GW Bush = Emperor Palpatine? Who knew?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

i am not suggesting that GWB has put the best people forward, but i am saying that the dems need to put forward the case for why someone isn't qualified or confirm them. "GW nominated them, so i don't want 'em", isn't enough IMO.

Here you go.

[BigV]

And here.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by lookout123

example: this morning i heard Bill Nelson (sen. from FL, i believe) say that he doesn't really have a problem with the nominee per se, but "why should the white house get to have all their nominees?"

i'm not sure, but i thought that was how it worked. the president nominates, the senate confirms or denies based on qualifications.

For one thing, Nelson's basically a Republican to begin with; you can take whatever he says with a grain of salt.

For another, "confirm or deny based on qualifications" does not equate to "everyone the President nominates is automatically qualified." If mere possession of conservative values was a disqualifier, the Democrats would have filibustered a lot more than 10 of Bush's nominees.

There are a hell of a lot of other conservative judges in this nation who would be qualified for federal judgeships. Bush could have finessed the situation easily by nominating new judges in place of the blocked 5%, then others, then others until all spaces were filled. The Democrats would either have REALLY looked bad by being forced to blatantly filibuster multitudes on strict partisan grounds, or would have been forced to confirm judges who fall well within Bush's philosophy with a comparative minimum of fuss.

But that's not what this is about. This is about the Republicans declaring that they control the floor, control Congress, and can use their majority status to render the minority irrelevant. Objections to ten judges, no matter how strenuous? Too bad, the President wants them, so they're being renominated and going through even if the Senate rules have to be changed to stifle minority dissent.

But to circle back to the original topic, how PRICELESS was it yesterday when Lautenberg (D, NJ) whipped out a placard with Emperor Palpatine on the floor of the Senate, quoting from the new Star Wars movie in support of his arguments?

<img src=http://img272.echo.cx/img272/7946/palp6bc2ht.jpg>

[lookout123]

For one thing, Nelson's basically a Republican to begin with; you can take whatever he says with a grain of salt.

For another, "confirm or deny based on qualifications" does not equate to "everyone the President nominates is automatically qualified." If mere possession of conservative values was a disqualifier, the Democrats would have filibustered a lot more than 10 of Bush's nominees.

uh,. yeah thanks for taking the time to read what i was saying, rather than just assuming i was supporting the white house in this matter.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by lookout123

uh,. yeah thanks for taking the time to read what i was saying, rather than just assuming i was supporting the white house in this matter.

Please. You said this:

i am not suggesting that GWB has put the best people forward, but i am saying that the dems need to put forward the case for why someone isn't qualified or confirm them. "GW nominated them, so i don't want 'em", isn't enough IMO.

Putting forward the case is exactly what the Dems have been doing in Senate debate over the last few days. Nelson isn't what I would call a party spokesperson on such things.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

uh,. yeah thanks for taking the time to read what i was saying, rather than just assuming i was supporting the white house in this matter.

Did anything I wrote make any assumptions about who you supported? When I referred to "the Republicans", I was referring to the ones in the Senate.

edit: Ah, you were being sarcastic to BigV, though I can't see where he makes any assumptions about you either.

[lookout123]

actually my sarcasm was meant for VSP. my statements were based on what Nelson said. i clearly stated that the white house was not faultless - their nominations have problems... but i also stated that there needs to be a legitimate reason for nixing a nomination - "the white house shouldn't get everyone they want" isn't good enough.

the point is that there are people, like Nelson, that are using this for purely partisan purposes. we should call these fools out and ridicule them for the asses that they are.

there are other people that have legitimate beefs with the nominees. they are stating their cases. we should support them.

figure out which camp you are in and go from there.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

actually my sarcasm was meant for VSP.

Oops - the thread isn't visible in the "edit comment" box, and I only remembered the V initial...

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by lookout123

the point is that there are people, like Nelson, that are using this for purely partisan purposes. we should call these fools out and ridicule them for the asses that they are.

I'd settle for people without real opinions not being interviewed on TV as representatives of their "side". There are enough people who can list the faults of the nominees in great detail to give the reporter no excuse for picking Nelson.

[lookout123]

just remember that when some side-line dumbass republican does open his trap and foolishness falls out.

no, i am not talking about DeLay - he is a full on asshat.

[wolf]

I know that I sometimes see the world in overly simplistic ways, aided by my rose colored glasses (which when worn in SE PA which is the blue corner of an otherwise red state makes things look kind of purplish), but ...

If the issue is the qualifications of the various nominees, shouldn't those qualifications be the matter under discussion rather than just filibustering to avoid voting on the nominee? I know I get a lot of this complex government stuff wrong, and I haven't been listening to Rush Limbaugh the way I should to get my opinion handed to me on this, but hey, I'm on vacation, and so I'm letting myself go wild here ...

[Undertoad]

The entire thing is just a play leading up to an eventual Supreme Court nominee. Both sides are positioning for the future.

[lookout123]

i think they should nominate Judge Judy to the SC. that would be sweet.

[wolf]

After a lot of consideration, I'd really like to see Judge Joe Brown up there. But my mom wants the People's Court lady.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by wolf

If the issue is the qualifications of the various nominees, shouldn't those qualifications be the matter under discussion rather than just filibustering to avoid voting on the nominee?

The qualifications have been discussed for quite a while, and will continue to be. The qualifications are the reason the filibuster is being invoked. I'm sure that any filibuster that occurs will include more discussion of the qualifications. But at this point, the qualifications arent the biggest issue. Right now, the issue is the Republican attempt to destroy the filibuster, and with it the two party system, by getting Cheney to rule the cloture rule unconstitutional, which everyone knows to be a lie.

1) The rules allow filibuster, and filibuster has been used before.
2) The Republicans want to change the rules to ensure 100% of Bush's nominations are approved.
3) A rule change requires 2/3 vote.
4) Declaring a rule unconstitutional requires only a ruling by Cheney, and then 50 senators.
5) So, even though they know it is constitutional, for political purposes they will declare the cloture rule unconstitutional because it's easier than changing the rule.