Opinion
Senate Republicans: be wary of ‘nuclear option’
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Rob Deters:
- SUVs and Earth Day do not mix (April 24, 2003)
- Senate Republicans: be wary of 'nuclear option' (April 13, 2005)
- Strange allies for environmentalism (April 20, 2005)
- Reflections on 'real world' (April 27, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
There is a showdown approaching in the Senate.
With phrases like the “nuclear option” being tossed about, you’d think hand-to-hand combat or at least tactical strikes were about to break out on the Senate floor. But no, this militaristic jargon is for the rather obscure practice of selecting federal judges.
Republicans in the Senate are currently considering overturning the practice of “filibustering” judicial nominees to the federal courts.
Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, and then federal courts as are needed from “time to time.” The judges sitting on these courts could only be removed if they were not on “good behavior” and could not have their pay reduced. Unlike what many think, the U.S. Constitution is not as clear as one might hope on a lot of procedural issues.
Same goes for the Congress. The procedures that run Congress are self-governing; there are very few hard and fast rules.
The filibuster, wherein a minority of the Senate can require that 60 votes requires passage of a judicial nominee, or passage of a bill, is a Congressionally created rule and quite an old one at that. A filibuster can be shut down via the procedure of “cloture” which requires 60 votes to end debate.
The House of Representatives, now too large and unruly to allow unlimited debate, does not have the filibuster. In the Senate, the idea that they may “advise and consent” for as long as possible is the democratic ideal.
Interestingly, filibuster is related to the Dutch word for pirate. Back when pirates were our main foreign policy concern, Senators prone to delaying legislation and making long-winded speeches were accused of hijacking our democracy, like pirates hijacked booty. That ought to give you an idea of how old the practice of filibustering is. Pirates!
But I digress.
Currently, Republicans are threatening to remove the filibuster from the arsenal of senatorial political tactics because Democrats are objecting to 10 Bush judicial nominees. Oh, how short their memory is.
Under Bill Clinton, for nearly the first time in U.S. history, the Republicans used the filibuster to block judicial nominees: 65 of them. Including every African-American nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (thank you, Jesse Helms!), and for a six-month period, complete shut down on consideration of 47 judicial nominees (thank you, Orrin Hatch!).
In response to Democrats’ current objections, Republicans are throwing about such terms as “obstructionist” and even “unpatriotic.”
Of course, when Sen. John Smith of New Hampshire blocked a judicial nomination for four years straight and was subsequently criticized for it, he said, on the floor of the Senate, “Don’t pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don’t think deserves to be on the circuit court. … That is my responsibility. That is my advice and consent role, and I intend to exercise it.”
Now Democrats are trying to save the filibuster by threatening to slow down or completely block nearly all legislation brought to the floor of the Senate for two years if the filibuster is done away with.
One might think this would be a daring, if not disastrous political maneuver, but there is a method to the madness.
Polls support the actions of Senate Democrats, and the support comes from a surprising group. Republicans.
Forty-one percent of Republicans favor keeping the filibuster, and 33 percent are saying Democrats need to keep Republicans from “going too far.” It seems that beyond the standard support Democrats will receive from their constituency, “going too far” on judicial nominees will hurt Republicans considerably.
What most Americans do not know is that Bush’s nominees, of the 10 being objected to, are only a small proportion of those nominated. Of the 229 judges that have been nominated, only 10 are found wanting by Democrats. This is the highest approval rate of judges for a president since Ronald Reagan.
These 10 nominees, including Priscilla Owen (virulently anti-abortion), William Myers III (possibly broke federal rules in mediating Western land disputes, hates the environment, looks like a total nerd), Thomas Griffith (practiced law without a license for four years, blamed his secretary) and Terrence Boyle (one of the most overturned judges ever nominated to the federal circuit courts) are just plain bad. They’re like the Dirty Dozen of judicial nominees, except they don’t want to steal Nazi gold, they want to steal your rights.
These are the nominees favored by the same people dying to save Terri Schiavo. These are the nominees favored by groups hoping to dismantle federal oversight of managed Western land. These are the nominees favored by groups whose agenda surpasses good politics.
The makeup of the Senate comes and goes, but federal judges stick around a long time. Not giving a full, open debate on the handful of judges Democrats object to looks like Senate Republicans are incapable of the one thing all politicians were supposed to excel at: compromise. If there is any thought going into this process then Republicans ought to be very, very careful.
Careful they do not pack a federal judiciary hostile to the rights of privacy, contract and criminal procedure in ways they did not imagine. Careful they do not alienate the 80 percent or more of voters who do not share the reactionary worldview of the constituency they are pandering to (their hard-core Christian base). Careful they do not eliminate a Senate rule they might want back in 2008.
I understand fully that politicians do not consider the long-term impacts of their shortsighted goals. I understand that Republicans now gain much traction and leverage by decrying the Democratic tactics of delay and can turn and point fingers, instead of offering solutions.
What I don’t understand is how looking back and looking forward Republicans see a fight worth picking over 10 lousy nominees.
Rob Deters (rvdeters@wisc.edu) is a third-year law student.
44 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
How completely shortsighted are the republicans. Do they honestly believe that this move will not come back to bite them in the ass in a few years?
"How completely shortsighted are the republicans. "
Blind, republicans are blind, not shortsighted. Oh and dumb too.
Oh yeah and they are ruining our country as well and slaughtering Iraqis and running up huge deficits and gutting education and funneling profits to the uberrich. When will it end? Never. They control the voting machines, they control the vote.
Canada's looking better, eh?
There go the liberals whining about everything. Hopefully that last post was sarcastic...
Democrats have short memories as well. In the 1970s Robert Byrd was quoted as saying it's assinine to keep Senate rules just because they exist.
Thomas Jefferson had a quote that was very similar.
But yes, the editorial is correct. I'm a Republican and yet the party does more and more to embarrass me every day.
What the Republican majority today does has absolutely nothing to do with what a potential future Democrat majority will do. All this talk of tradition and such is bull, and the Democrats know it. Just reverse the situation.
If the Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate while public opinion favored this manuever (as they do), this wouldn't even be an issue. The courts would have been stacked months ago.
The Republicans need to grow some balls and act like the majority that the American people put in overwhelming power.
"Canada's looking better, eh?"
Then go there already.
Rob Deters here...
The above poster who says that if the Democrats were in power that we wouldn't be having this discussion are correct. Because there is no evidence that Democrats would want to eliminate the filibuster manuever, which is what Republicans exploited while the were the minority throughout the 90's. This is the point of the John Smith quote (who was a Republican).
The admission by the above poster is that Republicans ARE trying to stack the courts in their favor...and obviously betraying their bias in trying to do so.
Here's an interesting tidbit.
7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices are Republican nominees.
9 of the 13 Court of Appeals circuits are majority Republican nominees. If this batch goes through, then the majority of the 12 of the 13 Court of Appeals members will be Republican nominees.
So who's stacking now?
On that same track, it's interesting how Republican's bemoan how Republican nominees become "less conservative" once they're on the bench (see criticism of Anthony Kennedy, Earl Warren and Sandra Day O'Connor as examples). So now the "litmus test" for nominees is that these nominees are even more extremist, less likely to change, and more malleable to their agenda than ever before.
It used to be that "conservative" justices would be relied upon to be impartial, wise, and rule by the law. Now, when conservative justices do so, but disagree with the passions of the right, they are "activist" or "above the law."
These concepts are foreign to jurisprudence in general, but when you have a culture war to win, you can't afford to be neutral on a moving train.
This is why the Democrats are fighting so hard, and why Republicans need to be wary.
Oh, and a recent poll conducted in Florida showed that Floridians approved the most of the conduct in the recent Schiavo mess of the Supreme Court the most...for not getting involved.
Man, I'm a little amped up on caffeine at the moment...time for a bagel...
Rob
"Under Bill Clinton, for nearly the first time in U.S. history, the Republicans used the filibuster to block judicial nominees: 65 of them. Including every African-American nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals"
Wrong. The republicans refused to allow the nominees out of committee, preventing a vote. This is the purpose of committees, to slow the process down and weed out the bad apples by killing them in committee. What the democrats are doing now is threatening to filibuster if the senate majority leader schedules a vote. This is working because the republicans could not maintain quorum if the democrats did indeed filibuster. The reason the republicans are tempted to block the filibuster is because it is meant to slow down the bill passing process and re-open discussion on the bill (to add or remove items). There is nothing to change about a nominee: either you like the person or don't.
I say make them actually perform the filibuster and see what happens. They get their way now by just threatening to filibuster. Make a couple of them talk so long that they pee their pants or shit their shorts. It just "depends" how long they can go on while they are going on.
Of course, if this brings the Senate to a standstill all the better!
Rob, where's your picture? You're not only correct but you're hot!
To hold a filibuster these days, all the opposing faction has to do is say they want to filibuster. It is not the filibuster style that we have all seen in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," the dramatic seen in which Jimmy Stewart read from the Constitution. I say if they want to filibuster, make them filibuster for real.
Besides that, the filibuster has NEVER been used to stall a Senate confirmation vote in the history of the Senate until now, under the current minority faction. I do not favor filibuster at all. To approve the appointee, it means that the Senate must have 60 votes. There are only a few places in which the Constitution explicity requires a supermajority, not a vote of 50 percent plus one. But I guess the Constitution doesn't mean much anymore.
So I guess there is a litmus test for Democrats. Is the appointee a religious man or woman. What about the Constitution doing away with religious tests for public service?
"This is the purpose of committees, to slow the process down and weed out the bad apples by killing them in committee. What the democrats are doing now is threatening to filibuster if the senate majority leader schedules a vote."
I might concede that point, but what about Republicans' assertion that "every nominee deserves an up or down vote"? They didn't allow an up or down vote on 65 highly qualified candidates nominated by Clinton.
Contrast that with 10 dubious candidates nominated by Bush, several of whom are rated as not at all qualified by legal experts and organizations like the American Bar Association.
Not quite the same thing, is it?
"I might concede that point, but what about Republicans' assertion that "every nominee deserves an up or down vote"? They didn't allow an up or down vote on 65 highly qualified candidates nominated by Clinton.
Contrast that with 10 dubious candidates nominated by Bush, several of whom are rated as not at all qualified by legal experts and organizations like the American Bar Association.
Not quite the same thing, is it?"
I'm going to stick with my original statement. The purpose of the committee is to pre-screen nominees for their adequacy and merit to be put forward for a vote. The committee, under the Clinton administration, deemed the nominees not worthy of a vote. Once the nominee clears committee it is customary to have an up or down vote. The republican's assertion that "Every nominee deserves an up or down vote," takes this into consideration.
Of the 10 dubious candidates you describe I can only think of two: Estrada and Owen. An internal memo from the office of Ted Kennedy revealed that (on Estrada's nomination) the democratic party could not allow the republicans to appoint a Hispanic to the bench because they would lose them as a base. On Owen senators were openly opposed to her nomination on grounds that her personal opinions lay outside the mainstream judicial thought. While both were conservative judges this does not excuse their nomination being blocked. The senate's job is not to take issue with the nominees' ideological viewpoint, its job is to assess the ability of the nominee to serve as an impartial official of the justice department and interpret the law as it was written.
...which Owen is clearly unable to do. She has said in the past that abortion is clearly illegal...which it clearly is not. Unless she has decided that the Supreme Court isn't her boss, which she clearly thinks it is not...which clearly disqualifies her.
The funny thing is no judicial nominee was ever filibustered in committee until the Republicans had the chance under Clinton. The reason they never came out of committee was because then they would lose them on the up or down vote...therefore they were held up. Essentially the Republicans were able to accomplish in committee what the Democrats have to do on the floor.
Unfortunately, this once again one of those times where Republican hypocrisy is not acknowledged, nor thought of as unfair, simply sour grapes by the Dems. If this was sour grapes, why would they put so much at stake?
These judges are DANGEROUS, not just bad. That's why the Dems are fighting so hard. If a Republican can't see it, that's the ideological blinders and nothing else.
"Unfortunately, this once again one of those times where Republican hypocrisy is not acknowledged, nor thought of as unfair, simply sour grapes by the Dems. If this was sour grapes, why would they put so much at stake?"
Because the democrats don't have anything left to lose.
If you think Republican-appointed judges are dangerous, why don't you limit judicial jurisdiction? If they don't get to hear the cases, they certainly can't do the damage.
wow, this is actually the most civil and informed discussion I've ever seen in the comments on the BH. no name calling. no cheap shots. not one mention of facists by either side. kind of makes me sad that your comparing wormy apples to wormy apples, but you should be commended. someday we will have a moderate third party that encompasses a true cross-section of america (i just hope its before china and india are running the show so we have a chance to compete)
Sure. Limit jurisdiction to those cases that derive their solution from God, and never look to international law to make decisions.
Hmm.
Sounds like someone wants the Taliban, er...the Constitution Restoration Act to go through.
Hey, did anyone notice that our forefathers founded all, and I repeat ALL of our law on foreign and international law? Namely England (duh) but hey, weren't they just our oppressors, and yet their jurisprudence was good enough to get our country started (and relied on up to this day, just ask Scalia who refers back to England all the time).
What sorts of limitations on jurisdiction would the above poster like? No consideration of the Ten Commandments (*cough* First Amendment! *cough*), or a woman's right to die (*cough* Due Process! *cough*)? What is it with you people?
Actually, Justice Thomas had a great quote today when he came, along with Justice Kennedy to Congress, hat in hand to ask for money (they are dependent on Congress for funding, a way to limit their power indeed). When asked about recent unpopular decisions, Thomas answered, "You don't see referees sticking around after the game giving high-fives."
Probably the smartest thing he's ever said.
This is typical. First of all, filibusters do not exist. Thanks to rule changes in the 1970's, all one side has to do is threaten the filibuster and that's that.
Secondly, filibusters are not about free and open debate, which is an odd thing for a liberal to want anyway, considering the lopsided and authoritarian nature of college campuses.
Filibusters are about preventing votes. Democrats used the filibuster in the 1960's to block civil rights legislation. Sheets Byrd and Armand Hammer/Soviet Union puppet boy, Algore Sr. both participated in the 74 day filibuster to prevent voting on the 1964 civil rights act. An act that wouldn't have passed were it not for us Evil Republicans, who were also the only reason slavery was eventually ended in the U.S. But I digress.
Thirdly, never before in the history of the U.S. Senate have presidential nominees to the court been filibustered, if they made it through committee, they should get an up or down vote on the floor of the senate.
This is just more Sore Loserman tactics of the party that seems addicted to losing (except here in WI were rampant voter fraud in Milwaukee and Madison keep the national dems in power).
The senate Republicans should exercise the constitutional option, if the crybaby dems want to shut down the senate, fine, the more like their base they act, the less electable they become.
The bottom line is this, Republicans stand for principles, liberals stand for the acquisition of power and the spread of socialistic enslavement via the courts. Since the American people aren't stupid enough to vote themselves into slavery and oppression, democrats cannot win in the arena of ideas. And so they seek every advantage to cheat.
Republicans have already won the battle of ideas, liberals are just being as corrupt and immature as they've always been. Without the activist judges legislating from the bench, liberalism is in the dust bin of History were it belongs, along with France, Stalinism and slavery, to name just a few of the Democrat Party's cause celebres over its long and mostly shameful existence.
look at that, I compliment you for your civility and this ass comes along to make himself feel better about getting pushed around by the football team. bet you drive a big suv to huh pinny?
Hey Ratcliff!
You suck! Jerk! Go enlist you chickenhawk! Bwak bwak!
Jackoff!
Ah, more intelligent liberal discourse from Madison's elite mind factory. You, my anonymous dear sir, madam or transgendered thing, are a credit to your professors.
You should really post your full name so your professors can get full credit for their merit raises next fall.
Of course, to save your parents embarrassment you could probably just identify yourself to them by your numerous tattoos, multi-colored hair, and/or multiple studs in your face.
Although, based on your command of the language, I'm sure your professors have already identified you and are printing this page to use when they put in for their merit raises.
"Go enlist you chickenhawk!"
The armed forces are doing just fine in the field, where they need support is at home - in the stuggle with appeasement minded doves.
"The armed forces are doing just fine in the field, where they need support is at home - in the stuggle with appeasement minded doves."
Appeasement? This isn't WWII pal. We attacked a country that had complied with UN resolutions against the resolution of said UN. The war is illegal and Bush is a war criminal. Rumsfeld has been convicted of war crimes in the International courts.
Bush is a villain and a murderer and anyone who supports this war is a murderer as well.
War protesters are the true patriots, a voice of reason among the mindless hordes of conservatives and drone of the conservative-corporate run media.
9-11 was an inside job.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html
Yeah, Saddam was a great guy. It's too bad those rape rooms and torture chambers were closed down by we ignorant Americans.
Of course, if Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions, why was he jerking the inspectors around?
Why did he fire daily on U.S. and British fighter jets patrolling the no-fly zone?
Why did he replace the regular border guards on the Iraq/Syria border with his "elite" Republican Guard when he was shipping his illegal WMD's over to President Bashar for safe keeping?
Isn't it sad that payments to families of Palestinian suicide bomber have ceased now that this great humanitarian is behind bars.
But cheer up! You still have Castro to worship, for a limited time at least.
And, if Cuba's mythical health care system is as great as American Marxists maintain, he might just live forever with the advanced Cuban stem cell therapy.
Be sure to ship your aborted fetuses to Cuba and maybe you can hold on to at least one oppressive dictator.
keep drinking the koolaid ratcliff. I hope you are writing from a bunker in Mosul.
Rob Deters here...
Hey Ratcliff...how's it going?
France in the dustbin of history? That's news to me...and the French I suppose as well. And for Republicans destroying slavery...sure. But not because they cared about black people (that would be Massachusettes liberals, or as they were known then, abolitionists), but because they couldn't afford to lose the Southern engine of wealth known as King Cotton, and the other textiles and agricultural products they had.
Don't kid yourself that Republicans came along and "saved" black people from slavery. That was a human rights abuse longing to be freed, Republicans just happened to be in power when they stuck to it to the Southerners in the post-war period.
Also, as for liberals being bereft of ideas...what a load of crap. I didn't realize that social justice, ending poverty, improving education (besides flawed mandatory testing requirements), and fixing the environment weren't ideas. Perhaps they're causes...something Republicans hesitate to endorse if there isn't a flag or cross leading the way? (Or more obviously, $$$).
Come on Ratcliff...I give you credit for putting your name out there...but you have to come up with some better stuff than this!
As for the "up or down vote" line...man, am I watching a Sunday morning talk show or is that a Republican Talking Point (TM) staring me in the face? Why give an up and down vote on a candidate unqualified for the job? Besides, when nominees are killed in committee, do you really think anything went on besides a straw poll on the candidate, and if there weren't votes, they were done? These people weren't even interviewed under Republicans, there was no debate!
So honestly, quit thinking there is a secret bunker full of missing WMD's in Syria (there isn't, just looted equipment stolen right out from under us as we invaded), don't think that Saddam was anything other than a bluffer (the only thing that keeps Arab leaders in power), and don't think that these candidates (the real issue here) are anything other than stoolies for the right with an agenda that comes before juridprudence.
"An act that wouldn't have passed were it not for us Evil Republicans, who were also the only reason slavery was eventually ended in the U.S. But I digress."
And 100 years ago, I would have been a Republican. Hell, even 50 years ago (with the exception of FDR's 12 years) I would have been a Republican. But somehow, while the Democrats (except for the Dixiecrats) figured out that being racist assholes was poor public policy, Republicans decided that being racist, corporate ass-kissing, anti-anything-not-fundamentalist-Christian assholes was good public policy. Democrats were right; Republicans were (and still are) wrong. Unfortunately, most Americans on both sides of the ideological divide are too lazy to be bothered with studying history, and too stupid to realize that the bullshit facades put forth by both parties are not about protecting everyday Americans but the perpetual empowerment of selfish elites. Today, Republicans stand for enriching billionaires on the backs of the poor and middle class, while Democrats stand for enriching hundred-millionaires on the backs of the poor and middle class. And don't get me started on other parties, like the Socialists, who stand for bitching and moaning about petty bullshit while doing nothing about important things.
Sadly, Republicans have a better propaganda machine than Democrats, and every potential third party that has come along has acted in a similarly dishonorable way.
"Of course, if Saddam was in compliance with the UN resolutions, why was he jerking the inspectors around?"
Two reasons:
1) Because he could.
2) To piss off reactionaries like you.
"Why did he fire daily on U.S. and British fighter jets patrolling the no-fly zone?"
Two reasons:
1) Because he could.
2) To piss off reactionaries like you.
"Why did he replace the regular border guards on the Iraq/Syria border with his "elite" Republican Guard when he was shipping his illegal WMD's over to President Bashar for safe keeping?"
Two reasons:
1) Because he could.
2) To piss off reactionaries like you.
On the other hand...
"Be sure to ship your aborted fetuses to Cuba and maybe you can hold on to at least one oppressive dictator."
What makes you think they don't have others? They had Arafat, until he blessed us all with his death. They still have Assad, Mubarak, Lahoud, Khatami, Mugabe, Chavez, and a few dozen others I can't think of off the top of my head.
"So honestly, quit thinking there is a secret bunker full of missing WMD's in Syria"
You might be right, Rob, but the UN knows Syria has its own chemical weapons, so what's the difference if they're Iraqi or Syrian in origin, especially when Syria continues to sponsor terrorism?
I never thought i would see the day when Deters called someone out for looking nerdy.
Rob, for your litany of problems to react to, I don't see any practical solutions posed for those problems, except raising taxes, which seems to be the only song in the liberal hymnal.
Ever since the Dept. of Education came into existence under the Carter administration, public schools have fared worse and worse while raking in more and more money for the likes of shrinks and LGBT councilors. Conservatives proposed a workable solution to allow low income families to put their children in private schools, and even helped the public schools by forcing them to compete.
What is the typical liberal reaction to this success?
"We're destroying our public schools!"
Well, yeah, but they don't work anyway.
"But! But!" and then the liberal intellectual responds then only way they can, by hurtling a food item and the conservative. A food items, I might add, that could have been donated to a food pantry or the Salvation Army.
And your show and amazing lack of history in your analysis of abolition. The sole reason the GOP was formed was to end slavery while the Democrat Party was formed to avoid talking about slavery and to build power by giving away concessions to the party faithful.
Essentially it was born in corruption and continues to wallow it in corruption, all the while attacking an honorable American like Tom DeLay for corruption.
As for unqualified jurists making it to the courts, that is what the judicial committee is for. Why even have the committee if the loser side can filibuster, it makes no sense.
As for unqualified judges getting to the bench, how do you explain the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? Obviously, someone was asleep at the filibuster wheel when those guys were affirmed.
Still, if you wish to live in a judicial oligarchy, why don't you write your elected representatives and convince them to vote for this form of government? Why not bring it to the fore of public debate instead of inserting it through the back door?
It isn't that the GOP has better propaganda, it's that the ideas the GOP puts forth are desired by a majority of Americans. I still maintain that dems do not put ideas forth. What you've listed is a litany of platitudes which are different from the workable ideas the GOP and conservatives advance, such as making a portion of Social Security a voluntary investment, tax cuts to spur economic growth, and the fledgling debate on reforming the tax code and doing away with the IRS.
As for the Mr. Anonymous guy who says Republicans are racist, prove it. You're not even thinking, just regurgitating the crap your Marxist professors vomit down your throat. I'm not saying there aren't Republicans who might be racist, but the racism of the Democrats has crippled generations of people they tacitly believe are too stupid to function without a government hand out.
Why do you have such a low opinion of your fellow humans?
Amd look what happens when people of color come out as genuine conservatives, look at all the racist cartoons of Condi when she was before the Senate to become the new Sec. of State.
The racism of the loving liberals is disgusting. And of course, she doesn't think for herself, she just does and says whatever President Bush says to do. And, of course, President Bush is an idiot robot programmed by Karl Rove in the paranoid minds of the Democrat Cultists.
Many of you would be better off surrendering your wills to Scientology. At least, they're an "honest" mind control cult.
I stopped reading when you called DeLay an "honorable American". You are obviously a brainwashed dolt.
Isn't Michael Savage on right now? Shouldn't you be listening you mental midget?
Anonymous wrote:
Isn't Michael Savage on right now? Shouldn't you be listening you mental midget?
And I replied:
This is just the kind of insightful and intelligent discourse that helps us to come together as a nation!
Do you...Do you see what you did? You objected to me referring to Tom DeLay as "honorable" but provide no evidence that he is anything other then honorable.
Then you told me, in your indelible, authoritarian, liberal way, what radio show I should like and then you called me a "mental midget."
He he he.
Brilliant!
You are just so far out there ahead of the liberal pack. I'll bet you always carry two pies in specially made pie holsters, that keep the pies cool and fresh in case you ever want to display your wit and command of the issues in a live public forum. On Library Mall, say. Or in case you come across Ann Coulter or Bill Kristol on the street.
Remember, to an intellectual liberal giant, such as yourself, assault is the same as debate. And don't let any peace officer or judge tell you any different! You're way smarter then they could ever hope to be!
"We attacked a country that had complied with UN resolutions against the resolution of said UN."
That's just flat out incorrect. What, did YOU end up with some of Saddam's oil swag?
Mmmm...Tom DeLay's daughter got champagne poured over her while she was in a hot tub in Vegas by a lobbyist...honorable!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=politics/elections/2000/house/archive&contentId=A56952-2000Sep21
Oh...and Tom DeLay wants you to drink MTBE as much as possible...
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1119/p02s01-ussc.html
And he flies around the world on a lobbyist's tab to play golf...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/delay.woes.ap/
And he plays up the Schiavo case for personal gain...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1040968,00.html
Mmmm...honorable indeed!
Hi Anonymous,
I forget that Stalinist ideals of honor include Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd making a waitress sandwich and Bill Clinton getting oral in the Oval and Janet Reno torturing a woman to get her husband to confess to a crime he didn't commit.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003396.php
Quote:
Mr. Anderson then relates the aggressive tactics of Janet Reno in Florida in pursuing child molestation cases.
The first involved the accusation (almost surely false) of massive child molestation against two owners of a Florida daycare center in 1984. The chief accuser was then-Dade County State?s Attorney Janet Reno (yes, that Janet Reno) who was in the middle of a tough re-election campaign and was determined to get a guilty verdict.
Reno was able to have then-18-year-old Ileana Furster, Frank Furster?s wife, held without bond. Furthermore, the young woman was placed nude in a solitary confinement cell, being in full view of male and female guards. In 1998, Ileana described some of her treatment:
They would give me cold showers. Two people would hold me, run me under cold water, then throw me back in the cell naked with nothing, just a bare floor. And I used to be cold, real cold. I would have my periods and they would wash me and throw me back into the cell.
:endQuote
So to you guys, Tom DeLay must seem almost super human and so you hate and fear him.
And shame! Shame! on Tom DeLay for trying to protect the life of a poor helpless woman. The liberal motto: If it's helpless, kill it!
So, by your standards, I can see why you would choke on Tom DeLay's honor.
Shouldn't an IS tech support person like Ratliff be *working* instead of composing and posting on here all day long??? Nice use of our tax dollars.
Ratcliff is a troll. Ignore him. Anyone who in the face of a mountain of evidence would say that DeLay is an honorable American is obviously fresh off the bus from the brainwashing plant at the Mendota Beacon.
Dude, Clinton got a blowjob. Just cause your jealous doesn't mean its wrong. Loosen up you tightass.
Bush has murdered tens of thousands of civilians, iraqia are drinking sewer water, and the massive protests in Baghdad over the weekend prove that we are not well liked in Iraq.
Rob,
You need to get your facts straight before going on a rant like this. The Republicans have never used a filibuster on a judicial nominee. They have voted them down, but that is much different than using a filibuster. If the Democrats had control of the Senate and they voted down Bush's nominees the debate would be much different on this issue. However, the Democrats aren't even letting the nominees get to an up or down vote. That is unprecedented in the Senate and you need to do some better fact checking before spouting off that the Republicans have previously used this tactic.