Tuesday, May 24, 2005

To Wit...

In my previous post, I wrote:

Progress as defined by Republicans is, of course, a few more steps towards dictatorial theocracy.
Making my point for me is right-wing blogger extraordinaire, Neil Boortz:
But let's talk more about the Republicans. They had total and complete victory in their hands, and they gave it up. Would the Democrats do that? Of course not! Democrats play for keeps. They know that when you have your opponent on the ropes, you don't feel sorry for them, worry about their "minority rights" and offer them something they're not entitled to. You put your foot on their throat and defeat them by the widest margin of victory possible. The Republicans gained seats in the Senate in the last election. They defeated the sitting Democratic leader over this very issue. They should have voted to change the rules on the first day of business back in January. Now that they have the votes, it should have been simple. Slam the door on the Democrats obstruction, just as voters elected them to do. Reverse the rolls here. How many of you really believe that the Democrats wouldn't have changed the Senate rules if it had been Republicans filibustering Democratic nominees?
Put your foot on their throat? Doesn’t he sound like a pleasant chap with whom you’d like to sit down and have tea and cucumber sandwiches? Perhaps someone should remind Neil that the Democrats controlled Congress for quite a few decades and never once eliminated the filibuster, nor stepped on anyone’s throat. He continues:
Maybe we should address this in terms of whether the Constitution won or loss [sic]. Here I would call it a loss. The Constitution has been losing for some time in Washington. There is no clause anywhere in the Constitution that gives a minority in the Senate any power at all to block a vote on a judicial nomination. This is a power that was created by Senators, not established by the Constitution. The Republicans had a chance to stand up for the Constitution, and they passed.
There is no clause anywhere in the Constitution that sets up Robert’s Rules of Order either, but they still use them in Senate, don’t they? You know what else isn’t in the Constitution? Jesus. But that doesn’t stop you people from trying to drop his name into every speech to justify your unconscionable behavior. My point being that the Constitution neither wins nor loses in this battle. It’s a document, not a participant in some perverse contest in your mind, Neil. But let me ask - in your little game, was the Constitution winning when the Republicans put anonymous holds on Clinton’s judicial nominees? Just curious...

No comments: