Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. - Page 46

Shape Shifter · 03-18-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I saw some of the questions asked by Christopher Shays, and was appalled. It's not the place of private business or a union to enforce the laws against drug abuse. I mean, MLB probably should try to do something about it, since it affects the integrity of the game, but that's a business decision. It's not like they're deputized to prosecute drug offenders.

Dunno, I see your point, but they're also creating conditions that encourage and foster abuse. Kind of like they own a crack house, but with a different smell.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-18-2005, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
But there are far more important things for Congress to focus on than roids in baseball.

I'm waiting for hearings on steroid use by professional wrestlers.

Replaced_Texan · 03-18-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Brilliantly evil?

For a party that rails against the interference by a minority with judicial selection, perhaps the fact that they can't get a bill passed with a simple majority should be a lesson.

Same people that wanted to cut Medicaid want to keep her alive. I don't understand these people.

bilmore · 03-18-2005, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think you may be overstating the case here, Bilmore. I don't recall Congress being granted the power to bestow immortality in the Constitution, and short of that, I fail to see how they can prevent a death.

Well, keep in mind that I'm not commenting on the substance of their efforts. I have no ideas how alive she is or not. Lacking that, I'm not going there.

sgtclub · 03-18-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since you can't deny that Republicans used various procedural devices to prevent Clinton nominees from getting an up-or-down vote, why do you marvel at the notion that Boxer wants judges to be approved by 60 votes?

I'm vaguely familiar with the GOP stunts pulled during the Clinton term, and I think both practices are unconstitutional.

bilmore · 03-18-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
. . . in searing, blinding, unending pain. Fucking Pharisees.

You must know more about this than me, I guess.

Or her doctors.

Replaced_Texan · 03-18-2005, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, I know little about the substance of this one, so I've avoided it quite well, but it does strike me that, stopping a death, if you truly think an injustice is about to occur, might be an inappropriate time to worry about minority status.

Dunno why they still can't remove the feeding tube. If she's able to testify, she's able to feed herself in the week and a half until the hearing.

Shape Shifter · 03-18-2005, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm vaguely familiar with the GOP stunts pulled during the Clinton term, and I think both practices are unconstitutional.

In his annual reports on the judiciary during the Clinton administration, Rehnquist called on Congress to knock it off. I didn't like it then and I don't really like it now, but you can't really blame the Dems for wanting payback.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-18-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm vaguely familiar with the GOP stunts pulled during the Clinton term, and I think both practices are unconstitutional.

Do you believe in stare decisis?

The Senate has had rules to organize itself for ever. These rules sometimes prevent individual senators, or minority blocs, from thwarting the will of the majority. This was understood to be a feature of the British parliament long before we even had the Constitution -- it's a part of our constitutional tradition in that way.

Some people think all of this can be ignored if you want to overturn the apple cart badly enough to. But they are the opposite of "conservatives." What you are proposing would be the worst kind of judicial activism if a judge were doing it.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-18-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
In his annual reports on the judiciary during the Clinton administration, Rehnquist called on Congress to knock it off. I didn't like it then and I don't really like it now, but you can't really blame the Dems for wanting payback.

If we could step back for a minute, we could probably agree that permitting the minority the power to block a few judges is probably a good idea, since it acts as a check and a balance upon the power of the majority. When this power is abused, it becomes a bad thing. Drawing that line is very difficult. In the past, this was less of a problem because appointments were somewhat less partisan, and because the perogatives of senators to have a hand in appointments for their own states were protected.

sgtclub · 03-18-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you believe in stare decisis?

The Senate has had rules to organize itself for ever. These rules sometimes prevent individual senators, or minority blocs, from thwarting the will of the majority. This was understood to be a feature of the British parliament long before we even had the Constitution -- it's a part of our constitutional tradition in that way.

Some people think all of this can be ignored if you want to overturn the apple cart badly enough to. But they are the opposite of "conservatives." What you are proposing would be the worst kind of judicial activism if a judge were doing it.

Senate rules are fine and all, but not if they are inconsistent with the Constitution, regardless of how long they have been in place. If we want to require 60 votes to approve a judicial nominee, that's fine, but let's first go through the process of amending the Constitution.