neat analogy

[SmarterThanYou]

While I understand your frustration (I live in WA, run entirely by the Democrats), I disagree with your conclusion. The fact is that every American is represented in the House of Representatives and the Senate (twice). And if the majority party has more seats, then the minority party better figure out how to get elected.

then really all you're advocating is majority rules again. wheres the representation in that? and as I said last week, even if the minority becomes the majority, theres still a minority that loses their rights....is that right?

 

[5stringJeff]

then really all you're advocating is majority rules again. wheres the representation in that? and as I said last week, even if the minority becomes the majority, theres still a minority that loses their rights....is that right?

Unless you 1) ban political parties, or 2) convert to a British-style coalition government, there will always be a majority and minority party. There is never a loss of representation in Congress, unless someone dies and the governor is slow to appoint a replacement.

And as far as the minority party losing their "rights," what rights do you refer to? The right to have their agenda forwarded? What if a Libertarian got elected to Congress? How much right would he have to have his party's agenda taken care of? As it is, every member of Congress has the right to vote his/her conscience, the right to debate in Committee or on the floor (as rules allow), etc. etc.

 

[musicman]

then really all you're advocating is majority rules again. wheres the representation in that? and as I said last week, even if the minority becomes the majority, theres still a minority that loses their rights....is that right?

Ah, but - as no less a drooling conservative tyrant than Ted Kennedy said (see my sig), neither it is the minority's right to OBSTRUCT the majority.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

every time an amendment is summarily voted down along party lines with no compromise or 'give and take', every time the party in power pushes through it's agenda with no thought to the minority, thats when the minority rights are ignored. To claim that the minority still has representation when the majority does everything their way is the purest form of tyranny.

This is today's liberal swan song

 

[dilloduck]

in certain cases, I am. theres your description.

and certain cases you're not--therefore you are a victim and a persecutor--just like everyone else.

 

[no1tovote4]

then really all you're advocating is majority rules again. wheres the representation in that? and as I said last week, even if the minority becomes the majority, theres still a minority that loses their rights....is that right?

I don't think he is. The Government is limited in power by the constitution and there are certain specific rights as represented in that document that are gauranteed regardless of a vote of the majority unless an amendment is passed to change such restrictions on government power.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Ah, but - as no less a drooling conservative tyrant than Ted Kennedy said (see my sig), neither it is the minority's right to OBSTRUCT the majority.

yeah, this is what I have for ted kennedy

The people of South Carolina are trying to decide on a suitable punishment for Susan Smith who drove her car into a river, left drowning victims inside, and then lied to the entire nation about what she did.
In Massachusetts, it will get you a U.S. Senate seat.


I'm not a ted kennedy fan in any way shape of form

 

[SmarterThanYou]

This is today's liberal swan song

this is where I like zell millers quote about wishing we still had duels available.

 

[musicman]

yeah, this is what I have for ted kennedy

The people of South Carolina are trying to decide on a suitable punishment for Susan Smith who drove her car into a river, left drowning victims inside, and then lied to the entire nation about what she did.
In Massachusetts, it will get you a U.S. Senate seat.


I'm not a ted kennedy fan in any way shape of form

LOL!

How do you feel about Joe Lieberman?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

LOL!

How do you feel about Joe Lieberman?

overall, i like him. He has his idiotic moments like most others, most notably when he was 1 of about 8 moron democrats that wanted to do away with judicial filibusters.

 

[dilloduck]

overall, i like him. He has his idiotic moments like most others, most notably when he was 1 of about 8 moron democrats that wanted to do away with judicial filibusters.

good ole Joe---he'd eat a ham sandwhich if it would make him the first jewish president !

 

[SmarterThanYou]

good ole Joe---he'd eat a ham sandwhich if it would make him the first jewish president !

 

[musicman]

overall, i like him. He has his idiotic moments like most others, most notably when he was 1 of about 8 moron democrats that wanted to do away with judicial filibusters.

Overall, I like him, too. But he pointed out the hypocrisy of these Democrats' stand on the issue when he told a commentator recently, "But things are different now". Too bloody right they are!

And I believe that your stand on filibusters is and has remained consistent; I consider you an honest man. However, I also believe that Mr. Wetbrain's 1975 comment on the topic was one of the few sane utterances he's ever made. A filibuster was never meant to act as a de facto veto on judicial nominees; moreover, it's not carved in stone ANYPLACE.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Overall, I like him, too. But he pointed out the hypocrisy of these Democrats' stand on the issue when he told a commentator recently, "But things are different now". Too bloody right they are!

and this is one huge reason I don't care for the democrats. Siding with them on the filibuster is just coincidence in this case.

And I believe that your stand on filibusters is and has remained consistent; I consider you an honest man. However, I also believe that Mr. Wetbrain's 1975 comment on the topic was one of the few sane utterances he's ever made. A filibuster was never meant to act as a de facto veto on judicial nominees; moreover, it's not carved in stone ANYPLACE.

the only set in stone issue on the senate is that they make their rules to use. The 'constitutional mandate' on advise and consent to mean an up or down vote is the myth that needs to be busted. Especially considering that both sides flip flop depending on who's in power at the time.

 

[musicman]

the only set in stone issue on the senate is that they make their rules to use.

That means, then, that the rules need to be useful. If one side is using - say, the filibuster - to obstruct the people's business for its own political ends, then what is useless and counterproductive to Congess' sworn duty should be altered or abolished.

Contrary to what some believe, this was anything but a one-issue (WOT) election. This insane, out-of-touch judiciary must be checked; it's one of the chief reasons the Republican majority was put in place by the voters.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

That means, then, that the rules need to be useful. If one side is using - say, the filibuster - to obstruct the people's business for its own political ends, then what is useless and counterproductive to Congess' sworn duty should be altered or abolished.

when you refer to judicial nominations, how is 95% considered obstruction?

Contrary to what some believe, this was anything but a one-issue (WOT) election. This insane, out-of-touch judiciary must be checked; it's one of the chief reasons the Republican majority was put in place by the voters.

many issues were part of the election, but its important to remember that not all of the issues belonged to one side or the other.

7 of the 11 US Circuit Court of Appeals have majorities appointed by republican presidents

Justices O' Connor and Rehnquist were considered "perfectly conservative" not more than 20 years ago by the GOP and now those 2 are considered almost too liberal

What's even more telling is only 2,TWO, were named by a Dem president.... Ginsberg and Breyer. The rest were all placed by true conservative presidents....so instead of claiming how liberal the court is, conservatives should look to see how far right their party has become.

 

[musicman]

when you refer to judicial nominations, how is 95% considered obstruction?


many issues were part of the election, but its important to remember that not all of the issues belonged to one side or the other.

7 of the 11 US Circuit Court of Appeals have majorities appointed by republican presidents

Justices O' Connor and Rehnquist were considered "perfectly conservative" not more than 20 years ago by the GOP and now those 2 are considered almost too liberal

What's even more telling is only 2,TWO, were named by a Dem president.... Ginsberg and Breyer. The rest were all placed by true conservative presidents....so instead of claiming how liberal the court is, conservatives should look to see how far right their party has become.

Can't agree with your conclusion. It's more a distressing case of Republican nominees "growing into the job" - an MSM/DNC euphemism for "growing more LIBERAL with the job". I mean, who nominated Souter - Bush? Reagan? This is the "conservative extremist" who said, in a speech to the WTO, "The U.S. Constitution will have to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other nations".

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Can't agree with your conclusion. It's more a distressing case of Republican nominees "growing into the job" - an MSM/DNC euphemism for "growing more LIBERAL with the job". I mean, who nominated Souter - Bush? Reagan? This is the "conservative extremist" who said, in a speech to the WTO, "The U.S. Constitution will have to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other nations".

Souter was nominated by Bush 41 and took a seat on 9 oct, 1990.

where does this quote come from because I thought you denoted that either ginsberg or breyer said that.

 

[musicman]

Souter was nominated by Bush 41 and took a seat on 9 oct, 1990.

where does this quote come from because I thought you denoted that either ginsberg or breyer said that.

You're quite right - it was Breyer. Sorry about that.

Still, O'Connor has been voicing similar thoughts; other Republican nominees and appointments have proven disappointing as well. I really don't think the party's problem is that it's moved too far to the right.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

this is where I like zell millers quote about wishing we still had duels available.

This issue isn't worth a duel. Filibusters are not a Constitutional right - you can't find a thing about them in the Constitution.

Filibusters are part and parcel of the Senate rules. The Senate makes the Senate rules. The Senate can change the Senate rules. The Senate has every right to change the Senate rules regarding filibusters.

Contrary to the liberal propaganda lies about "minority rights" which you seem to be buying into, it is clear that the constitutional principle that governs both the House and the Senate is majority rule. The two bodies, House and Senate, are supposed to check each other, and in turn the legislative branch is supposed to be checked by the other two branches.

The lying scum liberals are attempting to propagandize that there is some sort of constitutional right to "minority rights" in the Senate itself. Lying scum liberals have always twisted the "minority rights" argument for years as political leverage in order to get their way. "Minority rights" do not exist in the Senate. Never have. Never will. Majority vote rules. Period.

If the Democrats want their way in the Senate, they need to go out and get some more Democrat Senators elected to vote on their side. That's how it works. I can't believe a smart guy like you is falling for the liberals' bogus argument about "minority rights" in the Senate.