Bush=Hitler IS Getting More Than Old

[Annie]

smacks of anti-Semitism and the ADL is finally responding:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4660_52.htm

Senator's Hitler Comparison on Judicial Nominees "Offensive and Insensitive"


New York, NY, March 2, 2005 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed outrage at the remarks of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who suggested that some Republican tactics on judicial nominations were similar to Adolf Hitler's use of power in Nazi Germany.

In remarks from the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Byrd compared a Senate rule cutting off debate on nominations to Hitler's use of constitutional means to push legislation through the German Reichstag at the start of the Nazi era.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

It is hideous, outrageous and offensive for Senator Byrd to suggest that the Republican Party's tactics could in any way resemble those of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.

The Senator shows a profound lack of understanding as to who Hitler was and what he and his regime represented.

Senator Byrd must repudiate his remarks immediately and apologize to the American people for showing such disrespect for this country's democratic process.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

 

[Annie]

LOL Byrd gets smacked twice!

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005236.php

Many links!

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) is trying to paint a picture of Republicans as Nazi's leading Democratic Senators off to the gas chambers. He's certainly brought the image of the contemplative, deliberate, and gentlemanly discourse of the United States Senate to a new low. In the parlance of the internet, what the former Ku Klux Klan recruiter turned Senator did was invoke Godwin's Law.

From his speech on the floor of the Senate today:

Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler's dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that "Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact." And he succeeded.

Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

It seeks to alter the rules by sidestepping the rules, thus making the impermissible the rule. Employing the "nuclear option", engaging a pernicious, procedural maneuver to serve immediate partisan goals, risks violating our nation's core democratic values and poisoning the Senate's deliberative process.

For the temporary gain of a hand-full of "out of the mainstream" judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each Senator's right of extended debate.

The problem with Byrd's argument (among many) is that while he wants to shroud the debate in terms of laws and the constitution what he's really fighting to save is Senate rules. Senate rules aren't laws - for the most part the only ones who give a shit when they are broken or changed is other Senators...

Senator Byrd does know filibusters - he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Michelle Malkin profiled some of his finer moments in 2001. In 2003 Byrd took to the floor of the Senate compared the Bush administration to Nazi mass murderer Hermann Goering.

Note: See Roofer comment below about a direct unattributed quote in Byrd's speech.

Update: Jon Henke notes that in addition to being crass and ridiculous -- Senator Byrd was also wrong. Hitler most certainly operated "outside the cloak of legality."

and if that wasn't enough, here's a post that echoes Mark Antony in Julius Caesar!

http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=1279

But Senator Byrd tells us that Hitler "never abandoned the cloak of legality", and Senator Byrd is an honorable man. [link via Wizbang)

 

[fuzzykitten99]

if a republican/conservative said anything like this, the liberals would be drooling over it and crying off with his/her head!

 

[Deornwulf]

Hearing this particular liberal screed puts me in this frame of mind - :chains:

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Despite all the bruhaha about bush=hitler comparisons(kind of absurd actually) I do have to agree with Byrd about the aggressiveness put forth by the republicans concerning these last 10 nominees.

Republicans blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees, Democrats have filibustered only 10 Bush nominations and have done so openly - not anonymously and without hearings or votes, as Republicans did with Clinton's nominees.

As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has noted, President Clinton's consultation with him as then-ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on Supreme Court nominations made a world of difference, and the confirmations of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were models of cooperation, yet President Bush, without reaching across the aisle, and just before Christmas Eve, summarily renominates 20 of his most controversial nominees, and he and Republican leaders in the Senate again speak ominously about flattening the Senate with their "nuclear option" to ensure that each and every judicial nominee is confirmed.

Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee's home state objected to (or "blue-slipped") a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton's nominees.

But in 2001, when a Republican became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take objections from both home-state senators to block a nominee. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George W. Bush's nominees.

In early 2003 Hatch went even further: Senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it could still go to the floor for a vote.

Finally, a few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with "Rule IV," which states that at least one member of the minority has to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.

So, to me anyway, the republicans have shown a serious tendency to do away with any and all opposition via legal means to force through their agenda. This would be why theres a GOP=nazi regime type of statement.

Just my opinion anyway.

 

[musicman]

Ah, yes - Ginsburg and Breyer. That "spirit of co-operation" has done wonders for the court, hasn't it? Tell me, SmarterThanUs, what do you think of the latest actions of our Supreme Court? Should U.S. law be subject to a "global test"? Should the judiciary continue to gangster its will on the American populace?

If Senate rules are being changed, I say it's about damned time!

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Ah, yes - Ginsburg and Breyer. That "spirit of co-operation" has done wonders for the court, hasn't it? Tell me, SmarterThanUs, what do you think of the latest actions of our Supreme Court? Should U.S. law be subject to a "global test"? Should the judiciary continue to gangster its will on the American populace?

If Senate rules are being changed, I say it's about damned time!

right off hand I don't remember WHICH justice is the outspoken one on 'global' BS, but I think its wrong. we're not a one world government and I certainly hope that it never comes to that.

This issue you have raised though, isn't the same as the one with the rules changes and filibusters. while it deals with judicial nominees, the USSC isn't a seat being nominated for yet. Now, If theres a nominee that I think is a good selection for the USSC and not an extremist from either side, then i'm all for it. I just happen to think that most of the renominated people will destroy personal freedom, not protect it.

 

[musicman]

Well, I won't say he's the only one, but Breyer is a spectacular example. His statement to the WTO, "The U.S. Constitution will have to evolve in order to fit with the documents of other nations", constitutes grounds for impeachment all by itself, I think.

And, as far as Senate rules changes, I don't see how they could yield a more concerted attack on individual freedoms than is emanating from our juduciary as we speak. To render the will of the people irrelevant, as a matter of course and in the routine exercise of one's job, is pretty serious abuse. If the goal is to restore rightful power to the people, I'm willing to keep an open mind.

 

[insein]

I find it ironic that as a former head Klansmen, Byrd uses his hero, Adolf, as a label for his enemies. Kind of defeats the purpose of being a racist wouldnt you think?

 

[theim]

The party with the KKK member is the party fighting for civil rights, and the party that has elevated more blacks to high, prestigious positions is a bunch of racist bigots. I...don't....f'n...get it.

 

[arkansasdave]

Let me get this straight, the rule back in 1994 stated a single senator from a nominee's home state could object to a nomination, and that alone would kill the nomination. That seems to give a hell of a lot of power to a single senator. Why that rule was even considered a good policy to begin with baffles my mind? At least in 2001, the rule change was a step in the right direction. In my opinion neither party should be able to take advantage of something as arbitrary as the home state senator rule. Decisions should take place on the floor of the senate instead of by the whims of a couple of senators.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Let me get this straight, the rule back in 1994 stated a single senator from a nominee's home state could object to a nomination, and that alone would kill the nomination. That seems to give a hell of a lot of power to a single senator. Why that rule was even considered a good policy to begin with baffles my mind? At least in 2001, the rule change was a step in the right direction. In my opinion neither party should be able to take advantage of something as arbitrary as the home state senator rule. Decisions should take place on the floor of the senate instead of by the whims of a couple of senators.

Sure, rules are only good when they work for your side.

 

[Merlin1047]

Regardless of which view you support in this argument, the undeniable fact is that judges are nominated and then confirmed or rejected based almost solely on party lines. Judges are rarely queried regarding their education, their law history, their service in other capacities, their past rulings, the basis for those rulings etc. Judges are grilled on a few hot-button cases and that's just for show. The committee votes have been determined before the hearing ever starts. Both parties are equally guilty of this. The fact that I prefer conservative justices who adhere strictly to the Constitution causes me to favor Republican nominees.

But the whole political process is a hell of a mess. My recommendation would be to amend the Constitution. Divide the USA into nine judicial districts and ELECT one Supreme Court justice from each district. Said justice would only be eligible to serve a single term of "X" years (8 - 10 or something on that order).

We the people theoretically have the power through our elected representatives to make our laws. Why shouldn't we the people have the power to elect the judges who will interpret those laws?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Regardless of which view you support in this argument, the undeniable fact is that judges are nominated and then confirmed or rejected based almost solely on party lines. Judges are rarely queried regarding their education, their law history, their service in other capacities, their past rulings, the basis for those rulings etc. Judges are grilled on a few hot-button cases and that's just for show. The committee votes have been determined before the hearing ever starts. Both parties are equally guilty of this. The fact that I prefer conservative justices who adhere strictly to the Constitution causes me to favor Republican nominees.

But the whole political process is a hell of a mess. My recommendation would be to amend the Constitution. Divide the USA into nine judicial districts and ELECT one Supreme Court justice from each district. Said justice would only be eligible to serve a singe term of "X" years (8 - 10 or something on that order).

We the people theoretically have the power through our elected representatives to make our laws. Why shouldn't we the people have the power to elect the judges who will interpret those laws?

I like that idea.

 

[arkansasdave]

I couldn’t agree more with Merlin1047. The Judicial Branch has been steadily increasing its influence and authority for years. We should be having this discussion more often. I believe that there should be a way to insure that the judiciary be accountable to the people. If things continue to go unchecked and unbalanced, future generations will wonder just where our democracy has gone.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I couldn’t agree more with Merlin1047. The Judicial Branch has been steadily increasing its influence and authority for years. We should be having this discussion more often. I believe that there should be a way to insure that the judiciary be accountable to the people. If things continue to go unchecked and unbalanced, future generations will wonder just where our democracy has gone.

The first judge to be kicked out should be Ruth Bader-Communist-Ginsberg.

 

[007]

Regardless of which view you support in this argument, the undeniable fact is that judges are nominated and then confirmed or rejected based almost solely on party lines. Judges are rarely queried regarding their education, their law history, their service in other capacities, their past rulings, the basis for those rulings etc. Judges are grilled on a few hot-button cases and that's just for show. The committee votes have been determined before the hearing ever starts. Both parties are equally guilty of this. The fact that I prefer conservative justices who adhere strictly to the Constitution causes me to favor Republican nominees.

But the whole political process is a hell of a mess. My recommendation would be to amend the Constitution. Divide the USA into nine judicial districts and ELECT one Supreme Court justice from each district. Said justice would only be eligible to serve a single term of "X" years (8 - 10 or something on that order).

We the people theoretically have the power through our elected representatives to make our laws. Why shouldn't we the people have the power to elect the judges who will interpret those laws?

Once again Merlin, you've struck pay dirt. I agree 100%.

And what you pointed out about party lines is also spot on. Thing about the liberals is, they have much more leeway to say whatever the hell they want. They know their buddies in the liberal media will give them a pass on practically anything. Whereas the conservatives, they have to watch every last cylable they utter, lest the liberal media pick up on it and blow it completely out of proportion to further their agenda.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Once again Merlin, you've struck pay dirt. I agree 100%.

And what you pointed out about party lines is also spot on. Thing about the liberals is, they have much more leeway to say whatever the hell they want. They know their buddies in the liberal media will give them a pass on practically anything. Whereas the conservatives, they have to watch every last cylable they utter, lest the liberal media pick up on it and blow it completely out of proportion to further their agenda.

:blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

what i find most amazing about all of this judicial nominee blocking and filibustering crap is that its front page news most of the time about how dems are defying the constitution by using filibusters, yet I had to spend hours digging up the articles on the republicans techniques and strategies that they used to prevent 60 of clintons nominees. Now, i wonder why that is?

 

[OCA]

:blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

what i find most amazing about all of this judicial nominee blocking and filibustering crap is that its front page news most of the time about how dems are defying the constitution by using filibusters, yet I had to spend hours digging up the articles on the republicans techniques and strategies that they used to prevent 60 of clintons nominees. Now, i wonder why that is?

On principal, thats why.

Clinton was nominating lifelong socialists and special interest wackos to the bench. Republicans out of love for country did what was required duty to the constitution.

Flame away.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

On principal, thats why.

Clinton was nominating lifelong socialists and special interest wackos to the bench. Republicans out of love for country did what was required duty to the constitution.

Flame away.

so the republicans blocked 60 of those they thought were extremists, right?
and the democrats are blocking 10 they consider extremists, right?
sounds like both sides are recognizing extremists and using what they need to in order to prevent that.
why do republicans want extremists on the bench?