Democracy In

[kg6amw]

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,07:03)]New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
He should have taken this position about 3 conformations ago.

[kg6amw]

Apparently you and the senator don't understand the mechanics of government.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,14:13)]Apparently you and the senator don't understand the mechanics of government.
Perhaps not. I do however understand the mechanics of neo cons.

[kg6amw]

A neo con, I am not. Chuck Schumer has decided to leave behind constitutional law and tradition move toward a strict partisan blunt blocking effort when it comes to supreme court nominees. This conflicts with existing law and tradition.

The constitution states, “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, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Though out our history, views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee. But, still received basic consideration.

In placing the legislative role in the Senate, which was intended to be relatively immune from political pressure, and by requiring joint action with the president, the framers hoped to minimize corrupt bargaining for appointments. Only in the most blatant instances of unsuitability have these lesser nominees been rejected. Except now, Chuck Schumer has decided that all nominees are DOA which runs counter the basic mechanics of the confirmation process. Doesn‘t this disturb you?

[W5JO]

Wonder if the esteemed senator knows something about a retiree we do not.

And, since when did the constitution mean anything to him?

[K6UEY]

Who and where are all these "NEOCON's " we keep hearing about.We are aware than "CON" is a colloquial expression used by the illiterate to define "Conservative". #
Neo as defined by Webster is a new form of a previous state. It gives the example of a "Liberal" who has seen the light and become a conservative,he would be classified as a "Neoconservative". So it stands to reason a "NeoCON" would be an #illiterate's conversational form of "neoconservative".

I can fully understand as the populace matures and the baby-boomers now reach their golden years it makes sense for them to see the fallacy of their previous philosophies. BUT #where are they. Those I talk to have never admitted they once were Liberals, they instead are very staunch about being a Conservative.
Where have all the Neocons gone ?? Do they now only exist in the minds of the dishearted" Liberals"?? # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[kd5kfl]

External quote - don't panic when you don't find it above
Quote[/b] ]Churchill ( Winston, not Ward ) said: “A young man who is not a liberal has no heart–an old man who is not a conservative has no brain.”

So, a neo con is a person who has reached the age of enlightenment, had an epiphany, and pulled his head out of his ( That which serves as mouth and brain in liberals )

Aaaah. Fresh air.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,17:47)]A neo con, I am not. #Chuck Schumer has decided to leave behind constitutional law and tradition move toward a strict partisan blunt blocking effort when it comes to supreme court nominees. #This conflicts with existing law and tradition. #

The constitution states, “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, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Though out our history, views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee. #But, still received basic consideration.

In placing the legislative role in the Senate, which was intended to be relatively immune from political pressure, and by requiring joint action with the president, the framers hoped to minimize corrupt bargaining for appointments. #Only in the most blatant instances of unsuitability have these lesser nominees been rejected. #Except now, Chuck Schumer has decided that all nominees are DOA which runs counter the basic mechanics of the confirmation process. #Doesn‘t this disturb you?
No.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (W5JO @ July 28 2007,18:23)]Wonder if the esteemed senator knows something about a retiree we do not.

And, since when did the constitution mean anything to him?
And it means even less to the bush crime family.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ July 28 2007,18:30)]Who and where are all these "NEOCON's " we keep hearing about.We are aware than "CON" is a colloquial expression used by the illiterate to define "Conservative". #
Neo as defined by Webster is a new form of a previous state. It gives the example of a "Liberal" who has seen the light and become a conservative,he would be classified as a "Neoconservative". So it stands to reason a "NeoCON" would be an #illiterate's conversational form of "neoconservative".

I can fully understand as the populace matures and the baby-boomers now reach their golden years it makes sense for them to see the fallacy of their previous philosophies. BUT #where are they. Those I talk to have never admitted they once were Liberals, they instead are very staunch about being a Conservative.
Where have all the Neocons gone ?? Do they now only exist in the minds of the dishearted" Liberals"?? # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
This may be the dumbest thing I've seen you post.

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ July 29 2007,03:57)]Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ July 28 2007,18:30)]Who and where are all these "NEOCON's " we keep hearing about.We are aware than "CON" is a colloquial expression used by the illiterate to define "Conservative".
Neo as defined by Webster is a new form of a previous state. It gives the example of a "Liberal" who has seen the light and become a conservative,he would be classified as a "Neoconservative". So it stands to reason a "NeoCON" would be an illiterate's conversational form of "neoconservative".

I can fully understand as the populace matures and the baby-boomers now reach their golden years it makes sense for them to see the fallacy of their previous philosophies. BUT where are they. Those I talk to have never admitted they once were Liberals, they instead are very staunch about being a Conservative.
Where have all the Neocons gone ?? Do they now only exist in the minds of the dishearted" Liberals"?? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
This may be the dumbest thing I've seen you post.
I've seen him post dumber stuff... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

kxq

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (k9kxq @ July 29 2007,04:42)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ July 29 2007,03:57)]Quote[/b] (K6UEY @ July 28 2007,18:30)]Who and where are all these "NEOCON's " we keep hearing about.We are aware than "CON" is a colloquial expression used by the illiterate to define "Conservative". #
Neo as defined by Webster is a new form of a previous state. It gives the example of a "Liberal" who has seen the light and become a conservative,he would be classified as a "Neoconservative". So it stands to reason a "NeoCON" would be an #illiterate's conversational form of "neoconservative".

I can fully understand as the populace matures and the baby-boomers now reach their golden years it makes sense for them to see the fallacy of their previous philosophies. BUT #where are they. Those I talk to have never admitted they once were Liberals, they instead are very staunch about being a Conservative.
Where have all the Neocons gone ?? Do they now only exist in the minds of the dishearted" Liberals"?? # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
This may be the dumbest thing I've seen you post.
I've seen him post dumber stuff... # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

kxq
I must have been on vacation that week. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kg6amw]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ July 29 2007,01:47)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,17:47)]A neo con, I am not. #Chuck Schumer has decided to leave behind constitutional law and tradition move toward a strict partisan blunt blocking effort when it comes to supreme court nominees. #This conflicts with existing law and tradition. #

The constitution states, “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, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Though out our history, views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee. #But, still received basic consideration.

In placing the legislative role in the Senate, which was intended to be relatively immune from political pressure, and by requiring joint action with the president, the framers hoped to minimize corrupt bargaining for appointments. #Only in the most blatant instances of unsuitability have these lesser nominees been rejected. #Except now, Chuck Schumer has decided that all nominees are DOA which runs counter the basic mechanics of the confirmation process. #Doesn‘t this disturb you?
No.
And there you have it, the crux of the problem with this country today. The hell with the constitution, the hell with the law and hell with tradition, as long as my party is doing the dirty deed its ok.

[nx6d]

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 29 2007,05:41)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ July 29 2007,01:47)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,17:47)]A neo con, I am not. #Chuck Schumer has decided to leave behind constitutional law and tradition move toward a strict partisan blunt blocking effort when it comes to supreme court nominees. #This conflicts with existing law and tradition. #

The constitution states, “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, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Though out our history, views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee. #But, still received basic consideration.

In placing the legislative role in the Senate, which was intended to be relatively immune from political pressure, and by requiring joint action with the president, the framers hoped to minimize corrupt bargaining for appointments. #Only in the most blatant instances of unsuitability have these lesser nominees been rejected. #Except now, Chuck Schumer has decided that all nominees are DOA which runs counter the basic mechanics of the confirmation process. #Doesn‘t this disturb you?
No.
And there you have it, the crux of the problem with this country today. #The hell with the constitution, the hell with the law and hell with tradition, as long as my party is doing the dirty deed its ok.
Oh, get real.

Does the name Tom DeLay mean anything to you?

[kg6amw]

Quote[/b] (nx6d @ July 29 2007,06:46)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 29 2007,05:41)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ July 29 2007,01:47)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,17:47)]A neo con, I am not. #Chuck Schumer has decided to leave behind constitutional law and tradition move toward a strict partisan blunt blocking effort when it comes to supreme court nominees. #This conflicts with existing law and tradition. #

The constitution states, “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, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Though out our history, views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee. #But, still received basic consideration.

In placing the legislative role in the Senate, which was intended to be relatively immune from political pressure, and by requiring joint action with the president, the framers hoped to minimize corrupt bargaining for appointments. #Only in the most blatant instances of unsuitability have these lesser nominees been rejected. #Except now, Chuck Schumer has decided that all nominees are DOA which runs counter the basic mechanics of the confirmation process. #Doesn‘t this disturb you?
No.
And there you have it, the crux of the problem with this country today. #The hell with the constitution, the hell with the law and hell with tradition, as long as my party is doing the dirty deed its ok.
Oh, get real.

Does the name Tom DeLay mean anything to you?
Sorry no red herring today. Debate the issue.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 29 2007,06:41)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ July 29 2007,01:47)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,17:47)]A neo con, I am not. #Chuck Schumer has decided to leave behind constitutional law and tradition move toward a strict partisan blunt blocking effort when it comes to supreme court nominees. #This conflicts with existing law and tradition. #

The constitution states, “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, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Though out our history, views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee. #But, still received basic consideration.

In placing the legislative role in the Senate, which was intended to be relatively immune from political pressure, and by requiring joint action with the president, the framers hoped to minimize corrupt bargaining for appointments. #Only in the most blatant instances of unsuitability have these lesser nominees been rejected. #Except now, Chuck Schumer has decided that all nominees are DOA which runs counter the basic mechanics of the confirmation process. #Doesn‘t this disturb you?
No.
And there you have it, the crux of the problem with this country today. #The hell with the constitution, the hell with the law and hell with tradition, as long as my party is doing the dirty deed its ok.
Illegal spying programs, electronic surveillance of Americans without court warrants. , torture chambers, violating habeas corpus . Don't lecture me on constitutional violations Bub.

[ad4mg]

Constitution? Why, the shrub sez that it's just a GD piece of paper.

When the president makes a statement like that, wouldn't you expect the same from the congresscritters?

Monkey see, monkey do.

[kg6amw]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ July 29 2007,08:13)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 29 2007,06:41)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ July 29 2007,01:47)]Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,17:47)]A neo con, I am not. #Chuck Schumer has decided to leave behind constitutional law and tradition move toward a strict partisan blunt blocking effort when it comes to supreme court nominees. #This conflicts with existing law and tradition. #

The constitution states, “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, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

Though out our history, views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee. #But, still received basic consideration.

In placing the legislative role in the Senate, which was intended to be relatively immune from political pressure, and by requiring joint action with the president, the framers hoped to minimize corrupt bargaining for appointments. #Only in the most blatant instances of unsuitability have these lesser nominees been rejected. #Except now, Chuck Schumer has decided that all nominees are DOA which runs counter the basic mechanics of the confirmation process. #Doesn‘t this disturb you?
No.
And there you have it, the crux of the problem with this country today. #The hell with the constitution, the hell with the law and hell with tradition, as long as my party is doing the dirty deed its ok.
Illegal spying programs, electronic surveillance of Americans without court warrants. , #torture chambers, violating habeas corpus #. #Don't lecture me on constitutional violations Bub.
Name calling, red herrings, snide comments along with one sentence responses. Still waiting for the debate to start….

[N1LAF]

The debate begins...

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,07:03)]New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer places himself above the constitution. How can he seriously complain about Bush when he disregards constitutional process? Arrogance! The Republicans, who did not agree with Ginsberg and Breyer, did not block their nominations by Clinton. Why can't we expect fair play in return. Another case of loss of civility.

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (N1LAF @ July 29 2007,08:25)]The debate begins...

Quote[/b] (kg6amw @ July 28 2007,07:03)]New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer places himself above the constitution. #How can he seriously complain about Bush when he disregards constitutional process? #
You consider one comment by Schumer is on the same level as all the constitutional violations by bush. You people are sick.