An admirer of Mark Twain looks at the “new filibuster.”
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Re Bolton: August recess appointment.
The Washington Times has a pointed editorial today on just this very thing: Schumer’s chutzpah
Auuuggggh. Well good luck to the Donks. There’s a couple of articles on the Roberts in the style section of WaPo . . . a rather snarky fashonista article titled “An Image A Little Too Carefully Coordinated”. Here’s a snippet:
Yuck. The reporter allows that the parents pick the clothes the children wear, but then concludes that “But the Roberts family went too far. In announcing John Roberts as his Supreme Court nominee, the president inextricably linked the individual — and his family — to the sweep of tradition”.
And the other one, titled “Nominee’s Wife Is A Feminist After Her Own Heart”. If the Donks think they’re going to be able to dig up dirt on her, good luck to them. Seems she is so squeaky clean that she would host swing dances for her dorm and never lets a 4 letter word pass from her lips (unlike Hillary in private?). In the “good old days”, she would probably even have considered becoming a nun.
Looks like Bush has misunderestimated again in his Supreme Court choice.
Should have hit preview first . . . here’s the link again: “Nominee’s Wife Is A Feminist After Her Own Heart”
The “new filibusterî will not be successful regarding Judge John Robertsí nomination. Too many people on both sides of the aisle look favorably on him. John Bolton, was from the very beginning of the process, described as a controversial figure. Sadly, President Bush will probably have to send him to the UN as a recess appointment.
The Democrat Party can often get away with their nonsense because of the tacit cooperation of the MSM. The elite journalistic community refuses to tell the American people that the Dems are asking for more information merely to throw a wrench into the machinery. Many Americans are totally unaware that this is not acceptable political behavior. They have been conned into thinking that these phony requests are sincere attempts at getting at the truth.
Why is this the new filibuster? Can’t a cloture vote end this procedural tactic in just the same way?
Roger:
The dems are so stupid. Unless they are planning to filibuster this slime attack is going to backfire. I saw Jeffe on Tavis Smilley the other night and she was moaning about how “white” he looked. Roberts has been thru 4 full F.B.I. screenings, he is clean. They are trying to portray him as this wild drooling right wing nut and when the public see’s him they are going to see what he really is and the Dems are going to look so stupid.
I can’t wait till the hearings. Roberts has argued 39 times before the supreme court and he knows how to argue and deliver a point to convince some of the smartest people in the country. Schumer, Leahy and Kennedy are going to foolish in comparison. He will gut them and look like a nice polite guy while doing it. Roberts doesn’t have Borks prickly public persona. He is a intellectual killer who comes off like Father Knows Best. He will hand the dems head to them.
Bush can get an up or down vote on Bolton as soon as he turns over the documents on Bolton and his interacted with government officials who refused to produce the data that he wanted to see regarding Syrian and Cuban WMD efforts. These documents are being requested by Iraq war supporter Joe Biden. Why shouldn’t he provide them? More to the point, why wouldn’t he provide them, unless they contain passages that support the allegations of Bolton’s critics.
ìBush can get an up or down vote on Bolton as soon as he turns over the documents on Bolton and his interacted with government officials who refused to produce the data that he wanted to see regarding Syrian and Cuban WMD efforts.î
This above sentence highlights the damage caused by the duplicity of the MSM. These so-called information requests are entirely illegitimate. They outrageously contradict the standard norms of the US Senate. Unfortunately, this is not pointed out by our elite media. This is why we must marginalize the MSM. They are, on a practical level, the enemies of Western Civilization. Uh? Am I perhaps going a bit too far? Enemies of Western Civilization? Yup, thatís exactly what I said. And Iím not exaggerating even slightly. Do they intend to destroy our society? No, I doubt very much if they realize what they are doing. Let God judge their souls. We should only be interested in the results of their misbehavior.
The “Nuclear Option” should’ve been used right from the start!!! W needs to get Bolton into the UN before the renovations on the building starts…heck, just tell the Dems that Kofi had accidentally shredded all of the Bolton documents.
…or the documents are in Sandy Berger’s pants–go git ‘em, Biden!
“…or the documents are in Sandy Berger’s pants–go git ‘em, Biden!”
baaahaahaaaaAHAAAAHAAAHAHAAAAAAHAAAAA!!!
David Thomson — Well, Richard Lugar, while not endorsing Biden’s request, also said it would be acceptable if they were granted.
I won’t dismiss you as a moonbat, though that would be easy.
But here’s the thing, you can’t have it both ways. Everything you hate about the Left in America is the inevitable byproduct of the existence of democratic elections, a free press, and a dynamic, diverse, open society where little is sacred anymore.
Democracy and the development of an open-society are touted by Bush as the long-term antidote for Islamic extremism in the Middle East. It has also been claimed that democracies are less likely to go to war. THIS IS TRUE. But a major reason it is true is that democracies will tend to give voice to the natural tendency of people to avoid conflict and war as a first resort, and to avoid resorting to it over something other than a direct or impending attack by foreigners.
Democracies that is tend to empower people you would call “Deaniacs” and “appeasers.” And when a democracy also guarantees a free press, this empowers journalists inclined to be critical of the agenda of the ruling party, whether that party is “rightist” or “leftist”.
If you want to reduce the power of these “enemies of civilization” — then you?ll really need to get rid of the free press and democratic elections. Otherwise, you’ll just have to put up with us. Those calling for the reinstitution of pre-Vietnam era standards of ?treason? seem to implicitly recognize what I say.
Markus:
What are the
“pre-Vietnam era standards of ?treason?”.??
What were they?
When did the change take place?
What are the current standards of treason??
Were the Copperheads of the Civil War era treasonous??
Roger:
7 living SG’s have stated that if Attornet-client priveledgeis given up and if the congress is allowed to demand internal memo’s the SG will not be able to do their job in a proffesional manner. 4 were Democrats and 3 were republicans. The Dems who are trying to say otherwise know this and they are doing it for rank partisan reasons. of course they have the right to do so but intellectually they know this is absurd.
Sen. Biden regarding specific questions on issues that might come up before the SCOTUS or hypothetical questions on particular SCOTUS issues during the Ginsburg nomination said the hearings should not turn into a “trial” and that questions about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her.” Here is an example of one of RBG answers regarding whether the free excersise clause or the the establishment clause is more important- “I prefer not to answer, I like to reason from the specific case.” The Breyer nomination proceded in a similar way, he either refused to answer or he simply presented both sides of an argument without telling which side he would be on. Even though most Republicans hated Ginsburgs political views they judged that she was qualified as a judge and that there were no ethical problems in her past. So the republicans, as both parties have done thru most of our history, respected the fact that Clinton was the president and that he had the right to put a qualified candidate on the court even if that candidates political views or judicial philosophy were distastful to them. There were only 3 no votes in the Senate.
Schumer and probably Biden have decided that their principles change depending on the party of the nominee. They will ask questions that will come in front on the SCOTUS, Roberts will answer in the exact same manner as Ginsburg and Breyer. But suddenly the behaviour that was OK for the liberal democratic nominees will be presented as resons for not voting for Roberts.They will stall with the request for memo’s that have never been considered kosher before.
Sen. Schumer has anticipated the obvious hypocracy of his actions by telling why the Ginsburg rules no longer applies. This is his brilliant logic. “Times are different.”I guess principles are not important anymore. Every SCOTUS nomination is important. Every potential black robe has the ability to shape society for decades. It was this way for Ginsburg. It was this way for Breyer. It was this way for Roberts. So his times are different answer is retarded to any one with a brain. This is what is different. Ginsburg was a Democrat and a liberal. Roberts is a Republican and a conservative. Clinton won the election and thus had the right to shape the direction of the court.And he moved it to the left. Bush won and the Dems refuse to recognize that so they invent specious arguments that any Jr. High student can see are completely partisan.
The dems have the right to do anything they want. But let’s not try to put a tux on this rhetorical pig. It’s stalling. It’s the complete opposite of the Ginsburg precedent. There is no other way to put it that passes the smell test. It’s not his memo’s, it’s not his answers, it’s the fact that he is not a liberal democrat, pure and simple.
Kevin Peters
vegetius — treason or sedition in my opinion only involves INTENTIONALLY providing DIRECT aid to the enemy. I’m not an expert on this, but prior to Vietnam, they could actually put Eugene Debs in jail for opposing WWI. And people were jailed in the fifties simply for being avowed Communist Party members, and so on and so forth. That’s something you can’t get away with anymore. You can’t put Sean Penn in jail for sedition — too many people would be offended, and these people would overwhelm the justice system by repeating whatever activity it was that got Penn convicted.
Likewise, if you want to see 20,000 flags burned on the Washington Mall, pass a flag desecration amendment.
I know I’m mistakenly using treason and sedition interchangably. Point is the same — times have changed, and dissent in wartime has been constitutionally enshrined.
…“treason or sedition in my opinion only involves INTENTIONALLY providing DIRECT aid to the enemy.”
Well, that would at least include Jane Fonda and John F. Kerry, huh.
Markus
“treason or sedition in my opinion only involves INTENTIONALLY providing DIRECT aid to the enemy.”
If you unintentionally or indirectly aid the enemy are you rights “constitutionally enshrined”?
“If you unintentionally or indirectly aid the enemy are you rights “constitutionally enshrined’”?
Generally, yes. Unless you’re “unintentionally” giving away state secrets or something. Dissent and advocacy of revolution or appeasement is NOT treason or sedition.
Markus
I guess Karl Rove is off the hook?? After all, it was unintentional??
“Dissent and advocacy of revolution or appeasement is NOT treason or sedition.”
Sorry, the constitution is not a suicide pact.
You might want to consider this a little more
carfeully.
Vegetius — It’s up to Fitzgerald to decide about Rove.
The definitive answer to you regarding dissent is the DISSENTING opinion by conservative Justice Hugo Black “In re Anastaplo”, from 1961. “We must not be afraid to be free” was its fairly famous concluding sentence.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=366&invol=82
Vegetius — my mistake: Hugo Black was not a conservative justice, by any stretch. But George Anastaplo — the guy who refused on principle to tell the bar whether or not he was a Communist — was a conservative, a brilliant and principled one.
Rather than reading the case, here is a summary:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/columnists/don_erler/11666253.htm
U.S. Constitution: Article III Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article03/index.html
What is it called when our Troops were three days into Iraq, and MSM reported that they (our Troops) were “Bogged Down”? OK…call it good reporting. What is it called when MSM reported that there would be at least “5000 body bags” needed for our Troops in the first year in Afghanistan? Good reporting again?!? Er, OK…
Markus:
Instead of “Have you now or ever been a member of the Communist Party”: today it’s have you now or ever written any dissent from Roe V. Wade….”
I googled Anastaplo. Interesting guy but more of a professional gadfly than conservative. He would be the left’s favortie conservative since he
disliked Bush (pere et fils) and disdained Scalia.
markus:
If you really believe that the Democrats are just being reaonable in their endless character assasination of Bolton and redundent demands for information, well I have some swamp ground to sell you.
Rockefeller looked at that information and said there was nothing there. no smoking gun whatever.
I realize that the Democrats are all worried about the delicate sensibilities of dictators and thieves at the UN but considering how obnoxious Kennedy, Kerry and Leahy really are I don’t think it is fair to hold Bolton to some weird Miss Congeniality standard.
It is the typical obstructionist nonsense and if they try it with Roberts I hope it blows up in their faces.
Terrye — Bush did the decent thing and decided to pick a non-ideologue. Plenty of cranky conservatives would agree with me. If Leahy, Schumer, Reid others hadn’t flexed their muscles earlier, I think he would have picked someone else. As a result Roberts won’t get filibustered. Liberal interest groups might object, but they don’t get their way all the time within the Democratic Party.
Vegetius — Glad to turn you (and hopefully others) on to Anastaplo, the “socrates of chicago” and the world’s coolest Straussian. You’re right, he’s more of a gadfly, than conservative. He’s a conservative in the sense that he hates moral relativism as well as what he considers to be judicial activism. He is really big on the idea that the legislature ought to be the preminent governing institution. His exegesis on the Constitution — “The Constitution of 1787: a Commentary” — and its sequel – “The Amendments to the Constitution: A Commentary” – are stellar.
Markus
One reason it is so very difficult to have any sort of sane dialogue with the left is that they do not know the meaning of words. You are a perfect example.
Consider this;
“Dissent and advocacy of revolution or appeasement is NOT treason or sedition.”
This is simply wrong. Wrong as a matter of fact, not of opinion. The dictionary definition of sedition is below.
se∑di∑tion n. 1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
Advocacy of revolution is sedition. Period.
Dissent and appeasment may or may not be treason, depending on the circumstances. If your wife “dissents” from you as to what TV station to watch, it is not treason. But “dissent” in a war situation which consists of advocating the case of those we are at war with comes close to treason, cerainly.
And those who openly suggest that the soldiers in the US military should murder their officiers are clearly guilty of treason.
Markus
“He [Anastaplo’ is really big on the idea that the legislature ought to be the preminent governing institution.”
You mean, he is a member of the “Constitution in Exile” movement?
Flenser — For all I know, Anastaplo would agree with many who belive that the Constitution is “…in exile.”
Regarding your frustations in discourse with those who disagree with you, the agreement on the meaning of certain words is a common problem, so common that I don’t understand why you view it as a particular challenge. It’s like saying “one of the things that makes it so hard to fly is the ubiquitous presence of gravity.” O-K.
In this instance you are correct: advocating revolution is sedition.
To restate my point: our Constitution does not explicitely prohibit sedition, and implicitly permits it with the 1st Amendment. Meanwhile, the Declaration of Independence implicitely mandates sedition, as a matter of natural law, under certain circumstance (“when in the course of human events…”)
One might say that sedition is as American as apple pie.
You might also say that throwing people in jail for sedition is as American as apple pie.
It’s only the last few decades when people have been getting away with it.
***
But of course, I wouldn’t question their patriotism.
markus
“the agreement on the meaning of certain words is a common problem, so common that I don’t understand why you view it as a particular challenge.”
Many problems are “common”, markus. Crime is a common problem, for example. The mere fact that there are many people who think it acceptable to steal does not make it acceptable, does it?
I am not asking you to agree with my positions. I would be alarmed if somebody like you agreed with me. But at a very basic level, we all have to assume that words have uniformly accepted meanings. If what you mean by “No” is what I mean by “Yes”, then verbal communication becomes impossible and civilization collapses. The need for accepted definitions of words is why dictionaries were created. It creates an underlying set of understandings which all can agree on. If you are unwilling to accept that advocacy of revolution is sedition, then you are saying that there exists nothing but raw power.
When verbal communication becomes impossible, the default means of expressing ourselves becomes violence.
Words mean what they mean. Debasing the language in pursuit of your immediate political advantage may seem very clever right now, but its a dangerous game.
It is precisely the fact that words have meanings that protects us all from arbitrary power. The law is written in words. Once you say that words are plastic and can take any meaning you want them to, you are tossing the law in the garbage.
All of this, of course, will go over your pointy little head. You are convinced that, when push comes to shove, the American people will decide to throw in their lot with you. Now matter how many times you people end up on the ash heap of history, you continue to imagine yourselves as the wave of the future.
You come close to stating your real position at the end, where you invoke the bit about how the people have the right to alter or abolish their government. This, as you may be aware, precipitated what might be called the First Civil War, but was dubbed the War of Independence.
My own feeling is that you will end up getting what you want, markus. If you do, I guarantee that you will not like it. Your side will lose the war, and with it, all that it has managed to gain over the years. But as I say, there is no communicating with you by words.
Well actually I think that the only thing the Democrats accomplished by being such horse’s asses was to create a situation in which people am much more likely to accept anyone Bush puts up there. After all the Democrats are going to bitch and whine no matter what so why compromise?
Picking Roberts just kind of points out that the Democrats are more than a little paranoid when they say Bush is extreme.
Terrye:
The dems just don’t get it. They know that they can’t filibuster Roberts, McCain and Graham have come out and basicaly said they will bolt the compromise if they do. I expected them to slap Roberts around a bit at the hearings and then pass him on to the court. but they are in full battle mode. They are doing their “look out everyone, he’s a papist” code routine, thus offending the Catholic vote that was smaller then normal in 2004 and that they desperatly need back. They are promising to stall with the memo’s and are trying to present him as some sort of Pat Buchannon cave man. They are even going after the wife and kids.
The problem with this strategy is that Roberts is going to come off to the American people as the complete opposite of the democratic portrayal. He is brilliant but not a snob, he will make Schumer and Leahy look like idiots if they go after him in the hearings but in a gentle way. They are portraying him as a rabid ideologue, he will come off the complete opposite, and when they go after Bush’s next appointment the American people will remember the boy who cried wolf story.
Roberts will be the next SCOTUS appointment.They can start fitting him for the Robes today. The dems are wasting all their ammo. They are going to try the “you must answer questions” routine, Roberts will shoot them down, and then they won’t be able to use it on the next appointment. If the Dems keep going down this route they are going to lose the filibuster for judges too. A year before the 2004 elections I didn’t see how Bush was going to win. Now I can see why. These people are just politically tone deaf.
Kevin Peters
flenser — I’m not sure what your bugaboo is, particularly when you rant like this: “You are convinced that, when push comes to shove, the American people will decide to throw in their lot with you. Now matter how many times you people end up on the ash heap of history, you continue to imagine yourselves as the wave of the future.”
What in God’s name are you talking about??? Have you run out of dope or something? You sound cranky and incomprehensible.
I don’t have a clue “what America wants when push comes to shove.” And why should I try to predict popularity when formulating my own political judgements anyway?
I certainly don’t feel that dialogue with a staunch conservative such as yourself is impossible or a waste of time, and in general I usually prefer it to one with another liberal.
Anyway, here’s to the Revolution!