Day Five; Revolt in the House of Representatives Rolls On

What these republicans doing the protesting don’t seem to understand is, they’re not in control of congress, the democrats are, and Nancy Pelosi, as speaker of the house, and has the right to adjourn as she did.

If the republicans want this power, then I suggest that they start acting like the conservatives of Ronald Reagan lineage, in order to win back the control they lost.

This is really immature politicians stamping their feet cuz they .
can’t get their way.

BTW, oil prices are dropping. Good thing Nancy didn’t give the oil companies the unbridled off-shore drilling rights they were seeking. :slight_smile:

Jim

Another instance of character assassination was the attack on Judge Robert Bork. It was a disgrace. One may not like his politics, but he is one of the most astute judicial minds in the country. We are less because he was “borked”.

100% in agreement!:thumbsup:

Paul

Hi Jim,

The congressmen are very aware that the Democrats are in the majority, and they are using that fact to their fullest political advantage. If they were in the majority, they ostensibly would not have
adjourned.

Your last paragraph is illogical, unless you believe prices won’t go up again.

What is your understanding of “liberal” and of “conservative”.

I found this and it seemed appropriate. There certainly are times when I fell like throwing them all out on their ear, but then I get tired and fall asleep.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-congress-monkeys.jpg

Another instance of character assassination was the attack on Judge Robert Bork. It was a disgrace.

Absolutely. There were very good and reasonable objections to putting him on the court, but he was savaged by liberals. Incidentally, the same thing has been done to a number of judges appointed by democrat presidents. Once the precedent is in place, the door swings both ways.

One may not like his politics, but he is one of the most astute judicial minds in the country. We are less because he was “borked”.

He is a brilliant man. But he loves the state far too much for me to ever want him on the Supreme Court. His vision of presidential power was pretty much what George W. Bush thinks it should be.

The country is safer without him on the Court, but he is neither corrupt nor stupid.

I found this and it seemed appropriate.

(compares Congress to a pack of apes)

Your post is highly insulting and uncalled for. You owe the apes an apology.

The one on the right, far back, does look a bit like George W, though.

However, even when the Republicans were a minority under a Democratic president, the majority of Republican senators never voted against a Supreme Court appointment made by a Democrat, unlike the Democrats who were a disgrace in this regard during the Bush Administration.

:blush:

You are right.

To apes and chimpanzees around the world, I sincerely apologize for the crude comparison to politicians.

grassfire.org/108/petition.asp?

Found this … it talks about the debates during the House of Representative recess.

However, even when the Republicans were a minority under a Democratic president, the majority of Republican senators never voted against a Supreme Court appointment made by a Democrat, unlike the Democrats who were a disgrace in this regard during the Bush Administration.

There were over 60 anonymous “holds” by GOP senators against Clinton’s judicial nominees. That is a genuine disgrace, an unprecedented effort to keep the nominees from coming up for a vote.

They both play the game; no one who knows anything about recent history in Washington denies that.

Name them.

online.wsj.com/article/SB121867190633138889.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Senatorial holds… This particularly interesting fact emerged…

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma certainly set a new standard in the wars of advice and consent when he held more than 30 judicial nominees hostage in a battle with the president over an unrelated recess appointment.
brookings.edu/articles/2001/spring_governance_binder.aspx

Even granted that Inhofe is something of a fruitcake, this is pretty impressive.

As of last week, 17 other senators–ranging from conservatives such as Jesse Helms (N.C.) and Bob Smith (N.H.) to moderates such as Pete Domenici (N.M.) and George Voinovich (Ohio)–had joined Inhofe in officially placing “holds” on the confirmation of anyone Clinton appoints to fill any of the 77 current judicial vacancies.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200002/ai_n8903038

The move was an attempt to get back at Clinton for recess appointments, done while the Senate is in recess. You may notice that Bush has made extensive use of this, and the democrats did not copy republican tactics because of it.

Inofe’s excuse that Clinton had not provided a list as he had promised was brushed aside by the GOP leadership.

**TULSA (AP) — U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe seems defiant, despite being told the White House did provide a list of potential recess appointees before Congress adjourned late last year.

Inhofe, R-Okla., had argued that President Clinton violated an agreement on recess appointments, in which the president bypasses the Senate confirmation process by naming an individual to a position during congressional recesses. Such appointments are constitutional and remain in effect until the end of the following year.

Inhofe vowed to block any appointments recommended by Clinton, whose aides denied an agreement to supply the Senate a list of such appointments had been violated.

John Czwartacki, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott’s spokesman, told the Tulsa World’s Washington bureau that the White House did provide the Republican leader’s office with a list of potential recess appointees prior to adjournment. **
poncacitynews.com/NewsArchives/0200folder/lo021000.html

They all play the game, democrat and republican. And all too often the weird and the obsessed among them are calling the tunes.

**Statistical Judo: The Rhetoric of Senate Inaction in the Judicial Appointment Process

E. Stewart Moritz
University of Akron - School of Law

U of Akron Legal Studies Research Paper No. 06-12
Journal of Law & Politics, Fall 2006

Abstract:
The article offers a chronological history and a critique of the rhetoric of both Republican and Democratic senators concerning the pace of lower-court confirmations during the 107th Congress. Much of that recent rhetoric, spanning the years 2001 to 2002, relies upon comparisons of then-current nomination success rates to judicial confirmation statistics from the Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton presidencies. Through carefully analyzing the claims of senators concerning Bush II’s first-Congress judicial appointments, the article is able to present an overview of more than twenty years of Senate behavior with respect to the pace of lower-court confirmations. In doing so, the article identifies a number of confirmation process fallacies repeatedly relied upon by senators in their efforts to make political points out of the pace of the confirmation process. It also explains some confirmation process relevancies, in hopes that future debates can be grounded on important considerations rather than on those that are trivial and irrelevant. Because the lower-court confirmation mess is sure to return to prominence during the Democrat-controlled Senate that will be constituted in early 2007, and following the 2008 presidential elections and beyond, the author hopes that the article will help establish a baseline for arguments about delay in the process, particularly when the White House and Senate are held by different political parties. **

If the point is to just support your party, be it democrat or republican, feel free to ignore the facts. If you put being an American first, then this should give you pause about the way both parties have damaged the process.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.