Punting on the goal line.
I'm not going to be able to type much here before lapsing into incoherent burbles of profanity.
I have taken a lot of crap for my politics. I have stood up--respectfully, politely--for unpopular conservative positions in ways I believe have negatively affected my career. These Senators exhibit no such conviction.
What reason do these puddle-spines give for this wonderful, breakthrough pact of theirs? How can they justify it? Comity? Compromise for its own sake?
Pathetic.
1
maybe they don't live in a winger echo chamber
Posted by: actus at May 24, 2005 01:07 AM (Ygl+x)
2
true. they live in the world's most exclusive country club, where at all costs they must avoid looking like the House of Representatives, which, you know, actually works for a living.
Posted by: The Yell at May 24, 2005 02:00 AM (4TCei)
3
They have fallen victim to the new math, which states that the minority always wins.
Not that I'm making excuses for them, but they are so afraid of offending anyone that they have lost thier courage. I suppose they are afraid of what newseek, CBS, or ABC will say about them. (sigh)
What I'm more afraid of is the supposed extraordinary circumstances that they'll filibuster over.
I can just see it now.
"This one's a Believer." That's an extraordinary circumstance.
"That one believes that parents have to be notified before we can do that abortion." Whoops, that's an extraordinary circumstance.
"That one believes in the constitution," Whoops that's an extraordinary circumstance.
"That one thinks that every action has a consequence" whoops that's an extraordinary circumstance.
Posted by: Joe Wiess at May 24, 2005 03:02 AM (LtbPK)
4
"Ah this one wants to force women to have kids" its okay, let it pass.
"This one wants to deny certain rights to two citizens" nothing
new with that. Pass.
"This one wants us to interfere in the business of all the State
governments." It's cool. Proceed.
But we don't have to worry, none of these are extraordinary circumstance.
Posted by: Butch at May 24, 2005 08:26 AM (Gqhi9)
5
"They have fallen victim to the new math, which states that the minority always wins."
if thats the case can we undo the other judges that have been approved?
Posted by: actus at May 24, 2005 11:45 AM (Ygl+x)
6
That's an idea. And can we impeach judges that proved to be not
what they claimed when they were put forward?
Posted by: Butch at May 24, 2005 11:53 AM (Gqhi9)
7
" That's an idea. And can we impeach judges that proved to be not
what they claimed when they were put forward?"
I think you'll have trouble finding judges claiming to be certain things.
Posted by: actus at May 24, 2005 12:04 PM (Ygl+x)
8
All judges are politicians at heart. The true challenge is not
finding judges claiming to be one thing, but finding them to be one thing only.
Posted by: Butch at May 24, 2005 12:20 PM (Gqhi9)
9
How about judges who look only to the Constitution for guidance? Isn't that the way it's supposed to go? Judges do not have legislative power because they aren't elected, it's our fault that we let them run wild. I don't care what a judge's political bent is, as long as he/she applies the law without bias. But then, I'm just a libertarian nutcase, so don't mind me, you guys go on parroting your party lines.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2005 12:34 PM (0yYS2)
10
Quothe actus:
"maybe they don't live in a winger echo chamber"
I wonder what Kip Winger is up to these days, and why leftards are so obsessed with his band? Is that you Stuart?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at May 24, 2005 12:59 PM (0yYS2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
