Google
 
Web jonathanandwanda.blogspot.com

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

The Big (D)umbassrat Lie

WASHINGTON -- Some Democratic senators said yesterday that they were prepared to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee they find unacceptable, and urged President Bush to name a ''mainstream conservative" to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

''It's really up to the president, whether we're going to have someone that is a consensus candidate, someone that can bring the country together, someone that can rally the Republicans and Democrats," Senator Edward M. Kennedy said yesterday on ABC's ''This Week."

''We want to be able to support [the president], but if he wants to have a fight about it, then that's going to be the case," Kennedy said.

Meanwhile Billary Clinton is running her mouth spreading the lie ...

Of O'Connor she states -

her legacy is that of a moderate voice of reason. Justice O'Connor was a guardian for the rule of law who put fairness and justice before ideology.

Translation - "Even though appointed by (R)Ronald Reagan, she turned her back on her values that put her there and sided with my opinion".


The vacancy created by Justice O'Connor's retirement presents President Bush with a challenge and an opportunity to put partisanship aside and to honor the Constitution's mandate that he seek the “advice and consent” of the Senate in naming a replacement. I urge the President to take seriously the Constitution’s charge and to engage the U.S. Senate – both Republicans and Democrats – in a process of genuine consultation in order to identify and to ultimately confirm a consensus nominee.

In short, "we want it our way or we'll throw cry baby fits".

He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for...Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2, United States Constitution


News flash Billary ... you're showing your understanding of the Constitution is about as good as your ability to sell actual existing real estate. Your "advice" comes in your vote.

Back to the original article ...

Two other Democratic senators, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said yesterday that they hoped a filibuster could be avoided, but would not rule out the option.

Does this really surprise anyone? Translation - "If you don't appoint someone who votes our way then we will fight them." I await the words ''extraordinary circumstances."

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, a moderate Pennsylvania Republican, suggested he would be concerned about a nominee who believed categorically in ''original intent" -- meaning a strict interpretation of the Constitution based on what the founders intended more than 200 years ago.

Excuse me Mr. Specter, but that is exactly what is expected of a Judge. Their job is NOT to change the law, but to INTERPRET and ENFORCE it. To "interpret" means by definition to ...

Main Entry: in·ter·pret Pronunciation: in-'t&r-pr&t Function: transitive verb: to explain or tell the meaning of (as a document) esp. in order to determine intent Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

He said Bork has come up repeatedly as someone who believes in original intent. ''If you followed original intent," Specter said, ''the galleries in the United States Senate would still be segregated, with Caucasians on one side and African-Americans on the other side."

Here you are doing exactly what you just preached against! And on top of that, you are interpreting it wrong. Read Mr. Specter ... "ALL men are created equal ...", and the fight to make that so resulted in yet another war later in history to accomplish just that.

''I think that there are different considerations," Specter said. ''There's the gender factor -- should he appoint another woman? So, it's a different approach, and I think the president will factor that in."

So now we bring in "affirmative action"? Maybe a liar and phony who calls for officers to be killed like ward churchill would fit the bill? (All in the name of "affirmative action" of course). Whatever happened to putting someone QUALIFIED in?

Six weeks ago, seven Democratic and seven Republican senators forged a deal that broke a stalemate over confirmation of Bush's court nominees, agreeing to filibuster them only in ''extraordinary circumstances." Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, one of the seven Republicans, said yesterday that disagreement with a nominee's legal views would not constitute extraordinary circumstances.


Exactly ... and I pray that there are many more that will push that very issue.


It's an old saying ... "Tell a lie long enough and it becomes truth".

This is the tactic the left have been using since before the 2000 election.

On the pending matter, however, let's look at the facts involved.

The Constitution states that the President nominates his choice for Judge, the Senate comfirms. Look at the record in the Senate over the years and see if anything like what has been happening to ANY of George Bush's nominees has EVER happened. The answer is NO.


George Bush was elected by a majority because it is his stance (and thus choices) the PEOPLE want. The Senate, as well as the House, has gained (R) Republican seats because it is their values that the majority of the people want as their representation. This is the real "mainstream" morals, values and choices.

The simple truth that is happening here is the MINORITY (D)umbassrats are wanting it their way. They want to select the Judges. They spin the lie about "consult" to justify their actions, when the plain truth is that if it was their choices that the people wanted, then it would be a (D)umbassrat President and Senate as a majority.

Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, and others ... Your voice and the voice of those you represent (the MINORITY) are heard when the Presidents nominations receive their AUTOMATIC up or down vote (that the Constitution calls for) and you vote against said nominee.

A "consensus nominee" is one that receives the majority of votes reflecting the choice of the people, not one that Judges by your standards.

UPDATE: I just found these 2 articles over at Blogs for Bush that relate to this topic. Definitely worth the read!

DANEgerous has a comment on the issue I totally agree with.

MacRanger points out that

Senator "Chia" Biden wants us to ponder the wonder of picking a "swinger" like Sandra Day O'Connor.

Also apparently the Senator believes the Constitution was written apparently after the Civil War ...

The advice and consent clause, in fact, arose from a determination at the Constitutional Convention, which united north and south, small states and large, that the president not be permitted to amass too much power.

(Great minds think alike?)

Listed on BlogShares