Sen. "Laurel" not remember when former Sen. Daschle attacked talk radio—specifically naming Rush Limbaugh—because people were questioning his obstructionist tactics then? How about the Ted Kennedy diatribe on the floor of the Senate: "Week, after week, after week, we were told lie, after lie, after lie."? How about Kennedy’s classless comment regarding the judicial nominees last year around Thanksgiving when he referred to them as "turkeys". And what is so shocking about what Rep. DeLay did? Sen. "Laurel" still cannot answer that question. So he criticized a judge. He did not call for the man’s head. He did not call for him to be shot or arrested. He simply stated that the Congress (Remember them, Sen. Laurel? They are the ones representing America) is sick of this kind of judicial fiat and activism, and a time will come when there will be change.
I guess none of this should be a surprise. When the majority leader announces what he's going to do on this Sunday. The majority leader plans to headline a religious service devoted to defeating and I quote, a filibuster against people of faith. Mr. President, I resent that. I'm a person of faith, and I do not believe we should lose our right to have a filibuster to stop things we disagree with, according to the rules of the Senate. It has nothing to do with faith. And when the leader of the Senate questions how any Senator applies their faith in opposing procedures of the United States Senate, we're going too far. You go beyond endangering rules that protect the cherished rights of the majority. You really wind up challenging the foundation of our democracy, and how this Senate is supposed to work.
That is not what this conference is about. It is about the fact that people should not have to choose between their faith and government service. That, Sen. "Laurel" is precisely what your party has done. The ABA has deemed that each and every awaiting nominee is more than qualified to serve on the federal bench. Yet, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have engaged in the use of illegal litmus tests to determine whether or not they are in favor of these judges. What they personally believe should have no bearing—let me repeat that, no bearing—on whether or not they can properly interpret the law. But according to Sen. "Laurel", and his clown-car full comedy rejects, their beliefs—their faith—is exactly what makes them so "extreme" in their view. These people are being filibustered for many reasons, and their faith is just the tip of the iceberg. That is a stance against faith, and that is not only wrong, but it is illegal.
I suggest that Sen. "Laurel" go back to law school, and reread his Constitution. It is not a hard, nor a long read. It means what is says. What his party has engaged in on the issue of judges has been illegal from the start. The filibuster and their discrimination of these jurists are clearly and inherently a violation of the Constitution. This issue is one where should it not be forced, we will have a severe problem when Chief Justice Rehnquist steps down. It must be forced. It is time for the GOP to toss aside the polls, toss aside fools like Sen. "Laurel", and restore the order in the Senate that is desperately needed.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home