On 1 May 2005 02:46:25 -0700, "Charlie Self" wrote:


Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:35:39 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch
spake:

Larry Jaques wrote in
news

.... snip
eadhays in prisons for years.


Yet another dark spot on the escutcheon of the state. At least it's
not
political prisoners, though.

Perhaps it should be, eh? Hmmm...Delay could be first, followed by a
majority of members from -both- parties in the House and Senate.


Frist is much scarier than DeLay. DeLay is jsut a typical ethics-free
zone, AKA a politician.

Welcome back Charlie! Good to see you are your usual irrascible self (so
to speak)

Funny, Delay is taking heat for something that Harry Ried has practiced
even more so (vis a vis hiring family members) with nary a peep.

Frist is eager to modify the Constitution and
hundreds of years of tradition to satisfy his power lust.

Actually, Frist is attempting to restore the principles of the
Constitution and hundreds of years of tradition to *deny* the power lust of
the other side who are still attempting to run things despite being in the
minority. Never, ever, has the minority in the Senate filibustered the
confirmation of judges. That action is what has really set the
Constitution on it's ear -- effectively requiring a supermajority for that
which the Constitution requires only a majority. What's even funnier is the
fact that many of those who are decrying this so-called "abuse of the
minority" were, when they were the majority, seeking ways to end the
fillibuster in cases they cared about, and even denying the minority party
the right to be heard both in committee and on the floor. For example,
Senator Byrd, now decrying how this denies the right of the minority to be
heard (despite the fact that the filibuster actually shuts off debate), in
1977, using a simple majority vote, broke a filibuster. He repeatedly cut
off debate with parlimentiary maneuvers. In 1979, he led a move to let the
Chair (himself) decide what was wasn't germaine to a debate. When he was
in power, he declared, "the power and right of the majority of the Senate
to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress".
Further, Barbara Boxer also led efforts to end the filibuster, an action
see says now she did only because she was a "junior" Senator and didn't
know better -- yeah, right -- back then they were in power, now they
aren't.

Frankly, even the so-called "filibuster" is not close to it's traditional
meaning. Simply saying, "we are going to filibuster is now enough to stop
action on a bill rather than forcing the opposition to actually engage in
said slow-down of debate. If they really want to fillibuster, then they
should be required to stand at the podium and speak until they can't speak
no more.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+