Home » Forums » Hot Topics

hi everyone,

Submitted by stdyofman on January 24, 2006 - 9:04pm.

I hope all of you had a great new year! have any of you heard that people are asking democrats to turn their backs on president Bush while he is giving the state of the union adress? I doubt that it will happen, but would that not be a great thing to watch? better yet they should get up and walk out. would there be any legal reason for them not to do this?

‹ Fax to Harry Reid: Filibuster Alito Now or Democracy is Dead! The significance of the Administration's July, 2002 statements about FISA ›
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Google
  • Yahoo
  • Technorati

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Harry gave 'em hell today!

Submitted by googa1 on January 24, 2006 - 9:16pm.

Harry gave 'em hell today! http://www.democrats.com/node/7508#comment-47474 I hope Harry is going to give the rebuttal to the Lies to the Union Address.

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security

like it's some kind of federal program."

- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

GO HARRY!

Submitted by stdyofman on January 24, 2006 - 9:33pm.

wow, I am really glad to see someone calling bush out like that. now if we could get more senators to do the same! we might actually get somewhere instead of getting the same ole run around.

I was listening to Randi Rhodes and a woman called in, she thinks perhaps there is a "horse Trade" going on, Alito gets confirmed for impeachment hearings. I think I would rather see a fillabuster than have that man in the Supreme Court regardless of impeachment hearings.

Welcome back , Belinda.

Submitted by kwahlf on January 26, 2006 - 12:25am.

We must have a filibuster! Alito is going to tip the scales towards an ultra-conservative,
(yes,) reactionary Supreme Court. These appointments are for life! OK- Question time-

WTH?- Why are these incredibly important, all reaching, all impacting positions on the
Supreme Court for life? Why not term limits? If he/she turns out to be a disaster, then there is a way out! Life Terms? Why?

Anyhoo, welcome back. I'm glad to hear you did so well on your finals. ;-)

The short answer is, that

Submitted by Visitor on January 26, 2006 - 1:04am.

The short answer is, that the Founders wanted to establish a branch of government that was totally free from partisan political influence.

That is why it is so very important that the nominees for the SCOTUS are thoroughly vetted by both Parties. The BA is attempting to "stack" the court, and the DINOs in Congress are about to let them. They have either forgotten their Constitutional obligations, or have been paid to ignore them.

Thanks for the answer, Bill.

Submitted by kwahlf on January 26, 2006 - 1:20am.

Since the Founders were moving away from a monarchy,
it seemed odd that they would support lifetime appointments at all.

My concern is that the SCOTUS not be influenced by partisan influence.

Karin, here is a better

Submitted by Visitor on January 26, 2006 - 1:45am.

Karin, here is a better explanation of SCOTUS appointments:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/institution.pdf

Members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President subject to the approval of the Senate. To ensure an independent Judiciary and to protect judges from partisan pressures, the Constitution provides that judges serve during "good Behaviour," which has generally meant life terms. To further assure their independence, the Constitution provides that judges’ salaries may not be diminished while they are in office.

So if we find "bad

Submitted by googa1 on January 26, 2006 - 7:34am.

So if we find "bad bahaviour" can we impeach a SCOTUS judge? Would this qualify...http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002704.html?

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security

like it's some kind of federal program."

- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

thanks karin,

Submitted by stdyofman on January 26, 2006 - 2:12am.

this semester is starting off well, thanks for the congrats too :)

I know what you mean the confirmation of Alito is going to be a disaster, but as Bill stated on another thread, it just means we need to fight harder and not declare that this is the end. I cannot believe that not one democrat in washington wanted to stand up and fight sad really that the best they could muster is a no vote?
I am anxiously awaiting one of my senator's vote, the other has already published her answer as a No, both are democrats.

Thanks Bill and Belinda.

Submitted by kwahlf on January 26, 2006 - 7:06pm.

I'm beginning to understand the life term appointments better.

I just got home and the news has gone from great - Kerry leading the filibuster-
to disasterous- Reid caving in- that's not like Reid- he has always led a good fight. WTH?

I am not giving up- I'm still calling and faxing the Senators!
There is too much at stake here.

Necco has is right about

Submitted by Jim on January 26, 2006 - 7:10pm.

Necco has it right about Democrats finding their power.

Democratic Senators just cut us off at our knees.

They missed one of the most important opportunities of their careers: making use of THE new tool of the millennium--- Internet Activists.

They have an army and do not bother to coordinate with it? Some logistical work and soul searching needs to be done.

Reid has come back

Submitted by dinamic on January 27, 2006 - 7:41pm.

Reid has come back to the light ;)

Proud member of the reality based community.

I knew it!

Submitted by kwahlf on January 27, 2006 - 7:59pm.

I knew it! Reid is one hell of a fighter.

Thanks, Di! I'm very happy to hear he's back.

;-)

Go Democrats

Submitted by rebel on January 24, 2006 - 10:39pm.

Democrats Lets take back Amarica.. Pray that our Troops come home soon!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.