lesson for democrats: R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C
say it with me now:
as the deadline towards the so-called nuclear option nears, democratic rhetoric has become progressively more entertaining. this isn't a fight over the right to apply some parliamentary tactic to certain types of votes, no, it's a battle for the soul of our nation and the very fabric of the constitution itself. why, just listen to harry reid:
The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch. Rather, we're the one institution where the minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the majority. Today, in the face of President Bush's power grab, that's more important than ever.
reid went on to accuse republicans of attempting to "rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality," the filibuster apparently being the guide by which democrats now parse the constitution and all of existence itself. (and that, may i say, is a pretty gosh darned drab existence. it's springtime, harry, take a walk. smell the cherry blossoms.)
now it so happens that i recently picked up a constitution and, try as i may, i can't seem to find the word "filibuster" in there anywhere. i did manage to stumble across Article I. Section 5, which says that
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
now i'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that that says that the house and senate are free to make up their own rules. that if they want a rule that says that on the second thursday of every month during a leap year, all senators with last names beginning with the letter "x" must whistle God Bless America while standing on their head and eating crackers, then that's just fine.
i also came across Article II, Section 2, which says, among other things, that
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States
now, again, being a lay person and uneducated in such matters, i would take that to mean that the president has the power to appoint judges, and that the senate has to offer advice and consent, but that a two thirds vote is not required. it is for treaties. says that quite plainly, in fact. but for judges, it's just "advice and consent," which is why the nomination process has always occurred along the lines of a simple up or down vote and which is all the republicans are trying to get now.
gee, i must be missing something. i've done all of this constitutional research here and i can't seem to find the part that the republicans are trying to rewrite. all that's happening is that the president, in accordance with the constitution, is nominating his judges, and the senate, in accordance with the constitution, is writing its own rules. so...what's the problem?
you don't see it either, huh?
well, allow me to answer my own question. the problem is that democrats, for all their talk about the great and glorious filibuster and the significance of checks and balances and lots of other eighth-grade civics class phrases that sound Historic and Traditional and American but mean diddly squat when it comes to constitutional law, hate our republic.
they are trying to do everything in their power to thwart the constitution, and, thusly, the very idea of america itself.
"*gasp* locdog! have you gone mad? how could you say such a thing?"
it's quite simple, really. the democrats know that the only means they have of bringing their leftwing societal engineering schemes to fruition is through the courts. they can't do it through the legislature because the voters won't stand for it. and, as proof of that, i give you a republican white house, republican house of representatives, republican senate, a majority of republican governors and state governments, and so forth.
the people have chosen. they've picked their leadership and have empowered the party of their choice to a convincing degree. and now the democrats are attempting to prevent the people from exercising their power by stopping their chosen representatives from exercising theirs. and while the democrats toss up smoke screens about filibusters and the rights of the minority, they are doing everything in their power to undermine the very founding principle of our system of government--the elected representative.
the point of a republic is that our representatives make the calls on our behalf, so when they're suppressed, we're suppressed. when they lose, we lose. when they don't get to appoint judges, we don't get to appoint judges. the democrats may not like it, but we the people of this country have chosen republican rule. it is the republican's right--his duty, in fact--to appoint judges that reflect our choice.
you can't disagree with locdog here, folks, only with america