SwiftVets.com

[SBD]

I can almost see the writing on the wall if Terry is starved to death.

The rift in this country will be like nothing ever seen before. This could be the straw that broke the camel's back as some states might find it unethical to remain in a Union with the other murderous states and who could blame them.

The Dems in the Senate have already said they will shut down the entire system if the Filibuster is taken away from them in appointing judges.

The Judicial Branch has gotten away with taking the Law creating process away from the Legislative and creating their own version of Law to suit heir agenda. If Bush's nominees are allowed to go through, this diminishes their unauthorized Powers which the Judges in this country are not going to let happen without a ruthless fight. Hense Teri dies for this reason.

Is the United States heading for a split in the Union??


SBD

[RogerRabbit]

I think you have gone off the deep end. We have survived worse than this
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

[LewWaters]

The rift I see makes me fear for more than a split union. I watch as Libs and the ACLU take delight in this ladies slow and torturous demise and thumb their noses at what is the right thing to do.

Whose next? Who do they next decide doesn't have the quality of life they deem proper?
_________________
Clark County Conservative

[SBD]

Judge not lest ye be ... filibustered
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?issue_date=03-23-2005&ID=2005102239

By DAVID REINHARD

Democrats threatened Tuesday to shut down the Senate if, according to an Associated Press dispatch, "Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments."

Question: If these court appointments are so "controversial," why are Senate Democrats afraid of giving them a simple Senate vote?

By definition, a nominee who's so controversial, so far out of the mainstream, would never be able to win a majority of senators needed for confirmation.

Senate Democrats have their own question: Isn't approval of 204 out of 214 Bush judges in the first term, as Democratic leader Harry Reid says, "a pretty good deal?"

Answer: Not really, since Reid's number is one of those meaningless, if true, political concoctions. It includes district and appellate court judges. It hides the fact that the 10 unconfirmed individuals were appellate court nominees. In fact, they were not, as the Nevada Democrat says, even "turned down." They weren't given an up-or-down vote, because Reid's Democrats feared the nominees had the 50-plus votes needed for confirmation.

A better figure would compare Bush's four-year appellate confirmation rate to recent presidents. According to the American Enterprise Institute's John Lott Jr., Bush's four-year rate was 69 percent, the lowest of any modern president. Bill Clinton's rate was 74 percent.

The Democrats' decision to deny Bush's nominees an up-or-down vote accounts for Bush's low success rate. It also has Republicans talking about changing the Senate filibuster rules on judicial nominations—and Democrats talking about bringing Senate business to a halt.

It's tempting to brush all this off as standard judicial nomination politics. Democrats are just doing to Republicans what Republicans did to Democrats. In requiring a 60-vote super-majority for judicial nominations, however, Senate Democrats are doing something without precedent and amending the Constitution, which requires only a simple majority for court nominations.

Reid and company have used the Senate filibuster rule to permanently deny votes to nominees with clear majority support. That's never been done before. Thus, Senate Democrats have undertaken their own constitutional convention and state ratifications to amend the Constitution. And they expect the Senate GOP to ignore their extra-constitutional 60-vote requirement, at least until there's a Democrat in the White House, or they'll shut down the Senate.

Would Senate Republicans be out of line to change the Senate rules so filibusters cannot be used to deny court nominees an up-or-down vote? Would such a move—the "constitutional" or "nuclear" option--end the rule of law or Senate tradition as we know it?

Please. Senate rules did not allow the filibuster for anything but legislation until 1949, and distinguished senators have testified to the importance of up-or-down votes on judicial nominees in the decades since.

"Everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor ... It is totally appropriate ... to reject every single nominee if they want to. That is within their right. But it is not ... appropriate not to have hearings on them, not to bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote."

That's Delaware Democrat Joe Biden, in 1997.

"The president and the Senate do not always agree. But we should resolve these disagreements by voting on these nominees--yes or no."

That was Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy—in 1998.

Is a Senate rule change appropriate to ensure a yes-or-no vote on nominees?

"This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past ... The first Senate ... approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time ... So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate."

That was West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd, in 1979, when he was working to change Senate rules and before his recent speech likening Republicans who were considering Senate rule changes to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

I wonder if Republicans went so far then as to threaten to shut down the Senate.

SBD

[DLI78]

SBD,

The way I see it, regardless of whether or not Terri dies this time we HAVE to remove the fillibuster from the Dems on judicial appointees and Bush has to get really busy packing the court system with as many coherent judges as he can just to prevent a repeat of this kind of ****.

We have to do everything we can on a local and state level to remove wacky and incompetent judges like Greer and replace them. If this further polarizes the country so what?!? Last I checked, the blue staters were just a bunch of nut jobs on the fringes of the country, with red states and counties the vast majority.

Further, I think we each need to lobby our state governments to pass a law that states absent a living will or other written and notarized document to the contrary, we will presume that everybody in a vegetative state would want to live rather than die. Why? Only crazy people would prefer death to life.

Further, we need a law in every state that says if somebody in a vegetative condition is judicially sentenced to death, they have the same basic rights as a stray dog: a quick and painless lethal injection rather than torture by starvation.

Hell, even here in wacked out, stoned beyond known borders, dumber than a box of rocks, idiot liberal dem/soc/commie La-La-Land California if you capture a stray dog, chain it in your front yard in full view of everybody and starve it to death you will be fined and jailed.

(Note: if you put a Nobel Prize winner with an IQ of 170 in a room with 5 California liberals selected at random, you will have an everage IQ of 2. Doubt that? Check out how people vote here.)

(Note 2: I'm in a solidly red county in La-La-Land. We try to ignore our dumber cousins up north.)

(Note 3: A few years back we actually passed a ban on horsemeat for human consumption. Why? Beats me. I never met anybody who has eaten a horse. Dogs, sure. Tastes like chicken. You can still sell horsemeat to Purina so Fluffy and Rover stay fat and happy. No Problemo. But if you kill one horse to feed starving people here in La-La-Land, your next roommate could be Charles Manson.)

(Note 4: Come to think of it, Floriduh has little chance of overtaking us as the fruitbasket of the nation. Next time you flush your toilet remember: 100% of your production is going to LA or San Francisco. I think they call it "brain food.")
_________________
DLI 78
Army Linguist
1978-1986