Georgie is at it again: I suppose we should be happy that at least he's come out of his hole, even if its only so that he could tell us how hard he's been working.
And what has he been working on - why Victory in Iraq, don't you know: a detailed (as far as he will go at least), three-pronged strategy for defeating the terrorists, re-building the country, and spreading democracy. Kind of like a series of fertilizer treatments, to kill the crab grass, encourage the good grass to grow, and make the lawn nice and green so it fits in with the neighbor's lawns.
The 38 page report that they distributed today, concludes with several pages of what they call "The Strategic Pillars":
The first pillar is "Defeat the Terrorists and Neutralize the Insurgency", which even I think is an improvement on their previous strategy of attracting terrorists and ignoring the insurgency. Of course they just kind of ignore their past mistakes, and hope no one notices. "Heck," their spokesmen say, "this has been the plan all along. Honest!".
The second pillar is "Transition Iraq to Security Self-Reliance", which is a hoot: kind of like saying, 'transition the junkie to a drug-free mobile home park'. Easier said than done. And what happened to those hordes of well wishers that were going to greet our troops like Jesus on his way into Jerusalem? And you know how that turned out.
The third pillar is "Help Iraqis Form a National Compact for Democratic Government", which is awkwardly put, but I think means that we are going to lead the horse to water, and then make him drink, as soon that is, as we get the water running again, and the oil, and electricity. Once the lights stay on, Democracy is a cinch.
Pillar Five is "Help Iraq Strengthen its Economy", which is something I think we should have thought of before we bombed the crap out of every major city in Iraq. But hey, its kind of what the new owners of a sports franchise would do after paying the big bucks for the team: raise ticket prices, knock down the old stadium, and build a new one with taxpayers money, being sure to add plenty of sky boxes for rich sponsors. Right now they're negotiating with a major corporation for naming rights: not for a stadium, for the whole country. They were all set to go with Enronia, but that pillar of society had its own problems.
Pillar Six is "Help Iraq Strengthen the Rule of Law and Promote Civil Rights" and after they're sure that this pillar is up, they're going to try and do the same here in America. It's going to be difficult though, what with the way George has been dissing the Geneva Convention, arguing for the right to torture prisoners, laughing at the world court, hiding prisoners all around the world and letting the local Taliban screw with everybody.
And then on the same day that they offer up Pillar Seven -"Increase International Support for Iraq", it's revealed they've been paying millions to a contractor who pays Iraqi journalists to slip in propaganda pieces into Iraqi newspapers. Oh well, at least they're trying. And anyway, after Abu Ghraib and the discovery of the secret torture prisons run by our favorite Iraqis, I don't think they are really serious, or care, about their reputations.
And this was always, the report insists, part of their master plan all along. Even that 'Mission Accomplished" banner and George posing in San Diego harbor, were part of their brilliant plan for victory in Iraq.
"You see I was pretendin," George seems to be saying, winking and grinnin, and squinting at the teleprompter. "I was pretendin we had already won, to fool the terrorists in to thinkin they had already lost, to lull them into a false sense of security, so we could sneak up on em and hit them with this big plan here, and these pillars.."
"And lord knows in a pillar fight -at least the kind like me and Condi have down in Crawford after the misses is asleep, the guy with the biggest pillar wins every time.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Friday, November 18, 2005
Murtha's Momentum
I couldn't be more happy with Pennsylvania Congressman Murtha's recent comments, suggesting that the Iraq war is a 'failure wrapped in illusions', and recommending that we immediately begin to pull our troops out.
Lost in the cacophony of the Bush administration's panicked reaction though, were Murtha's suggestions that what really needs to happen now, is for the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own revolution.
Think about our own revolution, and imagine if American patriots had been unwilling to act on their own, but had been 'rescued' by a pre-emptive attack by the French.
Imagine that the French had taken every major city in colonial America, had captured every British-appointed governor, and had an equivalent amount of troops stationed for five years after the fall of, perhaps, Boston.
Do you think Americans would have seized the opportunity and established the democracy we now know?
The Iraqis will not take seriously what they need to do, until and unless they are facing that situation.
It is of course questionable, whether the Iraqis have a strong enough desire for democracy to seize the opportunity that we have given them. But that is all the more reason why we need to pull out as soon as possible.
Would it better to stay five years more, lose another 2000 American soldiers, and then watch the Iraqis give back their country to the Bathists?
Is there anyone who really questions that in ten years, we will be looking at three, perhaps even four countries, where there was once the single Iraq?
Is there anyone unaware of the fact that the Iraq we know today, was the colonial creation of the British?
The Iraq War will go down in history as one of the greatest blunders of American foreign policy ever. The only thing worse would be to increase our losses by stubbornly refusing to acknowledge these facts.
Lost in the cacophony of the Bush administration's panicked reaction though, were Murtha's suggestions that what really needs to happen now, is for the Iraqi's to take responsibility for their own revolution.
Think about our own revolution, and imagine if American patriots had been unwilling to act on their own, but had been 'rescued' by a pre-emptive attack by the French.
Imagine that the French had taken every major city in colonial America, had captured every British-appointed governor, and had an equivalent amount of troops stationed for five years after the fall of, perhaps, Boston.
Do you think Americans would have seized the opportunity and established the democracy we now know?
The Iraqis will not take seriously what they need to do, until and unless they are facing that situation.
It is of course questionable, whether the Iraqis have a strong enough desire for democracy to seize the opportunity that we have given them. But that is all the more reason why we need to pull out as soon as possible.
Would it better to stay five years more, lose another 2000 American soldiers, and then watch the Iraqis give back their country to the Bathists?
Is there anyone who really questions that in ten years, we will be looking at three, perhaps even four countries, where there was once the single Iraq?
Is there anyone unaware of the fact that the Iraq we know today, was the colonial creation of the British?
The Iraq War will go down in history as one of the greatest blunders of American foreign policy ever. The only thing worse would be to increase our losses by stubbornly refusing to acknowledge these facts.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The reasonable man?
It was probably Miers herself that proposed the scenario unfolding now: she would sacrifice herself, serve her President as a distraction from the hypocrisy that was filling the White House faster than the flood waters had overwhelmed New Orleans, and the worst case scenario would be that she, a close friend, would end up on the Supreme Court.
If all worked as planned, however, Miers would be the lamb that made way for the lion: Alito - by all reports 'a nice guy', a 'very respectful, decent man', yet someone who somehow found a way to argue that wives need to notify their husbands if they choose to have an abortion, and that machine guns are a god-given right.
Alito finds precedent, of course, respects the law, but ultimately does so in service of an inflexible mind. Alito -offered in replacement of the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court: a woman who called the notion that wives had to notify their husbands if they wanted an abortion, "repugnant".
Can Alito explain these bizarre decisions, in light of his so-called respect for the Constitution, and the importance of established precendent? Given his brilliant mind, and reputation for honesty, that should not be a problem. If there is an explanation, wholly consistent with the reputed respect for the Constitution that the right wing's apologists whitewash over every discussion of judicial philosophy, then he may be confirmable.
More likely he will suddenly lose his ability to speak: become tongues-tied (a related but often unreported variation of the 'speaking in tongues' phenomena) and will only regain the ability to converse in everyday English after he is confirmed.
If all worked as planned, however, Miers would be the lamb that made way for the lion: Alito - by all reports 'a nice guy', a 'very respectful, decent man', yet someone who somehow found a way to argue that wives need to notify their husbands if they choose to have an abortion, and that machine guns are a god-given right.
Alito finds precedent, of course, respects the law, but ultimately does so in service of an inflexible mind. Alito -offered in replacement of the first woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court: a woman who called the notion that wives had to notify their husbands if they wanted an abortion, "repugnant".
Can Alito explain these bizarre decisions, in light of his so-called respect for the Constitution, and the importance of established precendent? Given his brilliant mind, and reputation for honesty, that should not be a problem. If there is an explanation, wholly consistent with the reputed respect for the Constitution that the right wing's apologists whitewash over every discussion of judicial philosophy, then he may be confirmable.
More likely he will suddenly lose his ability to speak: become tongues-tied (a related but often unreported variation of the 'speaking in tongues' phenomena) and will only regain the ability to converse in everyday English after he is confirmed.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Institutional Racism and Political Appointees
It seems clear,to me at least, that the best argument for the existence of institutional racism in this country, is now on display in coastal Louisiana and Mississippi.
The racial epithets and Jim Crow segregation of the distant past are now shown, I believe, to pale in significance when compared with the centuries of economic neglect that eroded the very foundations of our so-called civilization.
Hurricane Katrina, and a FEMA decimated by a government that considered that organization a wasteful outgrowth of discredited New Deal democracy, produced twin storm surges that no levee could ever withstand.
Is there a stronger argument for the role of a truly compasionate government in the lives of its citizens? And can there be a clearer warning of the danger of a goverment -and a judiciary, content with Constitutional abstractions?
Now is not the time for political expediency: an appointee, no matter how well qualified and telegenic, cannot be considered qualified for the most important judicial post in America, without any actual Supreme Court experience.
Or are we looking at yet another political appointee -such as the last two heads of FEMA and a hundred other Bush appointees: individuals chosen to disassemble the very institutions they are supposed to lead?
The racial epithets and Jim Crow segregation of the distant past are now shown, I believe, to pale in significance when compared with the centuries of economic neglect that eroded the very foundations of our so-called civilization.
Hurricane Katrina, and a FEMA decimated by a government that considered that organization a wasteful outgrowth of discredited New Deal democracy, produced twin storm surges that no levee could ever withstand.
Is there a stronger argument for the role of a truly compasionate government in the lives of its citizens? And can there be a clearer warning of the danger of a goverment -and a judiciary, content with Constitutional abstractions?
Now is not the time for political expediency: an appointee, no matter how well qualified and telegenic, cannot be considered qualified for the most important judicial post in America, without any actual Supreme Court experience.
Or are we looking at yet another political appointee -such as the last two heads of FEMA and a hundred other Bush appointees: individuals chosen to disassemble the very institutions they are supposed to lead?
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Middle Ground?
It is instructive to consider that Sandra Day O'Connor is considered by many in the religious right a traitor to the conservative cause. Allegedly, she had the 'right' perspective when she was first appointed to the court 25 years ago, but has since moved toward the middle.
My sense is that the middle has moved (or been dragged, kicking and screaming), not Ms. Day-O'Connor.
If the Conservative movement in American politics is most accurately represented by those with a far right ideology, is it accurate to call it 'conservative'? I think they should own up to their ideology - and adopt a term that the public understands: fundamentalist.
My sense is that the middle has moved (or been dragged, kicking and screaming), not Ms. Day-O'Connor.
If the Conservative movement in American politics is most accurately represented by those with a far right ideology, is it accurate to call it 'conservative'? I think they should own up to their ideology - and adopt a term that the public understands: fundamentalist.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
21: Boll Weevils
-poetry inspired by Jeb
First the rain: even a mist is the beginning
of erosion, a weathering of the skin.
Then, perhaps, an endless series
of petty insults, like pigeons nesting
in your hair, crapping on your alabaster
dreams. Fin de Sicle follows suit:
a revolution of the boudoir by the bourgeois:
those shoes you loved so much, discarded;
that innocent electric eyeshadow now
'a hoot'. Then the first diagnosis arrives:
your ample bust's a bust; your thighs
evince a lack of will, a breach of trust,
no faith in a future save a future
exit where the ambulances are mating:
bumper to bumper, fission-like, krill
for the grist mills of the afterlife.
Dust to dust? Hell no. Just a powder.
The intermission when your patrons
jaw down their jujubees, pronounce
you dead: the curtain ressurects
a flesh-toned corpse, in bed
and granting interviews: the governor,
the congressman, the holy roller and his
entire Roller Derby team. All grinning
for the radiologist, who snaps a picture
of the demons responsible
for your talking head:
'Boll Weevils?,'
the technician wonders,
circling each anomaly in red.
-FFMand
First the rain: even a mist is the beginning
of erosion, a weathering of the skin.
Then, perhaps, an endless series
of petty insults, like pigeons nesting
in your hair, crapping on your alabaster
dreams. Fin de Sicle follows suit:
a revolution of the boudoir by the bourgeois:
those shoes you loved so much, discarded;
that innocent electric eyeshadow now
'a hoot'. Then the first diagnosis arrives:
your ample bust's a bust; your thighs
evince a lack of will, a breach of trust,
no faith in a future save a future
exit where the ambulances are mating:
bumper to bumper, fission-like, krill
for the grist mills of the afterlife.
Dust to dust? Hell no. Just a powder.
The intermission when your patrons
jaw down their jujubees, pronounce
you dead: the curtain ressurects
a flesh-toned corpse, in bed
and granting interviews: the governor,
the congressman, the holy roller and his
entire Roller Derby team. All grinning
for the radiologist, who snaps a picture
of the demons responsible
for your talking head:
'Boll Weevils?,'
the technician wonders,
circling each anomaly in red.
-FFMand
Terry's Not Dead!
-I guess Terry Schiavo, is afterall, not dead: at least you could reach that conclusion based on the attention she continues to receive from her 'supporters'. I was especially moved - nearly puked in fact, when I heard that Governor Jeb had found a way to turn the release of her autopsy, into another opportunity to make political hay out of her vegetative state. Really, is there any other lesson we can take from this latest surge of interest? Jeb -wounded by the far right's reaction to his less than 100% commitment to their lunacy during the lead-up to Terry's undignified end, is showing the kind of political 'anything-it-takes' attitude that is required to elect an otherwise unqualified person to high office. It makes you realize that we have to have the same level of commitment (though not the same wholesale abandonment of principal) if we are to fight these people. And that is why I cannot help but feel that the compromise that avoided the 'nuclear option' was not only a loss for our side (in that the worst judges were given up and down votes) but that it only delayed the inevitable: they will invoke the Nuclear Option.
Personally, I don't think there is any reason to worry about who is elevated to the head of the Supreme Court -if and when Rhenquist steps down. But if Bush does not make a reasonable effort to nominate a reasonable replacement, all bets are off.
We already have an American Taliban ruling the Congress, the Senate, and the Executive Branch. If they place another Mullah on the Supreme Court there will be fighting in the streets.
Personally, I don't think there is any reason to worry about who is elevated to the head of the Supreme Court -if and when Rhenquist steps down. But if Bush does not make a reasonable effort to nominate a reasonable replacement, all bets are off.
We already have an American Taliban ruling the Congress, the Senate, and the Executive Branch. If they place another Mullah on the Supreme Court there will be fighting in the streets.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Number 19: Frist Falters?
May 24, 2005
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and right-wing conservatives suffered a major defeat last night when a bipartisan group of 14 senators struck a deal to defuse the nuclear option. In reaching this deal, these senators rejected Frist’s core argument that the judicial filibuster is unconstitutional. The compromise recognizes the right of senators to filibuster judicial nominees in extraordinary circumstances and two Bush nominees – William G. Myers III of Idaho and Henry Saad of Michigan – will probably be withdrawn or subject to filibuster. Conservatives declared this compromise a defeat, and while this agreement has its downsides – the probable confirmations of Judges Pryor, Owens and Rogers Brown – it is a victory for those who want to preserve the filibuster and traditions of the Senate.
This agreement assures that the nuclear option will not be invoked in the 109th Congress. In the agreement reached, the senators vowed not to invoke a rules change in this Congress. Section IIB of the compromise states: "In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress.” Section IIA makes clear that senators maintain their commitment to the agreement as long as they only filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances," a determination to be based on their "own discretion and judgment."
Conservatives have declared this compromise a defeat. James Dobson – who helped lead the charge for the nuclear option as chairman of Focus on the Family – called the compromise a crushing defeat and “betrayal by a cabal of Republicans.” Gary Bauer, president of the right-wing American Values, said that Republicans who supported the compromise have “undercut their President as well as millions of their most loyal voters.”
The compromise calls on the White House to once again actively consult the Senate on judicial nominees. During prior administrations of both parties, the White House routinely consulted with both Republican and Democratic senators. The compromise reached last night calls for the president to consult with members of both parties prior to submitting nominations to federal courts. This step – which is consistent with the requirement that the Senate not just consent but "advise" on judicial nominees – could significantly reduce the partisanship and acrimony that plagues the process.
Copied from Daily Talking Points a product of the American Progress Action Fund.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and right-wing conservatives suffered a major defeat last night when a bipartisan group of 14 senators struck a deal to defuse the nuclear option. In reaching this deal, these senators rejected Frist’s core argument that the judicial filibuster is unconstitutional. The compromise recognizes the right of senators to filibuster judicial nominees in extraordinary circumstances and two Bush nominees – William G. Myers III of Idaho and Henry Saad of Michigan – will probably be withdrawn or subject to filibuster. Conservatives declared this compromise a defeat, and while this agreement has its downsides – the probable confirmations of Judges Pryor, Owens and Rogers Brown – it is a victory for those who want to preserve the filibuster and traditions of the Senate.
This agreement assures that the nuclear option will not be invoked in the 109th Congress. In the agreement reached, the senators vowed not to invoke a rules change in this Congress. Section IIB of the compromise states: "In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress.” Section IIA makes clear that senators maintain their commitment to the agreement as long as they only filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances," a determination to be based on their "own discretion and judgment."
Conservatives have declared this compromise a defeat. James Dobson – who helped lead the charge for the nuclear option as chairman of Focus on the Family – called the compromise a crushing defeat and “betrayal by a cabal of Republicans.” Gary Bauer, president of the right-wing American Values, said that Republicans who supported the compromise have “undercut their President as well as millions of their most loyal voters.”
The compromise calls on the White House to once again actively consult the Senate on judicial nominees. During prior administrations of both parties, the White House routinely consulted with both Republican and Democratic senators. The compromise reached last night calls for the president to consult with members of both parties prior to submitting nominations to federal courts. This step – which is consistent with the requirement that the Senate not just consent but "advise" on judicial nominees – could significantly reduce the partisanship and acrimony that plagues the process.
Copied from Daily Talking Points a product of the American Progress Action Fund.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Number 18 A little respect
Just a little bit..
The Great Compromise of '05 has been reached, but there are many questions, and many concerns remaining, at least on my part.
What exactly is the wording of the compromise, and what does it guarantee? It seems that the only guarantees are those that have been given to the Republicans: namely that they will have 'up or down' votes on five of their more controversial nominees, including Owens, Brown, and Pryor.
As I understand this compromise, the Democrats were not promised that the 'Nuclear Option' was off the table. The Republicans were not promised that the minority party would not invoke the filibuster at a future date, though I have heard it said that the filibuster will now only be used in extreme cases.
But if Owens, Brown, and Pryor are not extreme cases, I am at a loss to understand just who might be.
Underlying everything was a continued lack of respect -on the part of the Democratic leadership, for the important role that progressive activists have played in this and other debates. Democratic leaders have yet to understand that we do not represent a far-left, radical perspective. We represent a wide spectrum of political beliefs, but we are united against the far right, the religious right, and the corporate right.
I truly believe that without our efforts this so-called compromise would have never taken place. But to be honest, I feel that this compromise represents a defeat for progressives.
The real question is, who is responsible for this defeat: the right-wing, or the so-called moderates?
The Great Compromise of '05 has been reached, but there are many questions, and many concerns remaining, at least on my part.
What exactly is the wording of the compromise, and what does it guarantee? It seems that the only guarantees are those that have been given to the Republicans: namely that they will have 'up or down' votes on five of their more controversial nominees, including Owens, Brown, and Pryor.
As I understand this compromise, the Democrats were not promised that the 'Nuclear Option' was off the table. The Republicans were not promised that the minority party would not invoke the filibuster at a future date, though I have heard it said that the filibuster will now only be used in extreme cases.
But if Owens, Brown, and Pryor are not extreme cases, I am at a loss to understand just who might be.
Underlying everything was a continued lack of respect -on the part of the Democratic leadership, for the important role that progressive activists have played in this and other debates. Democratic leaders have yet to understand that we do not represent a far-left, radical perspective. We represent a wide spectrum of political beliefs, but we are united against the far right, the religious right, and the corporate right.
I truly believe that without our efforts this so-called compromise would have never taken place. But to be honest, I feel that this compromise represents a defeat for progressives.
The real question is, who is responsible for this defeat: the right-wing, or the so-called moderates?
Friday, April 29, 2005
Number 17 245 Voices
245 voices, participants in our 24 Hour Filibuster and Rally in front of the Moakley Federal Court House in Boston, from 9 p.m. on April 26th, to 9 p.m. on April 27th.
Hosts: Frank Mand and Laurie Leyshon
Event guests: Katie DeBonville, Ariel Dekovic, Rosa A. Gonzalez, Amy Fripp, toni elka, Charlotte Kahn, Karen Rokos, Anthony Nadler, John Dill, Robin Ray, Ari Fertig, Christine Willis, Sarah Lamstein, Ofer Inbar, Kate Silfen, Cheryl blandino, Philip Callas, David Kong, Leslie Zebrowitz, Jessica Bartenhagen, Trish Gallagher, laurie leyshon, danna lowrie, Steve Sullam, Suzanne Skjold, Lora Brill, Craig Rancourt, Pat Yingling, Suzanne Vogel, Ben Paolino, Nancy Anderson, David River, Susan Wadia-Ells, Ona Keller, rita spera, Jane Sloan, Barbara McGovern, Norman B. Bendroth, Jessica Moore, linda minton, Susan Feurzeig, Lee Ann Hoff, Tina Keaney, John Ewing, Jaime Alberts, Matthew Moreau, Maureen Kelly, NANCY FRADKIN, Susan Serpa, Helen Bowditch, Irene Gassko, Carol Ranzel-Wallace, Barbara Simkowski, Ann Archambault, victoria madway, Helen Deranian, Betty A. Benson, Hazel Arnett, Kathleen Dailey, Steven Gottlieb, Joe Matzzie, Blakely Sullivan, chuck beisch, Jeff Bullock, Ingrid Attleson, Joe Kebartas, John R Martin, Melanie Lary, Madeline Davern, Delta Leeper, Dolores Boogdanian, Doris Tennant, Carmen Magana, Phillip Glenn, Lauran Emerson, Lydia Knutson, Elena McCann, Barbara Bryant, jay walter, amanda hamilton, Suzanne White, a w, Richard Hamlen, Elizabeth Carger, Carole Marcacci, Katherine Semple Barta, Anton Marc, Karen Benoit, elizabeth timbers, Sandy Kendall, Denise Ellis, Robin Dorson, John A. Yannis, Esq., Lois Biener, Todd Harmon, Sandy Yeung, Marjorie A. Short, ed stewart, Roy Chatalbash, Adam Roberts, Janet Chuang, Rob Laurent, Connie Morton-Ewbank, Christine Costello, John LaRoche, Sommer Gentry, Kortney Adam, Kelly Gaule, stephen mahoney, erika siegfried, Erik Anderson, Lynn Rosenberg, William Delman, Joshi Radin, David Shakespeare, Helen Camille Napier, julia devanthery, Dee Taylor, Marissa Bennett, Will Howell, Sally Simon, lynn gerlinger, Johanna Peter, Victoria Weinstein, Pelle Lowe, James Michel, Mary A. M. Kaye, Betsy Connolly, Douglas Barry, Frank Walls, Reverend Diane Miller, Deborah Baker, Erica Beck Spencer, Ann Igoe, sherry moore, susan manning, Lauren Leeman, nadia colburn, Melisa Kenslea, Alex Tillett-Saks, Kathy MacDonald, Ellen Twaddell, Keli Henderson, nina cillo, melba abreu, Althea Aarden, Sue White, Alyssa Lary, Sandra Kautz, Sue Dorfman, Charles A. Boy Jr., Caitlin Connolly, Linda B.Wagner, Maureen Ratigan, william shorr, Joseph Sweeney, Leonora Hall Williams, ricardo cortes, m borkowski, Judith Karlin, karen licht, Alice Olsen Mann, Eve Moore, Jeffrey Taylor, Ellen Wehle, Suzette Jones, Karen Hill, Natasha Freidus, joan zachor, Patricia Lowden, Steven Kee, Hilde Hein, Shari Schwendener, Mark Beatty, Ellen Endris, Beverly Hector-smith, Virginia Marcotte, Erica Zissman, Marcia Booth, Debbera Blackwell, Gilbert Reese.
If you were there, and not included in this list, let me know. Email MaMoveOn@aol.com. Better yet, send me your thoughts on the issue, or what you said or read during that 24 hour period, and I will add it to my log, and this blog, and be one step closer to having my 8640 voices.
Hosts: Frank Mand and Laurie Leyshon
Event guests: Katie DeBonville, Ariel Dekovic, Rosa A. Gonzalez, Amy Fripp, toni elka, Charlotte Kahn, Karen Rokos, Anthony Nadler, John Dill, Robin Ray, Ari Fertig, Christine Willis, Sarah Lamstein, Ofer Inbar, Kate Silfen, Cheryl blandino, Philip Callas, David Kong, Leslie Zebrowitz, Jessica Bartenhagen, Trish Gallagher, laurie leyshon, danna lowrie, Steve Sullam, Suzanne Skjold, Lora Brill, Craig Rancourt, Pat Yingling, Suzanne Vogel, Ben Paolino, Nancy Anderson, David River, Susan Wadia-Ells, Ona Keller, rita spera, Jane Sloan, Barbara McGovern, Norman B. Bendroth, Jessica Moore, linda minton, Susan Feurzeig, Lee Ann Hoff, Tina Keaney, John Ewing, Jaime Alberts, Matthew Moreau, Maureen Kelly, NANCY FRADKIN, Susan Serpa, Helen Bowditch, Irene Gassko, Carol Ranzel-Wallace, Barbara Simkowski, Ann Archambault, victoria madway, Helen Deranian, Betty A. Benson, Hazel Arnett, Kathleen Dailey, Steven Gottlieb, Joe Matzzie, Blakely Sullivan, chuck beisch, Jeff Bullock, Ingrid Attleson, Joe Kebartas, John R Martin, Melanie Lary, Madeline Davern, Delta Leeper, Dolores Boogdanian, Doris Tennant, Carmen Magana, Phillip Glenn, Lauran Emerson, Lydia Knutson, Elena McCann, Barbara Bryant, jay walter, amanda hamilton, Suzanne White, a w, Richard Hamlen, Elizabeth Carger, Carole Marcacci, Katherine Semple Barta, Anton Marc, Karen Benoit, elizabeth timbers, Sandy Kendall, Denise Ellis, Robin Dorson, John A. Yannis, Esq., Lois Biener, Todd Harmon, Sandy Yeung, Marjorie A. Short, ed stewart, Roy Chatalbash, Adam Roberts, Janet Chuang, Rob Laurent, Connie Morton-Ewbank, Christine Costello, John LaRoche, Sommer Gentry, Kortney Adam, Kelly Gaule, stephen mahoney, erika siegfried, Erik Anderson, Lynn Rosenberg, William Delman, Joshi Radin, David Shakespeare, Helen Camille Napier, julia devanthery, Dee Taylor, Marissa Bennett, Will Howell, Sally Simon, lynn gerlinger, Johanna Peter, Victoria Weinstein, Pelle Lowe, James Michel, Mary A. M. Kaye, Betsy Connolly, Douglas Barry, Frank Walls, Reverend Diane Miller, Deborah Baker, Erica Beck Spencer, Ann Igoe, sherry moore, susan manning, Lauren Leeman, nadia colburn, Melisa Kenslea, Alex Tillett-Saks, Kathy MacDonald, Ellen Twaddell, Keli Henderson, nina cillo, melba abreu, Althea Aarden, Sue White, Alyssa Lary, Sandra Kautz, Sue Dorfman, Charles A. Boy Jr., Caitlin Connolly, Linda B.Wagner, Maureen Ratigan, william shorr, Joseph Sweeney, Leonora Hall Williams, ricardo cortes, m borkowski, Judith Karlin, karen licht, Alice Olsen Mann, Eve Moore, Jeffrey Taylor, Ellen Wehle, Suzette Jones, Karen Hill, Natasha Freidus, joan zachor, Patricia Lowden, Steven Kee, Hilde Hein, Shari Schwendener, Mark Beatty, Ellen Endris, Beverly Hector-smith, Virginia Marcotte, Erica Zissman, Marcia Booth, Debbera Blackwell, Gilbert Reese.
If you were there, and not included in this list, let me know. Email MaMoveOn@aol.com. Better yet, send me your thoughts on the issue, or what you said or read during that 24 hour period, and I will add it to my log, and this blog, and be one step closer to having my 8640 voices.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Number 16 'Good Behavior'
Congressman Tom DeLay, the Leader of House Republicans, has called repeatedly for the House to find a way to hold the federal judiciary accountable for its decisions. "The judiciary has become so activist and so isolated from the American people that it's our job to do that," Delay said.
One way that the courts could be held accountable, Delay has suggested, would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said.
"We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
So, are you laughing, or crying? Tom Delay, of all people, wants to define what it means to behave well, in the courts and in the home as well.
Lobbyists paying for his junkets to Russian and England and tropical islands is not, from Delay's perspective, bad behavior.
Government officials calling a private citizen an 'adulterer', from the steps of the Capitol building or Delay himself threatening physical retribution against judges: none of these actions are examples of bad behavior, according to this Texas congressman.
No, you're right: its not funny. Its very scary.
Thankfully, these latest ramblings are just the scary sounds that you might expect from a politician watching his power and prestige crumble and turn to dust.
8640 Voices
One way that the courts could be held accountable, Delay has suggested, would be for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate the clause in the Constitution that says "judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior," he said.
"We want to define what good behavior means. And that's where you have to start."
So, are you laughing, or crying? Tom Delay, of all people, wants to define what it means to behave well, in the courts and in the home as well.
Lobbyists paying for his junkets to Russian and England and tropical islands is not, from Delay's perspective, bad behavior.
Government officials calling a private citizen an 'adulterer', from the steps of the Capitol building or Delay himself threatening physical retribution against judges: none of these actions are examples of bad behavior, according to this Texas congressman.
No, you're right: its not funny. Its very scary.
Thankfully, these latest ramblings are just the scary sounds that you might expect from a politician watching his power and prestige crumble and turn to dust.
8640 Voices
Monday, April 18, 2005
Number 15 William Myers, III
William Myers, III, former Interior Department Solicitor, Ninth Circuit nominee. Myers has devoted his career, both inside and outside government, to weakening environmental laws. As a lawyer and lobbyist for the grazing and mining industries, Myers argued that Clean Water Act regulations protecting small lakes were unconstitutional and that the Endangered Species Act was altogether unconstitutional. He compared federal laws protecting the environment to King George's "tyrannical" domination over the colonies.
Myers' hostility toward environmentalists and his advocacy on behalf of the grazing and mining industries did not abate once he became Interior Department Solicitor, the agency's top lawyer. Myers continued to attack environmentalists as being "litigation happy." One of Myers' few official acts reversed Clinton-era regulations, paving the way for a mining company to open a mine on land sacred to the Quechan Indian Tribe. While writing the regulation, Myers met with the mining company but ignored meeting requests from the Quechan Tribe.
Myers' record in government raises additional ethical concerns. The Interior Department inspector general has released two reports critical of Myers' office. In one report, the inspector general found that, in entering a "sweetheart" deal for a rancher who had repeatedly violated laws protecting federal lands, the office "circumvented normal [negotiation] processes", ignored concerns raised by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Justice, presided over a process that suffered from a "profound lack of transparency," and failed to "adequately protect ... the interests of the BLM." In another report, the inspector general found that Myers continued to meet with his former law firm and clients while at the Interior Department, despite an agreement not to do so, and that Myers had been forced to return gifts from his former firm and reimburse the firm $2,000 for a trip to a ski resort to attend the firm's annual retreat.
The American Bar Association gave Myers its lowest passing grade, with a bare majority of the rating committee finding him qualified, a substantial minority rating him not qualified and no members rating him well qualified.
From 'Save Our Courts.org'
Myers' hostility toward environmentalists and his advocacy on behalf of the grazing and mining industries did not abate once he became Interior Department Solicitor, the agency's top lawyer. Myers continued to attack environmentalists as being "litigation happy." One of Myers' few official acts reversed Clinton-era regulations, paving the way for a mining company to open a mine on land sacred to the Quechan Indian Tribe. While writing the regulation, Myers met with the mining company but ignored meeting requests from the Quechan Tribe.
Myers' record in government raises additional ethical concerns. The Interior Department inspector general has released two reports critical of Myers' office. In one report, the inspector general found that, in entering a "sweetheart" deal for a rancher who had repeatedly violated laws protecting federal lands, the office "circumvented normal [negotiation] processes", ignored concerns raised by the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Justice, presided over a process that suffered from a "profound lack of transparency," and failed to "adequately protect ... the interests of the BLM." In another report, the inspector general found that Myers continued to meet with his former law firm and clients while at the Interior Department, despite an agreement not to do so, and that Myers had been forced to return gifts from his former firm and reimburse the firm $2,000 for a trip to a ski resort to attend the firm's annual retreat.
The American Bar Association gave Myers its lowest passing grade, with a bare majority of the rating committee finding him qualified, a substantial minority rating him not qualified and no members rating him well qualified.
From 'Save Our Courts.org'
Number 14 Priscilla Owen
Priscilla Owen, Texas Supreme Court Justice, Fifth Circuit nominee. Justice Owen has anchored the anti-choice and pro-business wing of the ultra-conservative Texas Supreme Court. In a series of cases dealing with Texas' statute requiring parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion, she attempted to rewrite the law to make it more difficult for a minor to obtain a "judicial bypass" which would have allowed for an abortion without parental notification in cases of extreme circumstances. She even attempted to graft onto the law a requirement that minors know the religious arguments against abortion. Her opinion was so extreme that recently-confirmed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a colleague of hers on the Texas Supreme Court, called it "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
Justice Owen has consistently ruled in favor of corporations in lawsuits between businesses and individuals. In an age discrimination case, she dissented from the court's decision striking down jury instructions that improperly raised the bar for workers trying to prove that their employers fired them because of their age. In another case, Justice Owen refused to join the rest of her colleagues in finding that egregious behavior by a supervisor toward his female employees constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress. Justice Owen also took campaign money from Enron and Halliburton for her Supreme Court race and then voted in their favor when cases involving them came before her.
From Save the Courts.org
Justice Owen has consistently ruled in favor of corporations in lawsuits between businesses and individuals. In an age discrimination case, she dissented from the court's decision striking down jury instructions that improperly raised the bar for workers trying to prove that their employers fired them because of their age. In another case, Justice Owen refused to join the rest of her colleagues in finding that egregious behavior by a supervisor toward his female employees constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress. Justice Owen also took campaign money from Enron and Halliburton for her Supreme Court race and then voted in their favor when cases involving them came before her.
From Save the Courts.org
Number 13 Janice Rogers Brown
Janice Rogers Brown, California Supreme Court Justice, D.C. Circuit nominee. In her writings and judicial opinions, Justice Brown has demonstrated that she would come to the federal bench with the agenda of radically restricting government protections for ordinary Americans. She has praised Lochner v. New York, the Supreme Court's infamous turn-of-the-century decision striking down a New York state maximum working hours law. The pre-New Deal courts used Lochner and similar cases to invalidate many protections for workers and consumers. Justice Brown calls the Supreme Court's repudiation of Lochner in the 1930s "the triumph of our socialist revolution." No current Supreme Court Justice holds such radical views. Justice Brown also has suggested that the Social Security program is unconstitutional, accusing senior citizens of "blithely cannibaliz[ing] their grandchildren . . . to get as much free stuff" as they can.
Justice Brown's views have influenced her judicial opinions. Dissenting from one decision upholding the constitutionality of a San Francisco law requiring hotel owners to help replace rental properties if they converted rooms from residential to tourist use, she lamented that private property was "dead" in San Francisco and accused the majority of "[t]urning democracy into a kleptocracy." In another case, the majority of the California Supreme Court said that Justice Brown's dissent, which would have invalidated an environmental regulation, ignored precedent to impose "a personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state."
Justice Brown also has often issued dissents seeking to limit the reach of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act.
from SAVE OUR COURTS.org
Justice Brown's views have influenced her judicial opinions. Dissenting from one decision upholding the constitutionality of a San Francisco law requiring hotel owners to help replace rental properties if they converted rooms from residential to tourist use, she lamented that private property was "dead" in San Francisco and accused the majority of "[t]urning democracy into a kleptocracy." In another case, the majority of the California Supreme Court said that Justice Brown's dissent, which would have invalidated an environmental regulation, ignored precedent to impose "a personal theory of political economy on the people of a democratic state."
Justice Brown also has often issued dissents seeking to limit the reach of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act.
from SAVE OUR COURTS.org
Number 12 Who are the real judicial 'activists'?
By Alliance for Justice staff
civilrights.org
February 22, 2005
President Bush has said that he is selecting judges who "represent mainstream values," who "will strictly and faithfully interpret the law," and who "won't use the bench from which to legislate." But don't let the president's purported scorn for "activist" judges fool you. The recycled nominees he sent back to Congress on February 14, 2005, are the real activists. Their out-of-the-mainstream records are replete with instances of following their own agendas rather than established law. If confirmed to the bench, they would almost certainly fulfill the White House's fervent hope of using the federal courts to advance its political goals - advancing the interests of big business over workers and consumers, rolling back constitutional and statutory protections for individual rights and liberties, and limiting Congress's power to address national problems.
From 1995-2000, Senate Republicans blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. By contrast, even though the Bush administration jettisoned the practice of working with the opposing party in the Senate, Senate Democrats have cooperated in confirming 204 of President Bush's 214 nominees considered on the Senate floor. They have done so despite the fact that many of the appointees did not, as President Bush promised, "represent mainstream values." Notwithstanding the records of such confirmed nominees, the few remaining unconfirmed and now-recycled nominees are simply beyond the pale. They will be precisely the kind of out-of-the-mainstream, "activist" judges that the president claims he doesn't want. Indeed, some of these men and women are so controversial that they are opposed by organizations that never took any position on judicial nominations before President Bush came to office.
from SAVE OUR COURTS.org
civilrights.org
February 22, 2005
President Bush has said that he is selecting judges who "represent mainstream values," who "will strictly and faithfully interpret the law," and who "won't use the bench from which to legislate." But don't let the president's purported scorn for "activist" judges fool you. The recycled nominees he sent back to Congress on February 14, 2005, are the real activists. Their out-of-the-mainstream records are replete with instances of following their own agendas rather than established law. If confirmed to the bench, they would almost certainly fulfill the White House's fervent hope of using the federal courts to advance its political goals - advancing the interests of big business over workers and consumers, rolling back constitutional and statutory protections for individual rights and liberties, and limiting Congress's power to address national problems.
From 1995-2000, Senate Republicans blocked more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. By contrast, even though the Bush administration jettisoned the practice of working with the opposing party in the Senate, Senate Democrats have cooperated in confirming 204 of President Bush's 214 nominees considered on the Senate floor. They have done so despite the fact that many of the appointees did not, as President Bush promised, "represent mainstream values." Notwithstanding the records of such confirmed nominees, the few remaining unconfirmed and now-recycled nominees are simply beyond the pale. They will be precisely the kind of out-of-the-mainstream, "activist" judges that the president claims he doesn't want. Indeed, some of these men and women are so controversial that they are opposed by organizations that never took any position on judicial nominations before President Bush came to office.
from SAVE OUR COURTS.org
Number 11 Common Cause Petition
Preserve the Integrity of the U.S. Senate
The filibuster has a long history in the Senate of fending off actions supported by a bare majority, but deeply offensive to the minority. If an individual senator were to abuse the privilege of the filibuster, he or she could be over overridden by a super majority of 60 votes.
To remove a long-standing parliamentary maneuver to serve immediate partisan goals violates core democratic values and is an anathema to the Senate's long standing commitment to consensus and a bipartisan deliberative process.
It is wrong to jettison a longtime Senate procedure simply because it is inconvenient to one party’s goals. It is an abuse of power to strip the Senate minority of a tool designed to protect its rights – rights both parties have vociferously defended throughout the Senate’s history
We the undersigned call on the United States Senators not to support changing of long standing Senate filibuster rules to blatantly advance one party’s goals.
Sign this Petition
The filibuster has a long history in the Senate of fending off actions supported by a bare majority, but deeply offensive to the minority. If an individual senator were to abuse the privilege of the filibuster, he or she could be over overridden by a super majority of 60 votes.
To remove a long-standing parliamentary maneuver to serve immediate partisan goals violates core democratic values and is an anathema to the Senate's long standing commitment to consensus and a bipartisan deliberative process.
It is wrong to jettison a longtime Senate procedure simply because it is inconvenient to one party’s goals. It is an abuse of power to strip the Senate minority of a tool designed to protect its rights – rights both parties have vociferously defended throughout the Senate’s history
We the undersigned call on the United States Senators not to support changing of long standing Senate filibuster rules to blatantly advance one party’s goals.
Sign this Petition
Number 10 Save Phil!
First, let me tell you just a little bit about the history of our country. I want to let you know why our nation's founding fathers invented Checks, Balanz, and me – and why you might want to keep us around, no matter what some politicians say.
So let's go back in time about 200 years, when our founders were trying to figure out how to make our democracy work. They knew they wanted the government to have three different branches – one made up of Senators and Representatives, one made of judges, and one that's run by the President. And they knew they wanted all the guys and girls in those branches to have just about the same amount of power. That's only fair.
But keeping everyone on the same playing field is tough! We get to pick new Senators and Presidents every few years, but judges have to be fair and independent, so they get appointed for life! That's a long time – and a lot of power – clearly Checks were needed.
The President gets to pick a bunch of new judges. But what if he does something hasty and unwise – like appointing judges who aren't fair and independent? We don't want to be stuck with radical judges for as long as they live. Luckily, our Constitution gives Senators a say in the matter so there is a true Balanz. The Senators are allowed to discuss judicial nominees for as long as they want to decide if they're good enough to serve. And that's where I come in.
When a few Senators from the President's party think it's okay to appoint an unworthy judge, other Senators can use me, Phil-a-buster, to block those plans! You see, everyone – even people who voted for the minority party – deserves to have their voices heard. That's the American way!
The party in power tends to get frustrated when the guys on the other side of the aisle use me. When the Democrats were in the majority, they weren't big fans of me. And now that the Republicans are in the majority, they don't like me either.That's no surprise.
But until now, the majority party always understood that, love me or hate me, I'm an important part of the government. After all, I'm part of what made Thomas Jefferson call the Senate "the cooling saucer that cools the hot passions of the other parts of the government." When Thomas Jefferson likes you, you tend to get some respect. So no one tried pulling any dirty tricks to get rid of me just to make things easier for their side.
Whew, that was a lot. Now that you understand who my friends and I are – and why we're so vital to our government – it's up to you. You, your family, and your friends are the ones who can make a true difference. Speak out. And let your Senators know what a mistake it would be to just throw me away. Because if I go away, so do Checks and Balanz.
From Save Phil
So let's go back in time about 200 years, when our founders were trying to figure out how to make our democracy work. They knew they wanted the government to have three different branches – one made up of Senators and Representatives, one made of judges, and one that's run by the President. And they knew they wanted all the guys and girls in those branches to have just about the same amount of power. That's only fair.
But keeping everyone on the same playing field is tough! We get to pick new Senators and Presidents every few years, but judges have to be fair and independent, so they get appointed for life! That's a long time – and a lot of power – clearly Checks were needed.
The President gets to pick a bunch of new judges. But what if he does something hasty and unwise – like appointing judges who aren't fair and independent? We don't want to be stuck with radical judges for as long as they live. Luckily, our Constitution gives Senators a say in the matter so there is a true Balanz. The Senators are allowed to discuss judicial nominees for as long as they want to decide if they're good enough to serve. And that's where I come in.
When a few Senators from the President's party think it's okay to appoint an unworthy judge, other Senators can use me, Phil-a-buster, to block those plans! You see, everyone – even people who voted for the minority party – deserves to have their voices heard. That's the American way!
The party in power tends to get frustrated when the guys on the other side of the aisle use me. When the Democrats were in the majority, they weren't big fans of me. And now that the Republicans are in the majority, they don't like me either.That's no surprise.
But until now, the majority party always understood that, love me or hate me, I'm an important part of the government. After all, I'm part of what made Thomas Jefferson call the Senate "the cooling saucer that cools the hot passions of the other parts of the government." When Thomas Jefferson likes you, you tend to get some respect. So no one tried pulling any dirty tricks to get rid of me just to make things easier for their side.
Whew, that was a lot. Now that you understand who my friends and I are – and why we're so vital to our government – it's up to you. You, your family, and your friends are the ones who can make a true difference. Speak out. And let your Senators know what a mistake it would be to just throw me away. Because if I go away, so do Checks and Balanz.
From Save Phil
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Number 9 02360
8640 Voices
I keep hearing proponents of the 'nuclear option' asserting that they are concerned about activist judges. That what they need to do is remove, or replace, those activist judges.
They don't like the rulings these judges have made, in a variety of cases, from Schiavo to the definition of marriage, to abortion and beyond. So what they want, it seems clear, are judges that address these specific issues, that will make rulings that they approve of on these specific issues.
But the question arises, is that not a textbook definition of 'activist judges'?
It's amazing: you can go to C-Span and see some of the same judges who were filibustered last year, making the same specious argument. In thirty years, after the rise and fall of these so-called 'constitutionalists', a new generation can look at the films and say, 'my god, how did this happen: they said what they were going to do, and they did it. And nobody stopped them'.
History, by one definition, is reality repeated for those who weren't paying attention the first time.
I keep hearing proponents of the 'nuclear option' asserting that they are concerned about activist judges. That what they need to do is remove, or replace, those activist judges.
They don't like the rulings these judges have made, in a variety of cases, from Schiavo to the definition of marriage, to abortion and beyond. So what they want, it seems clear, are judges that address these specific issues, that will make rulings that they approve of on these specific issues.
But the question arises, is that not a textbook definition of 'activist judges'?
It's amazing: you can go to C-Span and see some of the same judges who were filibustered last year, making the same specious argument. In thirty years, after the rise and fall of these so-called 'constitutionalists', a new generation can look at the films and say, 'my god, how did this happen: they said what they were going to do, and they did it. And nobody stopped them'.
History, by one definition, is reality repeated for those who weren't paying attention the first time.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Number 8 25301
Senator Byrd delivered the remarks below warning the Senate and the American people about a procedural effort being considered by some Senators to shut off debate and shut down minority voices and opinions. Byrd believes that such an effort strikes at the very heart of the Senate -- the freedom of speech and debate.
For the temporary gain of a hand-full of “out of the mainstream” judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each Senator’s right of extended debate. Note that I said each Senator. For the damage will devastate not just the minority party. It will cripple the ability of each member to do what each was sent here to do – – represent the people of his or her state. Without the filibuster or the threat of extended debate, there exists no leverage with which to bargain for the offering of an amendment. All force to effect compromise between the two political parties is lost. Demands for hearings can languish. The President can simply rule, almost by Executive Order if his party controls both houses of Congress, and Majority Rule reins supreme. In such a world, the Minority is crushed; the power of dissenting views diminished; and freedom of speech attenuated. The uniquely American concept of the independent individual, asserting his or her own views, proclaiming personal dignity through the courage of free speech will, forever, have been blighted. And the American spirit, that stubborn, feisty, contrarian, and glorious urge to loudly disagree, and proclaim, despite all opposition, what is honest and true, will be sorely manacled.
For the full text of Senator Byrd's remarks on March 1, 2005, visit this link.
For the temporary gain of a hand-full of “out of the mainstream” judges, some in the Senate are ready to callously incinerate each Senator’s right of extended debate. Note that I said each Senator. For the damage will devastate not just the minority party. It will cripple the ability of each member to do what each was sent here to do – – represent the people of his or her state. Without the filibuster or the threat of extended debate, there exists no leverage with which to bargain for the offering of an amendment. All force to effect compromise between the two political parties is lost. Demands for hearings can languish. The President can simply rule, almost by Executive Order if his party controls both houses of Congress, and Majority Rule reins supreme. In such a world, the Minority is crushed; the power of dissenting views diminished; and freedom of speech attenuated. The uniquely American concept of the independent individual, asserting his or her own views, proclaiming personal dignity through the courage of free speech will, forever, have been blighted. And the American spirit, that stubborn, feisty, contrarian, and glorious urge to loudly disagree, and proclaim, despite all opposition, what is honest and true, will be sorely manacled.
For the full text of Senator Byrd's remarks on March 1, 2005, visit this link.
Number 7 46201
On January 4, 1957, Senator William Ezra Jenner of Indiana spoke in opposition to invoking cloture by majority vote.
We may have a duty to legislate, but we also have a duty to inform and deliberate. In the past quarter century we have seen a phenomenal growth in the power of the executive branch. If this continues at such a fast pace, our system of checks and balances will be destroyed. One of the main bulwarks against this growing power is free debate in the Senate . . . So long as there is free debate, men of courage and understanding will rise to defend against potential dictators. . .The Senate today is one place where, no matter what else may exist, there is still a chance to be heard, an opportunity to speak, the duty to examine, and the obligation to protect. It is one of the few refuges of democracy. Minorities have an illustrious past, full of suffering, torture, smear, and even death. Jesus Christ was killed by a majority; Columbus was smeared; and Christians have been tortured. Had the United States Senate existed during those trying times, I am sure these people would have found an advocate. Nowhere else can any political, social, or religious group, finding itself under sustained attack, receive a better refuge.
Suggested by the website of Senator Robert Byrd (D), W. Virginia
We may have a duty to legislate, but we also have a duty to inform and deliberate. In the past quarter century we have seen a phenomenal growth in the power of the executive branch. If this continues at such a fast pace, our system of checks and balances will be destroyed. One of the main bulwarks against this growing power is free debate in the Senate . . . So long as there is free debate, men of courage and understanding will rise to defend against potential dictators. . .The Senate today is one place where, no matter what else may exist, there is still a chance to be heard, an opportunity to speak, the duty to examine, and the obligation to protect. It is one of the few refuges of democracy. Minorities have an illustrious past, full of suffering, torture, smear, and even death. Jesus Christ was killed by a majority; Columbus was smeared; and Christians have been tortured. Had the United States Senate existed during those trying times, I am sure these people would have found an advocate. Nowhere else can any political, social, or religious group, finding itself under sustained attack, receive a better refuge.
Suggested by the website of Senator Robert Byrd (D), W. Virginia
Number 6
At one point in this nation's history, the majority opinion held that slavery was quite alright. At one point, the majority insisted that women shouldn't vote. At one point, the notion that blacks were second-class citizens prevailed. Most of our civil rights were won by conscientious judges adhering to the standards and protections in the Constitution; we can not afford to sacrifice this independence of the judicial branch.
Our Members of Congress have sworn an oath to uphold our Constitution. One of its main tenets, and greatest strengths, is the idea that federal power should not be consolidated. Eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees would politicize the appointment process and dilute this essential separation of powers. If a simple majority is all that is needed to decide lifetime justice appointments, there is nothing to prevent a de facto coup of the judiciary by whoever happens to hold 51 seats. The fact remains, though, that one simply cannot extrapolate from the Senate - where the minority might lack only two or three people on the majority - to the American populace, where the opposition party represents millions of Americans.
Our founding fathers spoke at length on the importance of guaranteeing a minority voice and rights. Great philosophers have written at length about the "tyranny of the majority." We'd be doing them a tremendous disrespect and casting their vision for America aside if we did not heed their words.
Transferred from an email, by Terry Thompson
Our Members of Congress have sworn an oath to uphold our Constitution. One of its main tenets, and greatest strengths, is the idea that federal power should not be consolidated. Eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees would politicize the appointment process and dilute this essential separation of powers. If a simple majority is all that is needed to decide lifetime justice appointments, there is nothing to prevent a de facto coup of the judiciary by whoever happens to hold 51 seats. The fact remains, though, that one simply cannot extrapolate from the Senate - where the minority might lack only two or three people on the majority - to the American populace, where the opposition party represents millions of Americans.
Our founding fathers spoke at length on the importance of guaranteeing a minority voice and rights. Great philosophers have written at length about the "tyranny of the majority." We'd be doing them a tremendous disrespect and casting their vision for America aside if we did not heed their words.
Transferred from an email, by Terry Thompson
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Number 5 02360
Excerpt from President Andrew Shepherd's speech in Aaron Sorkin's The American President:
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center-stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I'd been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong, Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it; Bob's problem is that he can't sell it. We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it.
Transferred from email by Janet Alfieri
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center-stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I'd been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong, Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it; Bob's problem is that he can't sell it. We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it.
Transferred from email by Janet Alfieri
Number 4 01040
My sense is that someone is knocking on the door, someone we don't want to let in.
We can ignore the sound - go blithely about our chores, but the knocking will just get louder and louder, and eventually the door will give way and these.. people, will be standing in our living rooms, telling us what to do.
I mean, its personal. Always was, maybe, but maybe in the last few years its been getting harder and harder to ignore.
Prayer in the schools is one thing, but then its prayer in the science book, prayer at the supermarket, congressmen calling us names like 'adulterer'. To some degree these.. people, are a joke, a laugh, a farce. That is until they have broken down the heavy metal doors that our founders erected: you know, those doors between one branch of government and the other. When those doors go, its not a joke anymore, its a 'clear and present danger'.
I have my personal concerns, yes: a single mother, of another faith, living paycheck to paycheck.
But even I recognize this is bigger than that.
Filibuster? Hell, we need to do more than filibuster. But then, we have to draw the line someplace.
Maybe they are doing us a favor - drawing the line for us. We've got no place left to back up to. We're against the wall, at the edge of a cliff. Time to push back.
Transferred from an email by E. Sweetbaum
We can ignore the sound - go blithely about our chores, but the knocking will just get louder and louder, and eventually the door will give way and these.. people, will be standing in our living rooms, telling us what to do.
I mean, its personal. Always was, maybe, but maybe in the last few years its been getting harder and harder to ignore.
Prayer in the schools is one thing, but then its prayer in the science book, prayer at the supermarket, congressmen calling us names like 'adulterer'. To some degree these.. people, are a joke, a laugh, a farce. That is until they have broken down the heavy metal doors that our founders erected: you know, those doors between one branch of government and the other. When those doors go, its not a joke anymore, its a 'clear and present danger'.
I have my personal concerns, yes: a single mother, of another faith, living paycheck to paycheck.
But even I recognize this is bigger than that.
Filibuster? Hell, we need to do more than filibuster. But then, we have to draw the line someplace.
Maybe they are doing us a favor - drawing the line for us. We've got no place left to back up to. We're against the wall, at the edge of a cliff. Time to push back.
Transferred from an email by E. Sweetbaum
Number 3
Congress was meant to be a deliberative body by our Founding Fathers. That included the ability of the minor party to credibly hold a political posture or position without getting crushed by the majority party of that particular moment in time.
If Bill Frist and the Republicans want to dismantle that precept then they're paving the way for one-party tyranny and democracy as we know will be a thing of the past.
Both parties have used the fillibuster over our nation's history and it has served our country well by preserving at least the semblance of a two-party democracy. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely [Lord Acton]. A dominant Republican party today - without the constraints of the power to fillibuster - will simply bring this truism to life.
No on tyranny by the majority. After all, that's why we have the Bill of Rights in the first place. If Bill First & Company do away with the fillibuster, what's to stop them from ultimately doing away with the Bill of Rights? They could chip away and begin to dismantle many of the tenets of our Republic and after a while we would find that what our Founding Fathers fought so hard to create and preserve has been completely obliterated by extremist ideologues hell-bent on imposing their views on the rest of us.
We must resist this with all of our might or we will - in Lincoln's words - "perish from the face of the earth."
From Pete Newcome (transferred from email)
If Bill Frist and the Republicans want to dismantle that precept then they're paving the way for one-party tyranny and democracy as we know will be a thing of the past.
Both parties have used the fillibuster over our nation's history and it has served our country well by preserving at least the semblance of a two-party democracy. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely [Lord Acton]. A dominant Republican party today - without the constraints of the power to fillibuster - will simply bring this truism to life.
No on tyranny by the majority. After all, that's why we have the Bill of Rights in the first place. If Bill First & Company do away with the fillibuster, what's to stop them from ultimately doing away with the Bill of Rights? They could chip away and begin to dismantle many of the tenets of our Republic and after a while we would find that what our Founding Fathers fought so hard to create and preserve has been completely obliterated by extremist ideologues hell-bent on imposing their views on the rest of us.
We must resist this with all of our might or we will - in Lincoln's words - "perish from the face of the earth."
From Pete Newcome (transferred from email)
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Number 2
First, a quote, from the Constitution of the United States of America, Section 2, Clause 2:... 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, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law...Those are the words of the remarkable group of men who assembled to create the rules by which our great country is governed. They had all lived through a time when the courts were rigged to favor the ruling party. They had all experienced life under the tyrannical rule of a dictator whose minions controlled the legislature. Our Constitution was forged on the anvil of bitter experience. From the wisdom gained in their struggle against tyranny, our founding fathers intentionally designed a system of government with built-in safeguards to protect citizens from a power-hungry majority. A system in which the Senate had the right to reject judges it deemed unfit to guard the rights of American citizens. A system in which the courts have the power to judge each case on its merits, where each citizen has the right to a fair trial, no matter how much the President or legislature might dislike that citizen.If the “nuclear option” is allowed to pass, it will lay waste to the rights granted to us by the Founding Fathers. Under the nuclear option, a power-mad majority can simply wipe out the rights of anyone they don’t like by appointing judges who will rule for “their side,” ignoring the protections provided to ordinary Americans by the Constitution. With this last protection against oppression removed, America will fade to a pale shadow of its former greatness. No longer the leader of the free world, America will be the oppressor of the free.
Text by 'Rhetoretician'; taken from site comment
Text by 'Rhetoretician'; taken from site comment
Number 1 02360
We all want to have our voices heard. We all believe -we have to believe, that in some fashion, to some small degree, we are having a positive effect.
The founders of this country understood that if the majority could squelch dissent, control the media, and act with impunity, their experiment would be doomed. So they built in 'checks and balances'; they separated the legislative from the executive, the executive from the judicial.
It is perhaps not altogether surprising that when one party gains the majority they seek to consolidate their authority. By their own admission however, the Republicans in the congress have called the effort to circumvent the traditional judicial apppointment process a 'nuclear option' - a term that carries with it the notion of 'fallout'. They themselves recognize that if they use this option, the cloud on our democracy will linger long after their judicial nominees have faded into history.
We cannot allow this to happen. Please join with me in creating 8,640 one-minute speeches, each one offering powerful, personal testimony. Together they will become a 24-hour virtual filibuster.
To add your 'contribution' there are three methods: 1. 'Comment' on the latest entry, by clicking on 'comment' at the end of the entry (I will transfer the text to an entry level contribution asap) 2. Send your thoughts to MaMoveOn@Aol.com, and I will cut and paste asap. 3. To register, or if you already are registered, use the 'Blog This' button at the top of the page . For all methods, please use the title to number your contribution sequentially (see 'Number 1 02360'), and add your zip code.
Frank Mand, Plymouth, Massachusetts
The founders of this country understood that if the majority could squelch dissent, control the media, and act with impunity, their experiment would be doomed. So they built in 'checks and balances'; they separated the legislative from the executive, the executive from the judicial.
It is perhaps not altogether surprising that when one party gains the majority they seek to consolidate their authority. By their own admission however, the Republicans in the congress have called the effort to circumvent the traditional judicial apppointment process a 'nuclear option' - a term that carries with it the notion of 'fallout'. They themselves recognize that if they use this option, the cloud on our democracy will linger long after their judicial nominees have faded into history.
We cannot allow this to happen. Please join with me in creating 8,640 one-minute speeches, each one offering powerful, personal testimony. Together they will become a 24-hour virtual filibuster.
To add your 'contribution' there are three methods: 1. 'Comment' on the latest entry, by clicking on 'comment' at the end of the entry (I will transfer the text to an entry level contribution asap) 2. Send your thoughts to MaMoveOn@Aol.com, and I will cut and paste asap. 3. To register, or if you already are registered, use the 'Blog This' button at the top of the page . For all methods, please use the title to number your contribution sequentially (see 'Number 1 02360'), and add your zip code.
Frank Mand, Plymouth, Massachusetts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
