Daschle obstructionist

[LadyShea]

I keep reading these two words together, like "Daschle, labeled an obstructionist..." , but none of the articles expand on that.

Could someone explain please? Is it some kind of "formal" designation or is it akin to "butthead"?

[viscousmemories]

Dictionary.com says:

Obstructionist: One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster.

[LadyShea]

I am reading it, but I don't get it. Is anyone who disagrees with the majority an obstructionist? What other means are available to block an unacceptable SCOTUS appointee for example to prevent "obstructing"?

[Corwin]

I am reading it, but I don't get it. Is anyone who disagrees with the majority an obstructionist? What other means are available to block an unacceptable SCOTUS appointee for example to prevent "obstructing"?

It's another example of the liberal media rolling over on their hands and knees and offering themselves up to the Bushies.

Yes, apparently Daschle and the Democrats didn't roll over for Bush fast enough to suit the PTB.

[godfry n. glad]

PTB.


'xcusee?

I'm a little slow on the uptake.

godfry

[Corwin]

PTB.


'xcusee?

I'm a little slow on the uptake.

godfry

Sorry.... Powers That Be. ;)

[LadyShea]

PTB.


'xcusee?

I'm a little slow on the uptake.

godfry

Powers That Be :)

[beyelzu]

I am reading it, but I don't get it. Is anyone who disagrees with the majority an obstructionist? What other means are available to block an unacceptable SCOTUS appointee for example to prevent "obstructing"?

It's another example of the liberal media rolling over on their hands and knees and offering themselves up to the Bushies.

Yes, apparently Daschle and the Democrats didn't roll over for Bush fast enough to suit the PTB.
no doubt, if the media has so much liberal bias* why the fuck does it just spew out the right's catch phrases for them.



* I do think that often their is some liberal bias in the media on social issues I also think that it is almost certainly outweighed by talk radio and fox news.

[Corwin]

I am reading it, but I don't get it. Is anyone who disagrees with the majority an obstructionist? What other means are available to block an unacceptable SCOTUS appointee for example to prevent "obstructing"?

It's another example of the liberal media rolling over on their hands and knees and offering themselves up to the Bushies.

Yes, apparently Daschle and the Democrats didn't roll over for Bush fast enough to suit the PTB.
no doubt, if the media has so much liberal bias* why the fuck does it just spew out the right's catch phrases for them.



* I do think that often their is some liberal bias in the media on social issues I also think that it is almost certainly outweighed by talk radio and fox news.

I need to start using the [irony] and [sarcasm] tags more often..... :doh:

[beyelzu]

I am reading it, but I don't get it. Is anyone who disagrees with the majority an obstructionist? What other means are available to block an unacceptable SCOTUS appointee for example to prevent "obstructing"?

It's another example of the liberal media rolling over on their hands and knees and offering themselves up to the Bushies.

Yes, apparently Daschle and the Democrats didn't roll over for Bush fast enough to suit the PTB.
no doubt, if the media has so much liberal bias* why the fuck does it just spew out the right's catch phrases for them.



* I do think that often their is some liberal bias in the media on social issues I also think that it is almost certainly outweighed by talk radio and fox news.

I need to start using the [irony] and [sarcasm] tags more often..... :doh:


I thought I understood your post. Evidentally I did not. Why dont you actually just say what you mean and then I will respond.

[Corwin]

It's another example of the [irony/sarcasm/ignorant fundie republican]]liberal media[/irony/etc] rolling over on their hands and knees and offering themselves up to the Bushies.

As in we all know there's no such thing as the 'liberal media' but Jerry Falwell rants about it anyway.... even when they're not doing much aside from saying 'thank you sir, may I have another?' and giving him and his whatever the hell he wants, and publishing propaganda to justify having done so.

[D. Scarlatti]

Is anyone who disagrees with the majority an obstructionist?

Apparently.

What other means are available to block an unacceptable SCOTUS appointee for example to prevent "obstructing"?

The president's judicial appointment power exists "by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate." Evidently this clause went through several revisions, and the framers disagreed as to which branch should wield more power on the issue.

Much of the rhetoric you hear from Republicans these days is brazen hypocrisy. When the Democrats controlled the Senate during the Clinton presidency and at the outset of the Bush II regime, Orrin Hatch, as the ranking GOP member of the Committee on the Judiciary, propagated all sorts of nuisance procedures to protect the Republicans' minority status, to which the Democrats agreed. Furthermore the Republicans filibustered several Clinton nominees

When the Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2002, and Hatch control of the Judiciary committee, these procedures went out the window, and Hatch instituted several additional shortcuts to enable the speedy confirmation of Bush's nominees.

This all came to a head with the nomination to the D.C. Circuit of Miguel Estrada, a 38-year-old partisan hack with no judicial experience, obviously not much legal experience, and practically no written record. He also refused to respond to much of the questioning at his hearing, despite Hatch's prior insistence, pertaining to Clinton nominees, on "more diligent and extensive questioning of nominees."

Estrada was filibustered and eventually withdrew his nomination. As you may recall, the Democrats were accused of being anti-Hispanic by everyone from Bush on down, despite the fact that eight of the ten Hispanic judges on the Courts of Appeal were appointed by Clinton, another had been filibustered by the Republicans, and three more of Clinton's Hispanic judicial nominees had never been allowed out of committee by the Republicans.

So, under the circumstances, I don't know what anyone expects the Democrats to do when faced with such obviously unqualified nominees as Brett Kavanaugh, another 30-something conservative hack Bush sent up earlier this year. The cynicism and arrogance of the Bush administration is most obviously on display in its treatment of the federal bench.

If you really want to have a laugh, check out C-SPAN the next time it airs a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on one of Bush's nominees. The only halfway penetrating questioning of the nominee comes from the Democrats and Arlen Specter, while the rest of the Republicans treat every baby Federalist Society ideologue like they were Oliver Wendell Holmes.

By the way, where in the hell is Counsellor Maturin? I'm sure he'd have some choice words on the subject.

[Goliath]

Basically, Daschle has had enough of a spine to stand up to Bush a fair amount of the time (unlike Thune, who will be a Bush puppet). He didn't play along with Bush's evil...hence the label of "obstructionist".

[LadyShea]

Thanks all. Scarlatti, thanks for taking the time to illlustrate so thoroughtly!

If I ever ask a question like "Is the male/femal wage disparity really only 2%?" Someone will start yelling "Feminazi!!". The throwing around of the "Obstructionist" label bothered me on that same level. I mean jeez....you can't even ask a few questions to get to the heart of the matter. I suppose we're all just s'posed to accept whatever is fed to us.

[dave_a]

I think it refers to the dems holding up judicial appointments. I don't know the context of the quotes, but mid term there was a lot of talk concerning Daschle not allowing votes on judicial nominees.

Please don't counter with "The republicans did it too" as I know that. I am just saying that is what I suspect the obstructionist label is in reference to.

[LadyShea]

I think it refers to the dems holding up judicial appointments. I don't know the context of the quotes, but mid term there was a lot of talk concerning Daschle not allowing votes on judicial nominees.

Please don't counter with "The republicans did it too" as I know that. I am just saying that is what I suspect the obstructionist label is in reference to.

Oh I know, I was just wondering what policies were in place to allow for serious questioning and evaluating of an appointee yet avoid the obstructionist label.

[beyelzu]

It's another example of the [irony/sarcasm/ignorant fundie republican]]liberal media[/irony/etc] rolling over on their hands and knees and offering themselves up to the Bushies.

As in we all know there's no such thing as the 'liberal media' but Jerry Falwell rants about it anyway.... even when they're not doing much aside from saying 'thank you sir, may I have another?' and giving him and his whatever the hell he wants, and publishing propaganda to justify having done so.
alright, I really dont understand now,

maybe my reply was to blame, I understood your point after all.


hmmmm..

[Corwin]

It's another example of the [irony/sarcasm/ignorant fundie republican]]liberal media[/irony/etc] rolling over on their hands and knees and offering themselves up to the Bushies.

As in we all know there's no such thing as the 'liberal media' but Jerry Falwell rants about it anyway.... even when they're not doing much aside from saying 'thank you sir, may I have another?' and giving him and his whatever the hell he wants, and publishing propaganda to justify having done so.
alright, I really dont understand now,

maybe my reply was to blame, I understood your point after all.


hmmmm..

Maybe I didn't understand the reply.... it happens. (Especially when I'm tired...)

[Godless Dave]

I am reading it, but I don't get it. Is anyone who disagrees with the majority an obstructionist? What other means are available to block an unacceptable SCOTUS appointee for example to prevent "obstructing"?
Yes, because as we all remember when the Republicans were the minority in the Senate they never tried to obstruct Democrat-sponsored legislation or Bill Clinton's judicial nominees and cabinet appointments. </super extreme sarcasm>

Speaking as a Democrat, Daschle was a milk-toast wimp who bent over for the Republicans like a willow reed. IMHO.

[Godless Dave]

Oh I know, I was just wondering what policies were in place to allow for serious questioning and evaluating of an appointee yet avoid the obstructionist label.
None. There is nothing the Democrats can do to avoid being slandered by the Republicans.

Remember, Ann Coulter called us traitors.

[D. Scarlatti]

Interesting decision from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Senate (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-1066.pdf)

Judicial Watch sued the Senate, alleging that the filibusters of Bush's nominees Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen were unconstitutional, since they thwarted Article I's construction of the Senate as a simple majoritarian body, in that both Estrada and Owen presumably could have garnered 51 votes in favor of their confirmations, whereas overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes.

Unfortunately for Judicial Watch, the Senate, in response, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing successfully that the plaintiff lacked standing according to the three-part test established by Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1424.ZS.html), 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (one of Justice Scalia's more amusing majority opinions, incidentally).

[dave_a]

Interesting decision from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia:

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Senate (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-1066.pdf)

Judicial Watch sued the Senate, alleging that the filibusters of Bush's nominees Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen were unconstitutional, since they thwarted Article I's construction of the Senate as a simple majoritarian body, in that both Estrada and Owen presumably could have garnered 51 votes in favor of their confirmations, whereas overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes.

Unfortunately for Judicial Watch, the Senate, in response, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing successfully that the plaintiff lacked standing according to the three-part test established by Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1424.ZS.html), 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (one of Justice Scalia's more amusing majority opinions, incidentally).


This would be a case where I agree with Judicial Watch and dislike the standing rule. If we assume a wrong has been comitted, and a case is thrown out because the one bringing the complaint lacks standing then the wrong goes unchecked.

Also, the constitutional responsibility for appointing judges rests with the executive branch. Congress' role is only to oversee and block if there is a substantial reason to do so. This process from both parties of refusing to vote or filibustering is getting really old.

Neither party has any high ground as far as I can see here.

[D. Scarlatti]

If we assume a wrong has been committed, and a case is thrown out because the one bringing the complaint lacks standing then the wrong goes unchecked.

On the other hand I don't think you can have just anyone filing suits in federal court. There has to be some threshold test, don't you think?

Here is the Lujan formulation, pretty much verbatim:

1. Plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact" - an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized, and
(b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.

2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of: the injury has to be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.

3. it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

[flufeemunk]

Yes, apparently Daschle and the Democrats didn't roll over for Bush fast enough to suit the PTB.

You know what makes me sad about Daschle? The man was in a leadership position in a minority party, and he was the GOP's bitch to the point that he ran an ad showing him hugging the president (http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/september/0902_daschle_defends_ad.shtml) (quickest link I could find).

My suggestion is that for sarcasm we use Comic Sans MS (http://www.bancomicsans.com), because that font is a huge retarded joke as it is.