Saturday, July 02, 2005


Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and a member of the committee, told reporters it would be "a shame" if Mr. Bush makes his nomination "without real face-to-face, back-and-forth consultation." Democrats argue that this is the correct meaning of the Senate's constitutional "advice and consent" role.
Schumer and the other "already-hot-under-the-collar and itching-for-a-fight" Lefties misunderstand and abuse the US Constitution. The US Constitution says that the presdient shall nominate jugdes and that the Senate shall "advise and consent." The US Constitution DOES NOT say that the president shall ask advise of the MINORITY PARTY in the Senate.

Lefties love to bring up that Clinton consulted with Hatch before he made his two nominations. Well, When Democrat President BJ Clinton consulted with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, was CHAIRMAN of the Judiciary Committee because the GOP was the MAJORITY PARTY in the Senate; therefore Clinton HAD TO CONSULT if he wanted to get a nominee confirmed by a majority vote.

Therefore, I suggest that Bush consult with Frist and Spector.

In a democracy, MAJORITY RULES.

ASIDE: I wish that the Democrats and the Left felt as angry and aggressive about the neojihadists as they do Bush and the GOP! Sadly, they are more concerned about the folks like Clarence Thomas and Alberto Gonzales than they are folks like Zarqawi and Bin Laden. This goes hand-in-glove their insane notions that Gitmo is a gulag, and Saddam was not involved with terrorists. Sheesh!


Anonymous said...

This statement : " In a democracy, MAJORITY RULES." illustrates a very poor understanding of political science. From Plato to contemporary political commentary, the problems associated with a political system that doesn't provide for representation of 49% are widely understood.

The sort of system that you are advocating is not only one that America's founding fathers sought to avoid, but is also inherently dangerous. The existence of minority rights is pivotal on them having representation, not on the chance that majorities will toss them crumbs when convenient. Contemporary western democracy has come to attempt to represent the views of as many of its constituents as is possible, and provide political structures to circumvent the very tyrannical system that you keep insisting should exist. Thank goodness wiser minds prevail!

On the topic at hand, these pre-emptive efforts (from both sides) regarding the eventual nominee are not only pointless, but harmful.. Whomever the nominee turns out to be deserves to have their merits debated and evaluated without the well being poisoned with all of this crap. Bush ran as being a "uniter", and given the political divide in America today, this nomination provides a prime opportunity to do just that. However, I'm willing to wait and see who gets the nod before passing judgment. It's a shame that the bomb throwing has already started.

As for the left being more concerned with Gonzales than Bin Laden, that sort of tripe might fly with those who eat up comments like Rove's most recent, but deserve to be called for the asinine and divisive falsehoods that they are. Ironically, by further (and gratuitously) exacerbating the divide between Americans, you're actually assisting folks like Bin Laden and Zarqawi in their goals.

When you are interested in joining reality, we'd love to have you back.

Reliapundit said...

to mccoy:

1 - the majority DOES rule. minorities do not. they mat have rights, but not rule. that's just a fact. like it or not. most lefties - like you - don;t like facts. too effing bad. if majority DID NOT rule, then why bother trying to WIN elections, jerk!?

2 - when you say, "thank God wiser minds prevail" you reveal your deep love of ELITISM, which also reveals you're a leftist - and it reveals why. views are represented - ALL VIEWS as you point out, but the VIEW OF THE MAJORITY RULES. that's justa fact. if you want minority rule move to saudi arabia or zimbabwe or cuba. that's how they run things.

3 - my rhetoric insn't tripe; it's just the facts you don't like. as truman said, I'm not giving them hell; I'm just telling the turth ands THEY think it's hell!" Durbin's comments comparing Gitmo to a Gulag PROVE he is an idiot. THAT NOT A SINLGE DEMOCRAT IN ALL OF CONGRESS CONDEMNED HIM OR HIS COMMENTS OR EVEN ASKED HIM TO APOLOGIZE SAYS EVERYTHING YOUI NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE CONDITION THE PARTY IS IN.

I am not assiting folsk liek Binladen - as you IDIOTICALLY suggest.

Al qaeda atrtacked us in 1993 (a bombing against the WTC). CLINTON SENT THE FBI TO ARREST THEM. Al Qaeda attacked us AGAIN in Somalia, and in Khobar Towers and the TWO African embassies (killing 500 and wounding 5000!) and thenm the USS Cole - and each and every time CLINTON DID NOTHING MORE THEN SEND THE FBI - as if it was just another crime. That's just a fact.

This only encouraged more attacks. As Bin Laden himself said. That's just a fact.


We must kill them and destroy them or else they will destroy us - or kill MILLIONS trying.

You, poor mccoy, are the one out of touch with reality!

That's just a fcat.

Anonymous said...

Your word choice ("ruling") reveals a lot. The majority governs, and hopefully the mechanisms within the government ensure that this is done is a somewhat benevolent manner. And, depending on the type of legislative representation associated with that government, minority parties have varying degrees of influence. Unfortunately, some (when convenient) want to assert that an election = WIN = RULING = NO REPRESENTATION, which is a very naïve, simplistic, and dangerous view of contemporary western democracy. It isn't "elitist" to note that the vast majority of political scientists and research on the matter agrees with me. It simply reflects that those who devote their lives to the study of politics understand the problems associated with what you continue to advocate. Don't believe me? Try reading Plato's, Alexis de Tocqueville's, or even (if you prefer something a little closer to home) James Madison's thoughts on democracy.

Gitmo is not the Gulag, and any who claim that it is are terribly incorrect. I fail to see what that has to do with the subject we're discussing, unless you're going off on yet another of your LEFTIST = LIARS = TRAITORS rants. Ironically, some of the rhetoric you spout on here mirrors the very things you decry. Michael Moore may be an idiot, but reciprocally, so are those that choose to become the right-wing version thereof.

Very few disagreed with the decision to go into Afghanistan and after Bin Laden. But that isn't what is occurring right now. You'll find no argument from me that the people responsible for 9/11 should be captured or killed, and if that means using military force, so be it. But right now the US military is tied down dealing with a country that (relatively speaking) posed almost no threat to the US while other potentially dangerous situations have been allowed to develop. Iran and N Korea are on the verge of possessing nuclear weapons, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are still operating, global terrorism is up, and the conflict in Iraq shows no signs of coming to an acceptable conclusion any time soon.

At home, efforts to curb civil rights and freedoms are underway. Government interference in medical decisions, extraordinary rendition, holding people incommunicado without charges, trial, access to lawyers, etc…, "disappearing" people... Unfortunately, the party that used to represent individual rights has now become slave to a religious agenda that seeks to limit the very thing that has set America apart from the rest of the world: Freedom. And because party affiliation has become more important than country, the partisan divide is so difficult to cross that the problems continue to go ignored. The notion that 49% of the country no longer has any voice in government only illustrates it further. So by all means, continue to spew it, but a spade is a spade… what you're advocating not only represents an ignorance of contemporary western democracy, but hurts the country.

Reliapundit said...

"RULING" is not my word choice; it's an expression as old as democracy. majority rules DEFIUNES democacy; ti;s WHY there are elections.

you are a brainwashed fool.

Glen said...

McCoy, your guys lost and if you had won you wouldn't be saying any of that BS about minority rights. I know you're bummed out that you're about to lose the only branch of government that liberals still control (the unelected branch). But hey, the people have spoken.

Kyle said...

really all Bush has to do is send Chuckie a short list of his names and ask him to rate them say, one through five. There, all done, advice! And Chuckie cant say squat about it because he had some imput. Dont know if the white house is clever enough now in days.

Reliapundit said...

KYLE: the US Constitution does NOT say the president must get advise or consult "WITH THE MINORITY PARTY IN THE SENATE."

He may consult Frist, et al. Or just submit to the BODY, and let them go through any interviewing/debating process they in the Senate choose.

A simple MAJORITY confirms nominees.

It does NOT have to be UNANIMOUS, and DOES NOT require a single vote from the minority party.

The Constitution does not give VETO to the minority.


If Leftists don't like the picks, then they should RUN ON THE ISSUE IN THE NEXT ELECTION - and NOT block them.

WHy don't Lweftits do this" Because their ideology is FUNDAMENTYALLY UNDEMOCRATIC AND ELITIST.