Demosocialist philosophy: "Win by any means necessary"

P

progunner1957

Moderator
Here we go, folks - Ted Kennedy and his Demosocialist cronies are ignoring and trampling the Constitution once again (what a surprise). At issue this time is filling the spot on the Supreme Court left by Justice O'Connor's retirement.

The circus sideshow the Demosocialists are about to put on for the world to see will sicken anyone who cares about the Constitution, but it is what we have come to expect from the likes of Kennedy, Clinton, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi and others of their bottom-feeding ilk.

Their operating philosophy is simple: "To Hell with the Constitution, yell, scream, rant and throw tantrums until we get our way." This has been the way the Demosocialist camp has operated for decades.

Govern by tantrum - that is the Demosocialist "contribution" to our nation.



July 14, 2005, 8:09 a.m.
Presidential Privilege
You win the White House, you make the judical nominations.

By Senator Orrin G. Hatch

The judicial-selection process must be fair, constructive, and consistent with constitutional principles. Yet less than two weeks after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement, and before President Bush has even chosen a nominee, we already see some disturbing signs that could threaten both the Senate's integrity and the judiciary's independence.

The Constitution has established a judicial-selection process by clearly assigning separate roles for the president and the Senate, giving authority to nominate and appoint judges to the president. Some senators and left-wing groups, apparently unwilling to accept that elections have consequences, seem to accept this arrangement only when it produces judges they like. If not, they prefer to talk about alternative arrangements that they either make up out of thin air or that the Constitutional Convention rejected.

We are, however, governed not by principles America's founders rejected, but by those they enshrined in the Constitution. If reading Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution is not clear enough, Alexander Hamilton reminds us in Federalist No. 65 that "in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent."

After the president nominates, the Senate has a role of "advice and consent" as a check on a nominee's final appointment. Perhaps the best way to understand this phrase is that the Senate gives its "advice" about whether the President should appoint someone by giving or withholding its "consent." In Federalist No. 66, Hamilton again clarifies that senators "cannot themselves choose" nominees, but "can only ratify or reject the choice of the president." Traditionally, the Senate has done so through up or down votes.

Some senators and their left-wing allies are trying to change this constitutional arrangement. In absolute contradiction to the Constitution's plain text and the Founders' clear intent, they claim that the Senate has an independent, co-equal role in picking judges. They separate "advice" from "consent," applying the former to nomination and the latter to confirmation.

The fact that the president and the Senate each has a role, however, does not make those roles co-equal. The Founders' view that the president is the "principal agent" and this new theory that the president and Senate are "co-equal partners" cannot both be true. The purpose of this novel theory is obvious, and it is to change the Constitution's assignment of judicial selection roles in order to appoint different judges. As Senator Edward Kennedy said on the Senate floor on July 12, the consultation Democrats demand "is more than a process, it's about an outcome." That outcome is a "consensus" nominee who will win "widespread bipartisan support," whether or not it is whom the president wants to appoint.

In other words, this scheme aims at forcing the president who did win the election to nominate someone acceptable to his opponents who did not. It seeks to turn consultation into co-nomination. Not content to exercise the role the Constitution does assign to the Senate by vigorously debating and then voting on a nominee, these senators and their left-wing enablers want to create a role the Constitution does not assign to the Senate, by manipulating the president's choice of a nominee.

This invented arrangement may serve their political agenda, but it is radically different from what the Constitution prescribes. Especially where the judicial branch is concerned, we should prefer the Constitution over politics. And the Constitution allows the President to decide how best to fulfill his constitutional responsibility of nomination.

Those who cannot justify their actions on the merits often retreat to saying "they did it too." Those trying to justify filibusters of majority supported judicial nominations, for example, claimed Republicans had done the same. That, of course, completely re-defining what a filibuster is, but that is what happens in the absence of a persuasive argument. And today, some senators try to say that their demand for pre-nomination consultation producing consensus nominees is no different than what happened in the 1990s, when the partisan roles were reversed.

In 1993, President Clinton sought my input when considering a replacement for the retiring Justice Byron White. Some senators are today fond of waving my book Square Peg, in which I described cautioning President Clinton that confirming some candidates he was considering, such as then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, would be difficult. President Clinton instead nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and she was easily confirmed.

President Clinton sought my input without my demanding it because he believed it would help him fulfill his constitutional responsibility for making judicial nominations. He did so not because Senate Republicans threatened filibusters or demanded some kind of veto power over his nominations. We did not try to impose a "consensus" standard or insist that a nominee meet some super-majority "widespread support" threshold.

Instead, President Clinton sought my input because I had established a cooperative relationship with him, because he knew his nominees would be treated fairly. Senators demanding consultation and threatening filibusters today might instead consider taking the same approach. Perhaps earning consultation will work better than demanding it.

While I appreciate publicity for my book, I have yet to hear a Democratic senator who holds it up also quote from page 126, where I write: "One of the consequences of a presidential election...is that the winner has the right to appoint nominees to the court." In fact, at the same time I was giving President Clinton the input he sought, I also said on the Senate floor: "The President won the election. He ought to have the right to appoint the judges he wants to." Some who today demand consultation appear to have rejected that notion altogether.

In the end, the constitutional principle is simple. The president, not the Senate, makes judicial nominations. The Senate's role is a check on appointment, not a veto on nomination. Every president must decide for himself what will help him fulfill his constitutional responsibility. President Bush has chosen to reach out to more than 60 senators for input, including more than half of the Democratic Caucus and every member of the Judiciary Committee. Such consultation, as well as his eventual nomination, are his choice.

Shortly after President Bush took office in 2001, the Senate Democratic leadership vowed to use "whatever means necessary" to defeat undesirable judicial nominees. That spring, Democrats huddled with left-wing strategists to "change the ground rules" for the judicial-confirmation process. The filibusters that followed and the current demand for "consultation" and "consensus" nominees is part of that strategy. As Senator Kennedy put it, this is not about a fair process but a desirable outcome. The Senate's integrity and the judiciary's independence, however, requires rejecting political gimmicks and sticking with constitutional principle.

— The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch is a Republican senator to the United States Senate from Utah. Senator Hatch is former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 
Pretty much the same thing the Republicofacists do when they dont get thier way....

BLITZER: Well, what if the shoe were on the other foot. What if the president in this particular case were Bill Clinton and the Republicans were in the opposite. Wouldn't you be doing exactly what the Democrats are now doing?

MEHLMAN: I don't think we would. I don't think you'd have people prejudging an investigation. I don't think you'd have people sending e-mails out to the angry left to try to raise money alleging that somebody is a criminal or that someone ought to lose their job. It's entirely inappropriate. It's entirely unprecedented. It's a political smear campaign, and it's wrong. And it ought to stop.

:chuckle:
 
Politics

Don't ya just love politics :barf:

I hope we can get a few replacements that don't try to rewrite or rethink what the constitution says. I don't have a masters degree yet I think I have a good grasp on the general picture. The Dem's will try what they can to do what they want........even if the rule books don't play into their thought process....

Let us cook "W" for a fiction story of the Texas Guard. No, let's get him for the WMD. How about letting the weapons ban slide away. No, maybe we can build a story about GITMO from a so-called FBI Memo that proves to be a fake. Better yet, a story that our troops never will come home. The Karl cover-up story about some so-called CIA wife might be fun. How about just saying we went to Iraq for oil. The list goes on and on. They just hate the guy for anything and everything. If something can't stick to him, just make up stuff and sling it over to left media. They will run wild with it as long as they can. When it's found out to be incorrect or a lie it's quickly left on the roadside with little more than a wink. What an idiotic way to run free journalism. It borders ethical and moral standards of a 3rd world communist country's media. I hope they can regain some standards and report the facts to the upmost in truth and reality. Yep, I know I'm dreaming again.
 
There is plenty of blame to go around for both major parties these days - as "someone" said over 2000 years ago, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

The problem is, We The People get caught in the crossfire and We are the ones who end up losing.

Yup, politics sucks a**water. :eek:
 
The shoe was on the other foot many times, and they have always followed the law and rules for the good of the country first. Typical band wagon jumpers trying to save face.

kenny b
 
Dems are on a down hill slide, and have been for a while (about a decade or so). The desperation is becoming more and more apparent with their strategy. Orrin Hatch is a rare politician, focusing on constitutional principles during good times and bad. Remember, Dems are 'on the losing team' in our current political landscape.
 
The Democrats think the U. S. Supreme Court is just another legislative branch

The Democrats believe the US Supreme Court is just another legislative body.

"United States Senator “Chuck” Schumer’s broke his own stupidity record the other day following President Bush’s announcement of John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.
In a tag-team appearance with Senator Pat Leahy (D. Vt.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Schumer confessed to the Nation that neither he, Leahy, nor the Democrat party for whom he spoke, understands a fundamental principle of American constitutionalism: separation of powers. Indeed, ever since Schumer confessed, his echo has been heard as Democrat functionaries (e.g., Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Pelosi) have made the same confession that
they, too, do not understand one of the three basic pillars upon which our Republic stands.
All of them, and for that matter most of the media, have been demanding that judicial nominee Roberts “answer questions.” That Roberts explain his position on abortion, that he reveal where he stands on affirmative action, that he disclose how he would rule on capital punishment, that he divulge his stand on eminent domain—that, in effect, he make known the platform on which he is running for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.
From the perspective of the Democrats, this is entirely understandable, even defensible—because they do not understand Separation of Powers, and thus the Constitution’s mandated role for a judge in the American system of government, believing instead that the judiciary is simply another political branch. The Democrats see judges—Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Blackmun, Stevens, Ginsburg—as legislators, promulgating from the bench their own social, economic, and even moral, programs, not interpreting the Constitution and laws passed by the politically accountable actual legislature, i.e., Congress.
John Roberts is not a candidate for the Nowhereville Town Council, where the voters would want to know (and would have a right to know) where he stands on building a new senior citizen center, or whether Walmart can open a superstore. He is not even running for a senate seat in Vermont, where voters have questions about dairy subsidies, or in New York, where Long Islanders want to know about shore erosion.
He is a nominee to a judgeship where his task is not to legislate (Article I of the Constitution), but rather to serve under Article III: “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . . .” That “judicial power” is the power to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws promulgated not by judges, but by legislators.
It is bad enough that the Democrats don’t—or won’t—understand this, but apparently they’ve succeeded in selling their bogus view of American constitutionalism to the American people. Last Friday, the Associated Press reported that “Just over half of all Americans—and a solid majority of women—want to know John Roberts’ position on abortion . . . .” Not just the “pro-choice” side, but also those who oppose abortion.
The fact is that no one is entitled to know what John Roberts thinks about abortion—or gay marriage, capital punishment, gun control, self-incrimination, free speech, warrantless searches, compulsory process, the commerce clause—or the price of tea in China.
The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate are entitled to know from President Bush’s nominee for an Associate Justiceship on the Supreme Court of the United States basically one thing: what does John Roberts believe is the constitutional function of courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular—and of the judges who sit on those courts.
Until the Republicans extricate themselves from the judges-aslegislators mindset the Democrats have engineered—and in the process educate the American people about Separation of Powers, as the doctrine applies to John Roberts—they are playing the Democrats’ game, and perhaps holding a losing hand."
 
There is plenty of blame to go around for both major parties these days - as "someone" said over 2000 years ago, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Click to expand...

Too bad Jesus isnt here. Thatll start a major stoning of the biased media.
 
In fairness to the Dems, I have not ehard a lot of trying to gin up support to bork Roberts. There is the usual posturing for the constitutents but not much more than that. Yet. We'll see what happens in the hearings.
Eghad, your post is a total non-sequitur. You say the Repubs would do the same and then provide a quote from a front-line guy that they wont. What gives? When MO illegally elected a dead man to the senate I didnt see Ashcroft filing suits in federal court to overturn the election. Republicans are much better about playing by the rules, not playing to win. Sometimes I wish they werent so goody goody though.
 
In fairness to the Dems, I have not ehard a lot of trying to gin up support to bork Roberts. There is the usual posturing for the constitutents but not much more than that. Yet. We'll see what happens in the hearings.
Eghad, your post is a total non-sequitur. You say the Repubs would do the same and then provide a quote from a front-line guy that they wont. What gives? When MO illegally elected a dead man to the senate I didnt see Ashcroft filing suits in federal court to overturn the election. Republicans are much better about playing by the rules, not playing to win. Sometimes I wish they werent so goody goody though.
Click to expand...

Can you say Swift Boat Veterans? talk about mudslinging.........

Can you say McCain..... when he was running against Bush for nomination.. mudlinging against a true American hero? to boot one of thier own they ought to hang thier heads in shame.

how many millions of taxpayer dollars did the Republicans spend on impeachment over oral sex...lol. I am no fanboy of Bill's and didnt vote for him but come on :rolleyes:

Both parties are neck deep in mudslinging and thier are no goody two shoes.... that was ony a fairy tale you Republican Fairy Godmother told your

:chuckles:
 
Eghad, I've got to disagree with you a little....

First, I will admit you can usually tell when a politician is lying by noting whether or not his lips are moving, Republican or Democrat.

I couldn't care less about an earlier commander-in-chief's sex life, or that he stood up at press conferences and said "I never had sex with that woman..."; he's a politician, and I expect politicians to try to get away with everything they can, and to lie when they get caught....

But when the chief law enforcement officer of the country, who has sworn an oath before God and the people to uphold the Constitution of the United States, lies under oath before a grand jury about those activities...well, some of us believe that the dog set to guard the henhouse shouldn't develop a taste for chicken.

If that certain someone had said under oath, "Okay, you got me, I did it, and you can all go to H***!," I wouldn't have agreed with what he did, but he couldn't legally have been touched, at least not for that.

And what really disturbs me about all this is not that he didn't do that; like I said he's a politician just like others are. What really, really disturbs me is that a very large segment of the American people think that it was okay for the chief executive of this country to lie under oath because it was just about "sex."

Sorry for ranting, and maybe it just proves that I'm idealistic and naive, but it really worries me.
 
OH NOES :eek: a politician told a lie about oral sex to a grand jury :faints:

So will the Republicans be willing to start impeachment Bush if he lies about something and is caught?
 
Of course he can, Eghad, he's a politician, remember? :-)

P.S. How does one get the Smilies to work? When I preview a post, it just says, for example, eye rolls and then a picture of the first Smily. Do they show up properly on everyone else's, or have I not "clicked a button" somewhere yet?
 
Last edited:
Wow, trying to support Clinton has got to be an uphill fight these days....


Around here we think of him as 'the guy who let Bin Laden get away while he was busy dismanting the armed forces and intelligence services', but maybe that's just us. :)


Larry
 
Here's the difference, when demorats yell and the media is there to listen and broadcast, when republicans yell no one in the media listens except maybe fox news. The left can tell lie after lie and the media will not question them and when the republicans make a statement it is challenged to deaths end. The left has been on an agenda of lies for years, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton set the new standard. There is a big difference in the parties, the right runs on defense, the left runs on offense when it comes to the media.

The left has outlied the right 20 to 1, when the left has an agenda anything goes, if lie #1 doesnt stick just keep making up stories, even if they are unfounded the shadow of dought has been established. The right has no one that can match, Shumer, Boxer, Kennedy, Clinton, pelosi, feinstein and the rest of the cast. Why is it the media only seems to interview the left with the exception of fox? Why is it anything the left says is taken for fact and not questioned and even backed up by the media? The right doesnt act like the left to any degree because when the right complains it is usually valid, when the left screams it is usually based on lies. One thing I have found, when the left comes out and accuses the right of something, it is usually exactly what the left has done. Its called a smokesceen, get everyone looking at the opposite direction while you commit the crime.

I have had first hand experience with the corruption of the left at a local level and this is why I am not a democrat. I have contacted both parties for assistance at times. I can say this, the republican incumbants helped me with no strings, one democrat wanted donation after donation to help, and the other dems did nothing. One even said that I didnt have the voting power to make it worth his while! There is a big difference in the philosophical beliefs and operation of both parties. yes there have been crooked republicans, but the left makes the mafia look like amateurs. They dont make democrats like Zell Miller anymore, this isnt the party of JFK, it has been hijacked by extremist. The left has two standards, an impossible one for the right to meet and zero criteria for their own to meet. Would Janet Reno have been attorney general if she had been a republican presidential nominee, I think not!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top