KRC Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Harmful in the judiciary sense of making rulings that aren't consistent with our laws. Harmful in the legislative sense of making legislation that isn't consistent with the constitution. If one party gets control of the judiciary, legislature, and presidency that would become a constitutional crisis and nightmare. Thats what I mean by harmful. A fillibuster on judiciary nominees is another check/balance to make sure that people aren't appointed who won't follow the constitution and should not be allowed an up or down vote. It could be that I don't totally understand what the Republicans want right now. To me they want to totally abolish the fillibuster when it comes to judges, something I don't feel is a good idea. Maybe its my severe mistrust of governmental parties or my 1984-like ideas. I would support a much tougher fillibuster though (like you mentioned earlier monkey - make them read from the phone book if they don't want hte nomination to happen, haha). I was a little bit drunk and tired when I wrote that earlier post so I can see it didn't completely make sense, lol. What I meant by "Whether the dems are or not on each individual case is another story" was that I don't think the Dems are justified in these cases (although I don't know all 10 nominees well enough) to make a fillibuster, but if a judge was appointed who wouldn't follow the constitution but what the party wanted instead then I think the Dems should have the fillibuster option to fall back on. Basically, make the fillibuster harder to achieve (like what you were saying monkey) - if the time comes where we need it, then use it. Don't totally throw it out the window, thats not a good thing, constitutionally or otherwise. 341856[/snapback] So, you want to use unconstitutional tactics to guarantee that we get judges who uphold the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Harmful in the judiciary sense of making rulings that aren't consistent with our laws. Harmful in the legislative sense of making legislation that isn't consistent with the constitution. If one party gets control of the judiciary, legislature, and presidency that would become a constitutional crisis and nightmare. Thats what I mean by harmful. A fillibuster on judiciary nominees is another check/balance to make sure that people aren't appointed who won't follow the constitution and should not be allowed an up or down vote. It could be that I don't totally understand what the Republicans want right now. To me they want to totally abolish the fillibuster when it comes to judges, something I don't feel is a good idea. Maybe its my severe mistrust of governmental parties or my 1984-like ideas. I would support a much tougher fillibuster though (like you mentioned earlier monkey - make them read from the phone book if they don't want hte nomination to happen, haha). I was a little bit drunk and tired when I wrote that earlier post so I can see it didn't completely make sense, lol. What I meant by "Whether the dems are or not on each individual case is another story" was that I don't think the Dems are justified in these cases (although I don't know all 10 nominees well enough) to make a fillibuster, but if a judge was appointed who wouldn't follow the constitution but what the party wanted instead then I think the Dems should have the fillibuster option to fall back on. Basically, make the fillibuster harder to achieve (like what you were saying monkey) - if the time comes where we need it, then use it. Don't totally throw it out the window, thats not a good thing, constitutionally or otherwise. 341856[/snapback] I like how People For the American Way are using scare tactics to preserve the filibuster by INCORRECTLY saying the constitution is under attack. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about filibusters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I like how People For the American Way are using scare tactics to preserve the filibuster by INCORRECTLY saying the constitution is under attack. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about filibusters. 342355[/snapback] It is just like the AARP and the SS debate or most of the junk put out by MoveOn.org. They are preying on the fact that people are not actually going to research the issue and that they will just blindly believe what is fed to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 They are preying on the fact that people are not actually going to research the issue and that they will just blindly believe what is fed to them. 342366[/snapback] Mostly because it works... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Mostly because it works... 342373[/snapback] Sad, isn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Sad, isn't it. 342379[/snapback] Very. But PPP is pretty much all the proof needed anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Very. But PPP is pretty much all the proof needed anyway. 342511[/snapback] I've noticed there's a statistical clustering of ignorant fools on the left-wing of the spectrum. Perhaps that's why the PAW is using the airwaves to get the message out to their minions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I've noticed there's a statistical clustering of ignorant fools on the left-wing of the spectrum. Perhaps that's why the PAW is using the airwaves to get the message out to their minions. 342512[/snapback] Strikes me that the idiocy is kind of evenly clustered at both poles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts