The War Is About To Begin...
The Congress is due to get back from it's recess soon. This hasn't stopped those on the Left from firing off their yaps. Today, the Washington Post has a story about how much of a war is about to erupt in the Senate over the "Constitutional option" that the GOP is faced with.
The "Constitutional option" is a move that would end the Democrats illegal filibustering of Pres. Bush's judicial nominations. It would remove the "supermajority" that the Democrats demand in a cloture vote. In essence, the "Constitutional option" would restore the Constitution instead of allowing the Democrats--the party with no power in the executive or legislative branches--to continue it's shredding and bastardizing of the Constitution.
"If they don't get what they want, they attack whoever's around," Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters this week. "Now they're after the courts, and I think it goes back to this arrogance of power."
This is a quote I found in the WaPo this morning. It has nothing to do with what happens when "we don't get what we want". This fight is coming to a head because for years, the Democrats have tried to steer this nation in the direction they want, based on their vision of the future. The problem with their vision is that there's lies on the side of continually selling this nation out. And I don't just hold that ire for the Democrats. Oh no. I have an axe to grind on a few in the GOP for refusing to acknowledge that this nation is vulnerable to outside attack, and that it is being invaded from it's southern border.
And as for the "arrogance of power" Reid thinks we have, I have but one question for him. Since when? The GOP has been steadily gaining power since 1994, and aside from Gingrich, the GOP has acted like a dog whipped for urinating on a carpet. They're timid. They refuse to confront things vitally important to the nation. They're too apt to compromise. A wise friend of mine had this to say about compromise:
"No means no. The moment you compromise your position, you argue from a position of weakness. The moment you allow compromise you send a signal to your opponent that you're flexible. If they're firm on their side of the issue, you've already lost the debate."
This is why I don't compromise. If I studdy 99% of an issue, and I stand firm on it, I doubt the 1% that I didn't study is going to change my mind. But that isn't so for the GOP today. The days of Reagan and Gingrich are over. If the GOP wants to continue making inroads in the nation, then it is of the utmost importance that they get their votes assured, and bring this matter to the floor.
And we need to get involved as well. CALL YOUR SENATORS! Make sure you make them understand that a vote to end this illegal cloture system is a vote in favor of the Constitution. Never before has a party acted like this with a president's judicial nominees. And as for all the Clintonistas out there that scream to high heaven that the GOP did the same thing to his nominees, that's a nice spin on the story but it's just not true.
Clinton's nominees were killed in committee. They were given their up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. The GOP refused to filibuster his nominees. EVERYONE of his nominees got their vote. Under Pres. Bush, twenty haven't. That's why they were renominated. And it's not as though these people graduated from law school at the bottom of their class, or they're utterly incompetant and unable to do their jobs. We're not talking about Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, or a William Douglas here. These people are more than qualified to sit on the federal bench. Each and every one of them.
But the Democrats don't want them anywhere near the bench. They don't because they haven't made their spiteful decisions based on the merits of the nominee, but rather their own personal ideology. And the Democrats think that because their activist judges tend to "think for themselves" pulling "emanations in the penumbras" from areas that have no reasonable relevance to cases, that the originalists will do similar back to them. Here's the problem with that thought process.
An originalist--of which both Marcie and I consider ourselves as such--is someone who will look at the Constitution, look at the precedents surrounding an issue, and render a decision on it. Yes, Roe v. Wade is an abomination. However it is "law" right now, and until it is overturned by the same court that set the damned precedent, it will stay as thus.
But we know that the USSC is about to undergo a change. Rehnquist will not last long; I'm predicting he'll be gone by October or November of this year. O' Connor has hinted she might be ready to step down, as has Ginsburg. That's at least three seats being vacated. To prevent any further decimation of our Constitution, it is absolutely essential to get originalists on the USSC. It's necessary for them to be placed on the "inferior" courts that the Framers spoke of. We must set this country back on the tracks that it was derailed from long ago.
The Democrats can't win in the realm of ideas. They can't win at the ballot box. They're failing left and right, because people are sick of their vitriolic attacks on things that we believe to be right and just. If they're still scratching their heads as to how they lost the election in November, here's a hint...See how you acted when we went to war. Look at the attacks on the president. Now, ask yourself that question again. We're not "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" like the French and the current Democratic leadership. We stand up and defend this nation. I can't help it if the Left in this country, which includes quite a few Democrats in leadership positions, err on the side of capitulation, appeasement, and surrender when it comes to protecting this nation, it's ideals, it's freedom, it's beliefs, and it's people.
Publius II
The Congress is due to get back from it's recess soon. This hasn't stopped those on the Left from firing off their yaps. Today, the Washington Post has a story about how much of a war is about to erupt in the Senate over the "Constitutional option" that the GOP is faced with.
The "Constitutional option" is a move that would end the Democrats illegal filibustering of Pres. Bush's judicial nominations. It would remove the "supermajority" that the Democrats demand in a cloture vote. In essence, the "Constitutional option" would restore the Constitution instead of allowing the Democrats--the party with no power in the executive or legislative branches--to continue it's shredding and bastardizing of the Constitution.
"If they don't get what they want, they attack whoever's around," Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters this week. "Now they're after the courts, and I think it goes back to this arrogance of power."
This is a quote I found in the WaPo this morning. It has nothing to do with what happens when "we don't get what we want". This fight is coming to a head because for years, the Democrats have tried to steer this nation in the direction they want, based on their vision of the future. The problem with their vision is that there's lies on the side of continually selling this nation out. And I don't just hold that ire for the Democrats. Oh no. I have an axe to grind on a few in the GOP for refusing to acknowledge that this nation is vulnerable to outside attack, and that it is being invaded from it's southern border.
And as for the "arrogance of power" Reid thinks we have, I have but one question for him. Since when? The GOP has been steadily gaining power since 1994, and aside from Gingrich, the GOP has acted like a dog whipped for urinating on a carpet. They're timid. They refuse to confront things vitally important to the nation. They're too apt to compromise. A wise friend of mine had this to say about compromise:
"No means no. The moment you compromise your position, you argue from a position of weakness. The moment you allow compromise you send a signal to your opponent that you're flexible. If they're firm on their side of the issue, you've already lost the debate."
This is why I don't compromise. If I studdy 99% of an issue, and I stand firm on it, I doubt the 1% that I didn't study is going to change my mind. But that isn't so for the GOP today. The days of Reagan and Gingrich are over. If the GOP wants to continue making inroads in the nation, then it is of the utmost importance that they get their votes assured, and bring this matter to the floor.
And we need to get involved as well. CALL YOUR SENATORS! Make sure you make them understand that a vote to end this illegal cloture system is a vote in favor of the Constitution. Never before has a party acted like this with a president's judicial nominees. And as for all the Clintonistas out there that scream to high heaven that the GOP did the same thing to his nominees, that's a nice spin on the story but it's just not true.
Clinton's nominees were killed in committee. They were given their up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. The GOP refused to filibuster his nominees. EVERYONE of his nominees got their vote. Under Pres. Bush, twenty haven't. That's why they were renominated. And it's not as though these people graduated from law school at the bottom of their class, or they're utterly incompetant and unable to do their jobs. We're not talking about Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, or a William Douglas here. These people are more than qualified to sit on the federal bench. Each and every one of them.
But the Democrats don't want them anywhere near the bench. They don't because they haven't made their spiteful decisions based on the merits of the nominee, but rather their own personal ideology. And the Democrats think that because their activist judges tend to "think for themselves" pulling "emanations in the penumbras" from areas that have no reasonable relevance to cases, that the originalists will do similar back to them. Here's the problem with that thought process.
An originalist--of which both Marcie and I consider ourselves as such--is someone who will look at the Constitution, look at the precedents surrounding an issue, and render a decision on it. Yes, Roe v. Wade is an abomination. However it is "law" right now, and until it is overturned by the same court that set the damned precedent, it will stay as thus.
But we know that the USSC is about to undergo a change. Rehnquist will not last long; I'm predicting he'll be gone by October or November of this year. O' Connor has hinted she might be ready to step down, as has Ginsburg. That's at least three seats being vacated. To prevent any further decimation of our Constitution, it is absolutely essential to get originalists on the USSC. It's necessary for them to be placed on the "inferior" courts that the Framers spoke of. We must set this country back on the tracks that it was derailed from long ago.
The Democrats can't win in the realm of ideas. They can't win at the ballot box. They're failing left and right, because people are sick of their vitriolic attacks on things that we believe to be right and just. If they're still scratching their heads as to how they lost the election in November, here's a hint...See how you acted when we went to war. Look at the attacks on the president. Now, ask yourself that question again. We're not "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" like the French and the current Democratic leadership. We stand up and defend this nation. I can't help it if the Left in this country, which includes quite a few Democrats in leadership positions, err on the side of capitulation, appeasement, and surrender when it comes to protecting this nation, it's ideals, it's freedom, it's beliefs, and it's people.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:23 AM
2 Comments:
Clinton's nominees were killed in committee. They were given their up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.
is this consistent????
Clinton's nominees were killed in committee, as it should have been. You do not filibuster on the floor of the Senate. There is no jusitification for it. Every president has the right to their appointees, and those appointees--should they survive the committee--also deserve their up-or-down vote.
That is how our system has worked for almost 230 years.
Why should this be allowed to continue? And why would we want it to continue. You either have the ability to "kill" the nominee in committee, or you take the chance on the Senate floor.
What I see is one party afraid to even let a sliver of their so-called control over the judiciary slip away. They do not control the judiciary. This was made plainly evident in the Schiavo case where a lowly state judge cowed the Congress into submission.
Publius II
Post a Comment
<< Home