 |
| |
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
As to the WoMD thing....
Once upon a time, I knew a fellow named Ned who could see beyond what he was spoon-fed by the media.
That fellow seems to be on vacation, or taken a leave of absence, so I'll try and spell it out for you. Better yet, Plato did a FINE job, so I'll copy and paste his thoughts here:
The war in Iraq was about two things:
1.) Political power (on a nation-state level), and
2.) Reshaping the face of the Middle East ( in the end analysis, #2 is the same as #1)
So, why does everybody think that it was about the "immediate" threat, WMD's, and Al-Qaeda? Simple really.
The WMD issue was the only one that had international standing. The US had to try to force the UNSC's hand in order to get tacit legal cover for an invasion. 1441 accomplished this. The fact that they were unable to obtain a follow-up resolution speaks to the lack of real hard evidence of WMD. BUT, 1441 gave us the cover we needed along with the nebulous intelligence.
The "immediate" threat issue and the al-Qaeda ties were also very dubious intelligence that was used to rally an American public that needs a reason to send their kids to war. In the shadow of 911, this was a great rallying cry.
This is HARDLY conspiracy theorist stuff, and I agree with it.
Trouble was, it was disingenuous in the extreme and the absolute WRONG way to go about handling things.
Once again...Right way...Wrong way.
Of course, another hallmark of this administration is an absolute LACK of responsibility, so this is another minor detail that matters not at all.
Sad that the standards have sunk so low, and I cannot WAIT till this administration is out of power.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Good to see you too, Master Plato!
And yes, that is quite true. However, the founders' intent on judicial appointment "with advice and consent of the senate", and given the structure of the rest of the government, makes it unlikely in the extreme that a simple majority here would suffice.
-=Vel=- |
I do believe that the founder's did not invision the strict two party system that we have today, but nonetheless, they allowed for simple majority to select the judicial nominees.
The really interesting thing here is how the "advice" of the Senate has long been ignored. I can see a mindset where the President could only nominate from a short list of Senatorial proposed candidates. More reasonably, however, it seems that a President would be prudent to consult with both party's leadership to help fashion a nominee that would make this argument moot.
Part of the spoils of being elected to control two branches of government is to be able to set the agenda for the third. The problem is that of mandate. How do you seperate full control of government from a "mandated" full control of government? And, How do you tell which is which?
I believe that the Senate was correct in originally adopting its rules. If it chooses not to do prudent things now, then that is its perogative. They are, afterall, accountable at the ballot box.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
Vel, below is the clause in the Constitution concerning the Senate's role in providing their advice and consent on the president's appointments. Clearly, there is no super majority required for approving appointments as in the very same sentence a specific super majority is required for approving treaties.
"He 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."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Question Dems, do you disagree that the bulk of those 10 would have been confirmed had the Senate actually voted?
If you concede this point, you will also agree that the Dems in the Senate are twarting the will of the majority of the Senate.
Which means,
they are defying the will of the American people.
Now, however you would like to strecth the truth, it is manifestly clear which party here is being anti-democratic. |
a part of the american system used to involve looking out for all americans. 55 out of a 100 senators does not constitute the will of the american people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
(Not a Dem, but answering anyway)
It's possible, Ned, it's possible. However, if you look at several of those prospective judges, you would have to agree that they are clearly unfit to sit on the Federal bench. |
Maybe. IIRC, one of the judges, I believe the black lady, wanted to bring back Lochner, perhaps on the theory that "freedom of contract" substantive due process cannot be as bad as everyone thought since it is now commonplace for the court to declare laws it disagrees with unconstitutional using "right to privacy" substantive due process. I personally have a great deal of difficulty with the whole concept of substantive due process. While there is some logic to it, the end result is the court substituting its judgment for that of the people of the various states.
Democrats have discovered the value of States Rights in this era of expanding gay rights, but have long sought to use substantive due process to advance their social agenda. It is strange that they would not confirm a jurist who is fond of substantive due process, so fond of it, in fact, that she wants to apply it to all protected liberties.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-11-2004 15:17
|