Democrats: When the law doesn't favor your party, change the law!

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Steve Savicki
And I suppose you elephants wouldn't do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot?

EDITED TO ADD: Isn't Bush guilty of murdering American citizens?

The shoe is on the other foot as Republicans own majorities in both houses of Congress, the White House, and 28 of 50 Governorships. Yet you still don't see this wanton abandon of the rule of law, do you. You don't even see the President (or the Senate) playing hard-ball with Judicial appointments to get a majority in the legislative branch.

So, I can confidently say that "no, they wouldn't (and aren't)".

Oh, and put the crack pipe down with that whole Bush/murderer thing. You sound foolish.

[ScrewEddie]

Oh, come on. I believe it's called recess appointments. W. couldn't get a couple of his extremist judges through, so he waited till Congress was out of town to do it his own self. Besides, the only reason the Congressional leadership didn't play hardball is because they know the people didn't support them on these appointments and they'd rather W. took the fall. Why hasten the downfall of the few remaining GOP Congressional moderates in the Northeast over a couple of judges? (Let's face it, most of the GOP leadership could care less about the social issues stuff anyway. They just want the tax breaks.) They wouldn't need recess appointments and last-minute gerrymandering if the people did support them on the social issues stuff. Don't confuse fear of electoral retribution with respect for the law.

Also, the Mass legislature can't twist the law if it's actually changing it using the power granted it by the state's constitution. Twisting the law to your advantage is more like what a rich boy with connections does to get himself moved to the front of the Texas Air Guard list in order to get out of fighting in Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, I don't care if he reported for duty or not while he was in Alabama. That's beside the point. He never should have gotten into the Air Guard in the first place.

[John Ashcroft]

I would've appointed Bork in a recess appointment, myself... Oh, and let go of the hate brother. I suppose you were a Dean supporter, no?

So, since when did judicial appointments take 60 votes in the Senate anyway? Where's the precedence?

And what's a little think like the State Constitution when you've got activist justices on your Supreme Court pushing a liberal agenda anyway? Gay marriage anybody?

And just what was "extremist" about Miguel Estrada? I think a certain memo explains this quite well, but I'm interested in your definition of extremist.

[ELVIS]

This is exciting...

[John Ashcroft]

We were cybering and he left me hanging! Damn I hate that...

[ScrewEddie]

There's no hate. I've put Republicans out of office. I don't need hate. And actually I started out as more of a Lieber-man. I liked Edwards, too, but Kerry will do just fine. So, don't try to bait me with the old Deaniac routine. I've been around long enough not to fall for the first candidate who rolls up his sleeves and pumps his fist in the air. He'll be great on liberal radio.

I don't think 60 votes is tied to judicial appointments in particular just to breaking filibusters. Here's some history on a tool that's been used and abused for quite some time.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

BTW: Mass's constitution is not my constitution. However, I feel that Mass has the right to marry consenting adults as it pleases. It's a little thing called state's rights. You might have heard of it and supported it when it served your interests. It doesn't require any other state to recognize it. It doesn't require any minister or church to sanction any marriage.

Estrada showed "extreme" contempt for the Congress by refusing to answer questions put before him by the Judiciary Committee. As far as I'm concerned that's far worse than his abortion or whatever position. I've always hoped the GOP would make a real assault on abortion. I know at least 10 moderate Republican women whose voting habits would change overnight if that happened. But, alas, Rove knows this, too. So, no dice. I wish you could've appointed Bork.

And, don't even mention that stolen memo in a thread that started out about how the GOP has respect for the law. If you're going to be Machiavellian, embrace it. Save the spin for the rubes. I'm Machiavellian enough to admit I'd trade a generation of abortion rights to pick up 4 million women's votes in the short term. This phony defense of marriage act will send at least a half million gay GOP votes our way. And we don't lose any. I mean who doesn't know where Democrats and Republicans fall in the culture war? It's just a question of who makes this their primary issue. I can't imagine too many gay haters have been leaning Democrat lately.

[John Ashcroft]

Uh, that's all great and all but it was Massachussetts state law that prohibited Gay marriage. And that was the people of Mass. exercising their state rights through legislation. The Courts can of course review any legislation brough to it. But it's job is to determine whether any such law is Constitutional or not. It is beyond their authority to redesign law to their liking (which is exactly what liberal courts like in Mass. do all the time.) I'm all for state's rights, but I'm all against activist judges. It's simply not their job to write law.

Now, on to Estrada. Which questions didn't he answer? Come on now, let's hear them. Let's hear how extreme he was. It's you who shouldn't try to spin fella. You put it out there, now I want to hear it. Sounds like Estrada is guilty until proven innocent in your mind (no worries though, it's that way with all you libs concerning any issue that involves conservatives. We're used to it by now, and the continuous practice in justifying policy positions is why Republicans are winning election after election). I wonder if you've been paying attention at all in the electoral trends since the early '90s. Who's been winning and who's been losing? It's no wonder you "know at least 10 moderate Republican women whose voting habits would change overnight if...(the abortion issue was pressed). Chances are, you don't really know any conservatives. You hang in tight little liberal circles, surrounded by people who tell you that you're right all the time, don't you. Kinda like at the D.U. Any dissenting opinion is verboten, and the poster is banned for life. Great little world you're creating, but I'll give you a little help here... You're a dying breed. The voting public is on to you, and expect to be out of power for some time to come. Good luck on the "4 million" women's votes too. I'll bet all your friends tell you the abortion issue is a lock with women, right? Keep on believing it buddy. Stand on the stairs of the Capitol and scream at the top of your lungs that you propose a Constitutional Ammendment guaranteeing late term abortion rights. I dare ya. Oh, and how'd this stance go for old Wesley?

Oh, and about the stolen memo. Nice try. You think that the stealing of the memo outweighs the planned obstruction from the Judicial committee??? Talk about spin! I've seen the talking points on this issue, so spare us. I wonder how Hispanics and Blacks will react to this admission from the left that they belong at the back of the bus? I wonder how they'll react to the notion that free thought is also verboten in the Democratic party? That the "thinking" should be left to the rich, white, good old boys that run the democratic party... It'll be fun for sure.

[ScrewEddie]

That's the reaction I wanted.

[John Ashcroft]

Heh heh heh... That did come across as a little "excitable" on a re-read...

Good job!