Impeachment - It's Not Just for Blowjobs Anymore

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If you act like a joke, think like a joke, and sound like a joke, you're a joke. The Dems in Congress are a gutless joke. While they're busy with invective and cowering, they have no unified ideal to stand in opposition to Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

And I think that's my point in the end, Jer. Even if it "does no good" to say no, say NO anyway...even if it's a republican controlled congress, if the democrats did anything, at least they could say "hey, we tried, instead of just letting it all go on without a fight." But apparently they're not quite capable of that.

Ciels-
Michele

Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060509/pl_nm/congress_health_dc_2

Here's an example right here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060509/pl_nm/congress_health_dc_2

The poor, poor billionaires club (GOP) wants to make it difficult for people to sue for medical malpractice. The bill needed a supermajority to pass and it hasn't. This is brand new - the Dems stood up to the Repubs.

If you shut your eyes hard enough you won;t see a thing.

Here's another example, the Overtime Bill. Bush spent his entire first term getting it passed, and then the geniuses reelected him as a reward for hurting American workers. The Dems fought it tooth and nail, but the 8th time, or something like that, with obvious strings being pulled, it passed. Guys like Kennedy stood hard against this bill ALL THE WAY THRU, but now he's vilified as a loser, yet you will call the Dems who fold, losers. Do you see the contradiction you build, making it impossible to establish a strong Democrat in Congress?

Quote

If you act like a joke, think like a joke, and sound like a joke, you're a joke. The Dems in Congress are a gutless joke.

See what I mean? DO you think the Overtime Law is a good thing? Or is it a bad joke to the workers of the US? So is kennedy not a gutless joke since he usually opposed Republican corruption they tend to spoon-feed thru Congress? Let's tabulate: Dems who fold are gutless jokes, Dems like Kennedy who fight are __________. I think you can fill in the blank and establish your argument that makes all roads lead to something defamatory for the Dems. See what I mean about your impossible argument?

Quote

While they're busy with invective and cowering, they have no unified ideal to stand in opposition to Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

1) Worrying about being invective is semantic, not that I agree with your assertion. If Bush were the first criminal elected president..... oh wait, he is, and he was a great president who has helped the country, which it would tale a lunatic to think he has, then who cares? I care about the end espult, I will leave the semantics to the pundits and commentators. I care that the debt will go from 5.5T to about twice that when Bush leaves office, I care that the Arsenic in the drinking water is higher due to Bush killing a bill, I care that so many things are going south, but I don't care that someone calls another a name.

2) What are they covering?

3) They are semi-unified. It took Bush his entire first term to push thru the Overtime Law. Whenever the Dems do something to show they have unification, the Repubs do things like threaten to pass new rules that disallow filibusters.

Quote

And I think that's my point in the end, Jer. Even if it "does no good" to say no, say NO anyway...even if it's a republican controlled congress, if the democrats did anything, at least they could say "hey, we tried, instead of just letting it all go on without a fight." But apparently they're not quite capable of that.

"Jer." ????

They have said no many times. Look at the jokes who were attempted and confirmed to the courts. When you have a minority in ALL branches of gov, you are disempowered. Your assertion would call a 150lb guy a pussy for not being able to beat up a 350lb wrestler. The geniuses have disempowered the Dems in Congress and then turn around and call teh few that are thee, weak.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Just out of curiousity, as my research didn't turn anything up, have the Democrats introduced any sort of bill against warrentless wire taps? Challenges in support of the 4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)? Anything like that at all?

The Democrats as well as a few independently thinking Republicans actually have asked that the wire tapping issue get looked into. The problem is that the idealogs that control what comes to the floor are in control. That's why there's no one looking into it right now. It's just like Sen. Pat Roberts and his refusal to continue with the second part of the 9/11 investigation. I think I did hear that Arlen Spectre may be revisiting the wire tapping issue. He's pissed at Gonzales for refusing to answer any questions during his two visits in front of his committee (they should have sworn him in). But now, with this article about Bush's excessive use of signing statements to assert that 750 new laws don't apply to Bush if he doesn't want them to,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/
Spectre's probably going to try to go after an answer. Which brings us to current events. I think that's why Goss is gone and Hayden's in, a pre-emptive defense against likely impeachment proceedings after this fall's elections.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I'm an absolute civil libertarian, and I disgree with your assessment. COngress can do things. The SCOTUS has a couple of damned good new justices. Period. I did an essay about why the Dems in the Senate looked like the jokes that they are.http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2182579#2182579[/url]

Nice essay. And I agree that the if the Dems actually have a pair, that they're too candy assed to show them. This administration has given them ample ammunition and they've squandered it. But on the SC constructionalist issue and the filibuster, I don't see how the R's could legally, according to the Constitution, kill a judicial filibuster. The "Constitutional Option" is just as much a misnomer as "Patriot Act", "Clear Skies" , "Healthy Forests", "Fair Pay Initiative", etc.
And as a post script, in my opinion Scalia should be kicked off the court for not recusing himself from Cheney's case regarding the secret energy policy meetings. That was a textbook appearance of impropriety. You can't go on a hunting trip with Cheney that is paid for by energy company execs when Cheney was going to sit in front of your court regarding a case involving Cheney and the same energy execs.
Quack Quack.

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

a pre-emptive defense against likely impeachment proceedings after this fall's elections.

Considering the gross misapplication of clearly established law by the President in the wire tapping issue and the demogogery evident in the signing statements, I think it likely that impeachment proceedings are inevitable. Impeachment is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as a criminal proceeding. Nixon v. Serica (487 F.2d 700) observes in dicta and footnotes the applicability of criminal prosecutions of the President, and declines to extend any sort of criminal immunity to him. It also notes that the existence of impeachment articles does not foreclose any other criminal proceeding against the President.

As for the wiretapping, I think it unlikely that the President will also be liable for civil damages as a result of Unconstitutional privacy violations. This is because of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which ruled that the president has absolute civil immunity for any actions "within the outer perimeter" of the president's sphere of responsibility. So even if he was acting in a way that violates the law, if he's doing something presidential, he's immune.

It's different for other executive officials, though. They only get immunity if they aren't violating clearly established law, and Katz v. US is clearly established law.

To answer your question Michele: yes, there have been some challenges to the warrantless wiretapping, but they concern the first as well as the fourth amendment. Do a google search for ACLU v. NSA and you'll find more information.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

if the Dems actually have a pair, that they're too candy assed to show them. This administration has given them ample ammunition and they've squandered it.

exactly. This is because the Dems lack any real vision. They lack any real sense of pragmatism or substance. When they're busy askign Supreme Court nominees whether their kids play with minorities, it tends to show the ridiculousness with which they do things.

Who was the chick that GWB first nominated for the empty SCOTUS spot? I can't remember her, either. I figured Bush was gutless at that point, because he could have nominated an Alito or Roberts. When that one was knocked down, he went with Roberts, whom nobody could really have a legitimate objection to.

Then he responded with Alito - a haymaker punch. It sent a message. And Alito handled it masterfully - I call balls and strikes.

Quote

I don't see how the R's could legally, according to the Constitution, kill a judicial filibuster.

I'm not a real scholar of this, but I believe that a filibuster is controlled by Senate Rules. Under the Constitution, the Congress has the right ot make its own rules. The Senate Rules allow filibuster, and allow it to be cut off ("cloture") with 60 votes. Rules dictate there is no filibustering of budgets, for example. Filibuster is an entirely procedural mechanism set up by the Senate.

The house could allow filibuster in its rules, but apparently does not. There ain't nuthin in the Constitution that, in my reading, even implies filibuster.

I think that part of the problem with changing the rules is that I think it takes a 2/3 vote to do it, while cloture takes a 3/5 vote.

Filibuster has been the new black. There were more filibusters in the 1991-1992 session than in the entire 19th Century.

But, I think we need to limit the role of a filibuster. It makes sense to filibuster the passage of laws. Legisative filibusters serve a useful purpose because having the ability of 40 Senators to block a law by delaying or halting quick action is a good thing. This is especially so if it has only a narrow majority supporting it.

On the other hand, there is the other role of the Senate to advise and consent. Filibusters there don't make a lot of sense. Delay in that role can cause more problems than it solves, and I think that court nominees, consent for treaties, etc., should not be filibustered and should be given a straight up or down vote. "This one isn't good. Find somebody else."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[brierebecca 0]

Quote

Who was the chick that GWB first nominated for the empty SCOTUS spot? I can't remember her, either. I figured Bush was gutless at that point, because he could have nominated an Alito or Roberts. When that one was knocked down, he went with Roberts, whom nobody could really have a legitimate objection to.

Then he responded with Alito - a haymaker punch. It sent a message. And Alito handled it masterfully - I call balls and strikes

uh....I thought he went with Roberts for Rhenquist's spot, then Myers for O'Conner's spot. When Myers was rejected, he replaced her with Alito, not Roberts. It's all semantics anyway, and I could be wrong.

Brie

"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie

[jdhill 0]

Quote

At this point, with 47% of the people in the US strongly disapproving of the president, I don't think that's true.

Sorry I'm a little late on this, but...

Don't confuse dissapproval of the President with agreening in any way the Democrates... If someone were to poll me on my approval of how GWB is doing his job, it would a point for the dissapprove side. That in no way means I approve of any of the Democrat's positions or alternatives.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[billvon 2,379]

>Don't confuse dissapproval of the President with agreening in any way the Democrates...

Of course. The democrat's approval rating is only slightly higher than the GOP's right now; both are low. And that's not because the democrats are doing a better job - it's because the GOP has had most of the opportunities to screw up lately, and they have taken full advantage of them.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

exactly. This is because the Dems lack any real vision. They lack any real sense of pragmatism or substance.

snip

On the other hand, there is the other role of the Senate to advise and consent. Filibusters there don't make a lot of sense. Delay in that role can cause more problems than it solves, and I think that court nominees, consent for treaties, etc., should not be filibustered and should be given a straight up or down vote. "This one isn't good. Find somebody else."

I can't criticize the Dem's without also criticizing the R's. The R's seem to be suffering from an identity crisis. They pretty much rubber stamped everything Bush uttered when his approval ratings were high, they also were apparently punch drunk on their access to the treasury. But now that Bush's ratings are in the crapper and there's an election coming up they're feverishly trying to restore their identity.
Now on to the judicial filibuster, the way I see it, the Constitution states that by and with the advice and consent of the congress, the president can appoint judges. That means that if congress doesn't consent to the pick, be that evident through filibuster or the holding up of the nomination in committee (I think it was 62 Clinton nominations that were held up that way) that means that congress doesn't consent and the pres has to make another pick. Personally, I think that a Supreme Court justice should be approved by a super majority, not a simple one. (On this issue Frist is a hypocrit considering that in 2000 he voted to uphold the Richard Paez nomination through filibuster.)
And lastly, I think you were thinking of Harriet Meiers but she didn't even get to the interview by the judicial committee because her nomination was run down the tubes by the radical religious right. That's why I was skeptical of Alito, I didn't know much about him but the bible thumping theocracy hounds seemed to think he was the activist judge that they were looking for. I guess we'll find out.