"No independent judiciary"

These people are crazy.

In an interview, Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the panel was likely in some way to take up the issue of how the federal judges handled Ms. Schiavo's case.

But Mr. Lungren said Mr. DeLay had not requested a hearing and the committee had not decided on a course of action. "There does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely  independent judiciary," he said.

These are congressmen -- heck, the leadership -- who are unable to grasp the most basic of Constitutional concepts: separation of powers. Unbelievable.

•  GOP Nuke Option Eliminates Judge Accountability

  When it comes to federal court nominees, the only voice the people have is of their elected officials, through the advise and consent powers given to the Senate.  

  Right now it takes 60 of those Senators, representing the people, to get a judge on the bench.  The GOP wants to cut the number of elected officals it takes to get a judge on the bench to 50.

  The GOP plan gives less judicial oversight to the people, through their elected officials, at the federal level.

  Can someone big and important now run with this line to get this GOoPers off our back?

  by pacified on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:40:20 PM PDT

  •  quibble

    Right now it takes 60 of those Senators, representing the people, to get a judge on the bench.  The GOP wants to cut the number of elected officals it takes to get a judge on the bench to 50.

    The constitution does not call for a super majority to approve judges.

    by bluestateLIBertarian on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:49:18 PM PDT

    •  do you like the Senate Rule

      as it is now?  The "gentleman's agreement" if you will?

      What do you think should happen?

      by pacified on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:06:23 AM PDT

      •  well

        I thought the GOP was wrong to game Clinton's nominess in commitee, as well as filibustering nominees. The duplicity is obvious among some Dems who were whining about judges not getting an up or down vote in 1999.

        I think legislation which is the domain of Congress, is fair game for obstruction and gamesmanship. I view filibusters, or commitee tanking, on nominees as stepping on the power of the executive branch's clearly defined constitutional power.  

        by bluestateLIBertarian on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:13:51 AM PDT

        •  Wow

          So, lemme get this straight.

          You are arguing the exact same positions that the wingnuts are arguing - that the Senate has no right to a filibuster, that the executive branch has certain prerogatives that the filibuster overrides.

          Yet you seem to - I guess - be coming to those conclusions from a sort of liberal perspective.

          How exactly are you not doing the wingnuts' work for them? And in fact, if you're agreeing with them, how are you any better than them?

          by eugene on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:20:30 AM PDT

          •  I'm on the same side Dems were on in 1999

            When they were calling for up or down votes in the Senate. I don't think this is simply a wingnut issue. Assuming the next presidential goes Dem in 2008, there is a huge chance that the senate will still have a GOP majority, and we'll be back to nominees getting killed in commitee. Or if Dems take back the Senate, filibustered in the same way, seing as the weak targets are going to be GOP Moderates in blue states.

            by bluestateLIBertarian on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:36:23 AM PDT

            •  Protection of the rights of the minority

              That's the principle upon which the Dems are standing in Congress.

              In 1999 the Dems were not calling for abolition of the filibuster. They did want votes on the nominees, but they weren't countenancing anything like the nuclear option.

              So I'm still left wondering what motivates your stance on this issue. I don't think the prospect of our being able to "take advantage" of a filibusterless Senate in '09 is good enough, because between now and then some nasty shit can happen.

              I guess my pragmatism is better than your pragmatism.

              by eugene on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:39:46 AM PDT

              •  asdf

                I'm not exactly partisan. My motivation is simply what I believe to be right in this instance. You brought up an interesting point downthread about the framers being silent and therefore leaving it up to senate rules. I'm still thinking on that point, and may be persuaded to change my view.

                by bluestateLIBertarian on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:45:59 AM PDT

              •  In 1999

                Say what you will about the Republicans, but they were the majority.  And they got their way.

                by Adam B on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:09:20 AM PDT

            •  You're confusing

              Motive with tactics. In the 90's it was the GOP's reasoning, not the tactics they used which were decried. I can not remember one Democrat in any position of leadership or authority saying that the GOP's tactics called for an end to the filibuster, or that it was in any way unconstitutional. If you can find my a Dem who made the case for the nuclear option in the 90's, please let us see it.

              by Goldfish on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:04:10 AM PDT

              •  I never said

                that Dems were making a case for the nuclear option, but several were making the case that judges should get an up or down vote.

                Senator Tom Daschle Questioned Why A Senator Would Ever Oppose Voting On A Judicial Nominee, Calling For An Up-Or-Down Vote "On Every Nomination."  "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination. . . . Thus, today, I implore, one more time, every Senator to follow Senator Leahy's advice, and treat every nominee `with dignity and dispatch.'  Lift your holds, and let the Senate vote on every nomination."  (Senator Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, October 5, 1999)

                Granted that dascle was talking about judges being tied up in commitee hearings, but Senate Dems were most ceratianly calling for up or down votes on every judge.

                by bluestateLIBertarian on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:10:55 AM PDT

                •  But the point is

                  That even though both parties may call for a vote and criticize those who are blocking it, only one party is arguing that the mechanism used to block it should be abolished.

                  You're drawing a false equivalency.

                  The GOP is being hypocritical (they gladly used the filibuster when they were in the minority, as was their right, but now they want to deny that same right to the Democrats) and short-sighted (if they succeed in abolishing it now, they won't be able to use it when they're again in the minority.)

                  I happen to believe that the filibuster is an important tool to serve as a check on the majority overriding the interests of the minority. But apart from that, the principle has to work both ways. Either it's right for both or wrong for both. It can't be right for one but wrong for the other.
                  

                  by Flash on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:11:15 AM PDT

                  •  "Blocking the vote" seems inaccurate.

                    I see many comments about how the filibuster is "blocking the vote" and I'm not sure I agree with it.  A Filibuster does not "block" a vote, if I am correct.  A Filibuster establishes a requirement for debate on the floor, then requires that those in favor of a measure convince enough people on the other side that a vote should take place to invoke closure.

                    So, in this case, all the Republicans have to do is to accept debate on the floor, convince 5 Senators on the other side to vote for closure, then take the vote.  In other words, they'll have to (gasp!) WORK for it a bit.

                    O Horrors!  They'll actually have to try to CONVINCE 5 out of 45 to vote for closure!  They'll actually have to come up with arguments good enough to convince 5 people to ALLOW a vote.

                    If their candidates are so bad that they can't convince 5 out of 45 that they should at least let the guy get voted on general principles, WHAT DOES THAT SAY about their candiates?

                    by ltfranklin on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:40:36 PM PDT

              •  Let me add one more thing...

                Doesn't the fact that the Republicans are afraid of a filibuster simply indicates that they are afraid that their arguments for these to-be-filibustered nominees are so weak that they would not be able to find 5 people, out of a group of 44 Democrats and 1 Independent, that will accept their arguments as adequate to invoke closure?  Seems to be a particularly cowardly stance to me.

                by ltfranklin on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:31:34 PM PDT

            •  Not the same side

              The dems wanted the nominations out of the committee and onto the floor.  From there they wanted an up or down vote, but they never said a filibuster should be out of the question!  The only thing a filibuster does is let the minority party (or individual senators, for that matter) ensure that debate on the floor takes place, and what results is either that the Senator(s) filibustering are sufficiently satisfied to remove the filibuster, or sufficient Senators in the minority are satisfied with the arguments of the majority to vote on closure.  A Filibuster in NO WAY avoids an up or down vote...it just provides a small amount of minority input in a more or less evenly matched legislature.

              Are the Republicans so unsure of the quality of their President's nomination that they think they can't convince 5 (count them, 5) democrats to support his nominee?  How sad.

              by ltfranklin on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:25:38 PM PDT

        •  What about Clinton's nominees?

          Why should the GOP, after blocking all of those Clinton nominees, now get to fill the vacancies it kept open with whatever wingnuts the boy emperor nominates?

          by expatjourno on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:25:37 AM PDT

        •  Up or Down vote?

          What's the definition of an "Up or Down" vote.  Is it a strict majority in all cases, or does it just mean that the chance to vote is given?

          I've always looked at the filibuster as not a single person keeping a vote from happening, but a single person saying "look, I have sufficient questions about the vote we're going to take to wnat to slow things down and properly debate this, and I think I have enough people that agree with me to overcome a closure vote.  Now, either convince me that I'm wrong, in which case I'll remove my filibuster and we can go ahead and vote, or come up with enough people that think we've done enough talking and get them to vote for closure."

          by ltfranklin on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:54:08 PM PDT

          •  Correction:

            I did a little research to "check" my memory...and discovered that it takes 41 Senators agreeing to do so to initiate a filibuster.  To invoke cloture (memory again, I've been mispelling it), it take 60.  So if my math is correct, all the Republicans have to do is convince anywhere from 1 to 5 Senators (assuming all republicans are going to vote for cloture, and depending on how many of the others get together on the filibuster) to change their mind and vote cloture.

            Now, if your arguments for a particular nominee are so weak you can't convince 5 people (maybe less) to if not agree with you, at least agree to disagree and vote cloture, then maybe your arguments aren't so great, or maybe your nominee is just going to be too objectionable to a significant part of the population.

            Now, perhaps somebody can tell me, once a filibuster is invoked, can those who invoked the filibuster, well, uninvoke it?  If not just by withdrawing it, by simply allowing a couple of their people to vote for cloture?  And isn't it possible to work out a deal?  Such as to say "we're going to filibuster this nominee, but we're willing to listen to arguments for and against, so let's agree to so many hours of debate on the floor, after which we'll take a vote...and if you have convinced at least two Senators who invoked the filibuster to change their mind, we'll vote for cloture and go to a vote.  If you haven't, drop the nomination."

            Could such a deal be made?  Or would the Republicans prefer to avoid any compromise, go Nuclear and avoid any floor debate on the subject, simply because "they can"

            by ltfranklin on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:16:37 PM PDT

    •  Independent Judiciary

      Yes, the Constitution does not call for a super majority to confirm a judge but given that a federal judge serves for LIFE, maybe it should.  This is especially true because the Founders did not envision political parties controlling all branches of government.  If they did, where would the checks and balances be?

      by TheLupo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:23:36 AM PDT

      •  Be careful

        Just because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say something's OK does not mean it is bad. The Constitution is silent on the number of votes needed to confirm a judge, but allows the Congress to make its own rules. That, to me, says a filibuster and super-majorities are fine.

        by eugene on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:26:33 AM PDT

        •  intersesting POV

          Good observation.

          by bluestateLIBertarian on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:37:58 AM PDT

      •  The founders didn't like parties ...

        ... and were well aware of the dangers of factionalism (rather foresighted and perspicacious people, I'd say, good thing they were around).  Which is why they built in a number of impediments to factionalism run rampant.

        But it didn't take more that a couple of decades for parties and party politics to gain the ascendancy.  Human nature, I guess.

        The GOP knows all this, and is trying to do an end-run around -- or to tear down -- these barriers as fast and as completely as they can, in an effort to seize the One Ring and reign supreme until the end of time.  Any way they can ramrod their will through is fair game, and they'll use them all, no matter how internally inconsistent or how much in violation of the spirit of the Constitution. . . .

        Abortion (and the fundamentalism behind the bitter debate) will tear this country apart.  It's insane.  It's like we now have our own "Revolutionary Guards" here.  "Mass impeachments",  my ass; they're talking fascism here. . . .

        Cheers,
        

        by Arne Langsetmo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:44:46 AM PDT

    •  No it doesn't call for a super majority

      It doesn't call for any majority. It leaves it up to the Senate as how to appoint judges. The Senate could require a unanimous vote if it so chose.

      However, for over two hundred years, we have allowed any Senator the ability to block appointments if they have the strength of their convictions. And though the Senate has twice lowered that threshold (first introducing cloture, then reducing the number of votes needed for cloture), lowering it any further would not be in keeping with over two hundred years of tradition -let me say that again: it would not be in keeping with over two hundred years of tradition.

      The idea that a simple up or down vote is in any way required, especially that it is Constitutionally required, flies in the face of the entire history of our government, and indeed the very principles on which it rests. You should keep in mind that we do not live in a Democracy. We do not live under the tyranny of majority rule. We live in a Republic that respects and protects the rights of the minority for the whims of those in power.

      Not only is there the fiction that the Constitution calls for a simple up or down vote on judges patently false, it goes against our very system of government.

      by Goldfish on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:00:47 AM PDT

    •  The Constitution also stated

      that certain persons were to be counted as three/fifths.  If we looked strictly to the Constitution as our governing law, we would never have evolved.

      by Mary Julia on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:05:05 AM PDT

  •  GOP discredits even today's conservative courts

    Why would the GOP be working so hard to discredit the courts, at the same time it packs them with conservatives? To justify a strong break from past practices.

    In past cases, even judges appointed by Republicans have sometimes ruled against Republican interests. Sometimes favoring Republican ideals from the time of their appointment over present-day party strategy. Sometimes favoring the constitution and precedent over tyranny of the majority. But almost always separated from the day-to-day events and power grabs.  

    The GOP leadership in both chambers is now working to weaken the wall between the present-day party funding/campaign/lobbying machine and the actions of the courts. Party fundraising will have a new product to market, a whole new branch of government for sale.

    The Frist/DeLay Congress is preparing the public and the courts for a coming wave of precedent-breaking rulings. To get the courts to cooperate, and the public to accept this, it must embrace idea setting precedent aside for political causes. It must de-legitimize the courts as an independent branch of government, and re-create them as an agent of Congress. In short, it must embrace judicial activism under the name of accountability.

    When Frist or DeLay say that the courts are out of control, they are complaining that the judges are out of the party's control.

    by chimpy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:25:01 AM PDT

•  Courts had ignored the intent of Congress?

  What does DeLay mean by "ignored"?  What does he mean by "intent"?  Congress can have all the "intent" in the world-- but what it intends can be very badly advised or led indeed.  There is no "you're with us, or you're against us" mentality in law, or in a sphere that respects the rule of law.  There is the law, and careful interpretation of it.  That is what judges are supposed to do.  An "independent judiciary" means simply that judges will be free-- AS IN AMERICA, HOME OF THE FREE, HELLOOOOOO MR. DELAY-- to carefully take into account all relevant factors, including congressional "intent," when interpreting law.  Judges are not supposed to weigh all the factors, and then do what Congress dictates.

  These Republicans are totally twisted. They believe that mob rule should trump the rule of law.  That is horrifyingly perverted to these American ears.

  by concernedamerican on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:40:32 PM PDT

  •  Frist on the record

    During the brief Senate debate on the matter, Carl Levin got Frist to admit - on the record - that there was nothing in the bill REQUIRING the feeding tube be re-inserted.

    What DeLay says for right wing-nut consumption is very different than the force and intent of the legislation.

    His comments are cheap, lame, sensationalistic and produced for FOX and the NY Post.

    by Cordelia Lear on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:11:20 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    DeLay seems to argue that Congress can tell the courts how to rule.  This flies in the face of over 200 yrs. of history.  It's the courts who decides what is and isn't Constitutional.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:09:30 AM PDT

  •  The GOP hates the Constitution

    That is screaming about "activist judges". I would like to remind them what the founding fathers had in mind for the country. They wanted the judiciary to be separate so they would not be corrupted by the executive or legislative branch  and The founders wanted judges to have life time appointment because it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches;  you don't think that is happening now do you? Link is for #78 but you can get all of them and all other Documents in Law,History and Diplomacy.
    More Below
    

    And
    From The Federalist Papers : No. 78
    This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.''2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security

    There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.  {Emph Add}

    
    Lets hope the extreme right will still recognize the Constitution even if they don't like it or it does not fit their moral agenda.

    by rrob1 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:28:23 AM PDT

    •  Reading the Federalist Papers

      should be required reading for all members of Congress upon being elected to office.  (It would be a good way for them to spend the time between election day and their swearing in.)

      The Papers are not holy writ, nor should they be treated as such, but there is great wisdom in them and a window into what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

      I have no illusions that merely reading the Papers would completely prevent demagoguery and ill-informed interpretations of the Constitution, but it sure would help to reduce it.

      It would also be good if they were required to read "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Reported by James Madison" and De Toqueville's "Democracy in America."  

      (I know, I know, we can't really require any of this, but to mangle a phrase from Santayana, "Those who do not know the origins of their Republic are condemned to defeat it.")

      by sciguy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:54:02 AM PDT

      •   They should read

        them you are right but they would still push their own "interpretation" like in religion.

        by rrob1 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:31:44 PM PDT

        •  OK. How about this?

          We should also require every American child to read and discuss the Federalist Papers before they graduate from high school.  Then when the sanctimonious mofos try to pull their demagoguery, the people as a whole can relegate these bastards to the ashbin of history.  Or better yet stop electing them in the first place.

          by sciguy on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 09:24:22 AM PDT

  •  Mob rule was how Bush got elected

    Brooks Brothers riot, anyone?

    by expatjourno on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:31:16 AM PDT

•  Is this real?

  I get furious when I hear these comments from elected officials. But we we need to stay calm and figure out a response.

  How do we deal with people who bindly follow those repugs, indifferent as they are towards the most basic princilpes of democratic governance, while staying within those democratic boundaries ourselves?

  We need vision and conviction of MLK caliber.

  by dadan on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:41:29 PM PDT

  •  How 'bout kicking them in the balls?

    works for me.

    by fishhead on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:59:01 PM PDT

    •  That works too,

      but I just saw "Black Maned Pensator's"  diary that is the real response to what I was talking about.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/8/18241/07943

      It suggests a way to turn our anger and frustration into action.

      Of course at the root of its hopefullness rests the mistaken belief that the democratic party is what we want it to be, i.e. a vehicle for benefiting the public at large. Whereas in reality it may not be much more than the means to pacify passions of those who see the light...

      I hope I am wrong, but with so much light there is no excuse in letting darkness rule.

      dadan.

      by dadan on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:12:37 AM PDT

•  Judicial Threats dkospedia page

  If one has not already been created I could not find it. I created a Judicial Threats dkospedia page to track GOPers, Judges, and Events/Dates to track any threats impeachment or worse.

  Please send feedback - or just add to it as you see fit.

  by catfish on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:43:38 PM PDT

  •  Please add to dkospedia page

    anything you think might be relevant to tracking GOP threats to judges.

    by catfish on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:11:39 AM PDT

    •  It's not new

      If you want to go back in history, try Googling "Impeach Rose Bird". In fact, many are using that as a rallying cry for impeaching other judges, such as Richard Kramer who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in California. (No organized campaign yet, mind you, just some freeper grousing...)

      (Don't know how to modify the dKosopedia, and too tired to post links, sorry...it's waaay past my bedtime...)

      by Cali Scribe on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:40:14 AM PDT

      •  You are so casual about this

        What's new this time is that the GOP is inflaming hostility towards judges just after an Atlanta judge was killed, the mother and husband of a Chicago judge were killed, and a few Americans were arrested for threatening either judges or Micheal Schiavo.

        So in the very least we should document their insensitivity. But the comments many times are beyond insensitive. They are dangerous.

        by catfish on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:51:50 AM PDT

        •   I agree.

          Although I understand that there have been threats to judges before, the Republicans seem to be trying to ratchet things up a notch, or perhaps several notches, right now, so I think it's a good idea to keep close track on what they're currently saying, particularly statements like those made by DeLay and Cornyn.

          Thanks for doing this catfish.

          by Heartpine on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:28:04 AM PDT

          •  Thank you (n/t) :)

            by catfish on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:51:15 AM PDT

•  Why aren't Reid, Pelosi and Dean....

  ....shouting this from the rooftops:

  THESE REPUBLICANS DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC CONCEPTS ON WHICH OUR COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT IS BASED!

  Take off the damn gloves!!

  by leftyboy666 on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:46:26 PM PDT

  •  I have no idea

    But their silence is really quite worrying. It suggests to me that they still have not learned how politics is conducted in the 21st century - how important it is to work your ass off to get your message out there in the media, to try and shape your message.

    Maybe they're waiting for the Pope coverage to die down. But they don't have much longer - the window of opportunity is fast closing.

    by eugene on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:15:18 AM PDT

  •  Are you beginning to wonder..

    if the democrat leaders are going to ever do anything?  It seems that Pelosi and Dean have been gagged and that Reid is absolutely NOT doing anything to win the hearts and minds of the public.  Why haven't they been shouting from the rooftops the Texas threats to the judges?  If judges are rubberstamps, then why have courts?  The courts are the LAST bastion of freedom and tryanny and embody the American ideal of the rule of law.

    by TheLupo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:29:47 AM PDT

    •  I'm wondering it, too

      And it's really, really concerning me.

      My post above yours suggests they're waiting until the Pope-fest passes. Which may be sensible. But next week, by god, they've got to speak up, and do it now. There's no time to lose - Americans have got to know just what kind of lunatics are running around on Capitol Hill. And the SCLM sure as hell isn't going to do it unless the Dems unite, speak from the same page, and do nothing else next week but raise holy hell about the matter.

      by eugene on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:33:18 AM PDT

      •  The Judiciary

        is the target of these nuts, and they are already starting to fire back.

        They have requested that congress open up the purse so that they may have protection from the lunitics that have been incited by certain members of congress.

        If they think the judicary is going to sit back and take this, they better think again, the judicary was well within it's constitional duties on terri's case, and the judicary understands the constitioun better then these lunitics..

        This is not a fight Delay and his fellow lunitics want to pick.It This is very very dangerous to have the brink of civil war breaking out between two branches of goverment.

        by jackieca on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:02:59 AM PDT

  •  Because they know voters are not paying attention

    Why should Reid an Pelosi waste their energy on getting steamrolled on issues that the voters are not paying attention to?  

    For example:

    Face it, Bankrupcy legislation will create great pain for a lot of voters, but no-one heard of it until after it passed.  Now, voters are starting to pay attention because they BEGIN TO SEE that the GOPers are selling them out, values or not!  

    Reid has it right, we can't fight every issue, we must pick and choose our battles.  So far, I think they have done a damm good job of fighting and letting GOPers step into their own crap by passing their payola (for lobbists) legislation.   Reid and Pelosi are letting GOPers set themselves up to hang on their own petard.

    Voters are waking up, and definately NOT feeling as secure about life as they did in November.  I am now having lunchroom conversations that run like: 'I've always been a Republician but with what I know now, I never would have voted for Bush.'   People are starting to take more interest in what is happening in Washington because they feel less secure now.  Reality is starting to sink in.  

    by NevDem on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:55:20 AM PDT

  •  Escalation?

    I think they truly afraid of what escalation would do. It might expose the democrats as a weak party with little loyalty (or it might not), it might cause an endless back and forth between the dems and the GOP, it might become a catilyst for more anti-consitution sentiment in the media, etc.

    I fear they have decided to stay out of most issues for the above reasons. Of course, partisans would rather see them fight, but they might have a point in laying low, especially if they lack the party discipline to come out against the GOP. It would be pretty pathetic if Reid gave a counter-attack only to have twenty other democrats refuse to back-up his statements and the conservative democrats being forced to defend cherry-picked "liberal" decisions to their conservative constituents.

    The GOP knows the dems have a bigger tent and cant get the ball rolling like the GOP does. A lot of good that did the GOP in the Shiavo affair, but it doesnt give them the advantage when it comes to pit-bull politics and crazy comments.  FWIW, I read Bush refused to support DeLay's comment so even the mighty wurlitzer hits a sour note now and again. Or the GOP is getting ready to bail on DeLay and DeLay is going down fighting.
    

    by notthegop on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:54:21 AM PDT

  •  Truly

    It only takes a brief Googling to find that Hamilton wrote specifically that we need "independence of the courts."  I've got more here.

    by folkbum on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:41:30 AM PDT

  •  I have skimmed all the responses -

    in 15 seconds, and I did NOT see one soundbite.

    I know I could be construed as just complaining / not offering a solution, such as a sound bite - but, from my skim I didn't see anyone say for example, "We need to say ...

    -- Here are 10 Words or Less that Sound Great

    I do NOT know what soundbite to say.  I applaud your efforts at making statements, but, they are too complex, and I don't blame all you who post -- we aren't getting paid 6 and 7 figures a year, as LOTS and LOTS of liberal consultants / lobbyists / policy whatnots in d.c. are -- why can't they come up with some soundbites for us, OR, why aren't they fired?  

    rmm.

    by rmdewey on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:18:00 AM PDT

    •  How about these...

      "They want to go 'nuclear' and turn the Senate into a rubber stamp for President Bush."

      "They want to silence Senate Democrats - the one remaining check on President Bush's power."

      "More stunning is that President Bush has asked Republican Senators to...break the rules for such shockingly unqualified judges."

      "The Republicans are arrogant with power. If they don't like the rules, they break them."

      "Republicans in the Senate [are] considering throwing out 200 years of Senate history in order to pack the courts with right wing judges."

      These are some from Harry Reid that were diaried here yesterday.

      by Heartpine on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:50:23 AM PDT

      •  How about:

        "Once again, the radical Republicans show they don't understand the basis of our government, that they don't "get" democracy. They are a real danger to our freedom."

        This ain't rocket science.  It's the basic red-meat that our good doctor dished out on his campaign.  He knows how to do it and what to say.

        by leftyboy666 on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:48:47 AM PDT

        •  how about -

          Once Again,
          The Republicans
          DON'T get Democracy,
          DON'T get Checks and Balances,
          DON'T get Freedom,
          BECAUSE the Republicans --  
          DON'T trust the average guy,
          DON'T reign in the big guys,
          DON'T trust Democracy,
          DON'T trust Freedom

          now where is my 6 or 7 figure a year lifestyle? ;) rmm.

          by rmdewey on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:55:33 AM PDT

          •  Or maybe...

            Remember CHECKS AND BALANCES?

                    followed by

            SEPARATION OF POWERS - GOOD FOR OVER 200 YEARS

            by texasmom on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:20:33 PM PDT

  •  Because

    it shouldn't be their job to do the FoxNews-Hannity-Coulter-Limbaugh-style campaign to the American peple.  It should be the job of Air America, the blogs, RawStory, etc to shout this from the roof-tops.  The right-wing gets these things started with whacky comments by the GOP, then they slink into the background and let the talking heads take over for 2-4 weeks.

    That's when they're on offense.

    When Democrats make comments the Repugs don't like it goes right to the talking heads and bypasses the politicos.

    We need to have a coordinated effort among our talking heads and voices to push a consistent meesage (do Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Keith Olberman, and Raw Story et al IM each other through-out the day to talk about message?  They should, I guarantee the Repugs are).

    by ekeithj on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:05:33 AM PDT

  •  They have been

    Reid has been front and center on this for days, including today.  His latest (along with Pelosi, Kennedy and Schumer is right here. What more do you want Dems to do?  They have threatened repeatedly to shut down the Senate if the nuclear option is imposed.  They had a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court a few days ago.  They hold press conferences on this.  They have commented DAILY in the press.

    So tell me, what more do you want them to do?

    by Mary Julia on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:21:11 AM PDT

    •  The real problem is

      the press doesn't listen. Nor do they carry it.

      We need a cable station. NOW.

      by mmacdDE on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:18:29 PM PDT

  •  Concepts on which our government is based

    THESE REPUBLICANS DON'T UNDERSTAND THE MOST BASIC CONCEPTS ON WHICH OUR COUNTRY'S GOVERNMENT IS BASED!

    No, they're hoping the public doesn't.

    For anyone who wasn't paying attention in civics class, here are the concepts on which our governmentt was founded:

    1. I don't trust you and you don't trust me, but we need to work together. We know we're going to bend the rules and pull dirty tricks, but at least we're going to put these rules in writing.

    2. Look, we've been in Philadelphia the whole damn summer, this is the best we're gonna do. If we stay longer, it'll just get more complicated.

    3. If enough of us agree (in writing) we can change the rules later.
       

    by chimpy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:45:12 AM PDT

•  misunderstanding

  is he talking about President Bush?
  It sure seems like it since this is what Bush said today: "I believe in an independent judiciary."

  Man, these guys need to get on the same page, they're losing it.

  by MattBellamy on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:46:40 PM PDT

  •  Bush doesn't have any idea of what he's saying

    he's just doing the spin. They've got him doing the puppet job. It's all he's capable of.

    The ones to hit are the Legislative Republicans. Now it is truly Constitutional in scope. Theses were our worst fears, now they are true. It is now a political war to the end on a basic Constitutional question.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:51:12 PM PDT

    •  i agree

      this is a battle between the Tom Delay Republicans and the Judicial Branch.
      They simply have no respect for the law and that's partly why they have no problem breaking it in order to benefit themselves financially and politically.

      by MattBellamy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:04:23 AM PDT

      •  Joe McCarthy redux.

        DeLay's attack on the (predominantly conservative) judiciary reminds me of Joe McCarthy's attack on the Army (combined with threats of an attack on the Protestant clergy.)  I suspect the result will also be similar.

        by lysias on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:33:35 AM PDT

    •  The Supreme Court must

      be wondering what the heck they did when they installed Bush as Prez.   I hope they are happy with themselves.  In 5 short years, there interference in a "political question", has lead to this threat to an independent judiciary. In this case, no bad deed is going unpunished.  

      by TheLupo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:33:31 AM PDT

      •  It's called karma

        They were the ones who broke their own rules in selecting Bush as president, violating their past precedents. What that did was breed widespread contempt for the law and precedent among the GOP, as it basically enabled them to do their dirty work. I have no sympathy for those 5 who picked Bush - although, I do hope that the threats they face do not come to pass.

        by eugene on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:37:07 AM PDT

  •  Same old thing

    Bush lets the fringe run amok, then says something to contradict them.  He comes out looking reasonable and moderate.  Meanwhile, the whole argument has shifted rightward, and Bush's position becomes default.

    Remember the run-up to the Iraq War?  Bush let Cheney and others go around saying we don't need to go to the U.N.  After weeks of this, Bush said of course we'll go to the U.N.  So he goes, and doesn't give the process a chance to work, and we go to war anyway.  He cleverly shifted the debate from whether we should go to war to whether we should go to the U.N.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:13:45 AM PDT

•  These fascist fools

  need to go back to eighth grade Civics class and revisit the unit on "separation of powers." It's clear to me that they've completely lost the plot or, rather, want to exchange it for one penned by Mussolini.

  by GulfExpat on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:47:34 PM PDT

•  I have a spare Schoolhouse Rock video

  that I can send to DeLay.  It explains in simple words the concept of checks and balances.  Perhaps we could have skit on the White House steps re-enacting the songs?

  by Fabian on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:50:27 PM PDT

  •  okay, but

    What's the check that balances judicial power?

    by Adam B on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:11:36 AM PDT

    •  Well that's what judges can beimpeached

      for: taking bribes!

      Perhaps the Republicans should try the carrot instead of the stick?

      by Fabian on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:51:20 AM PDT

    •  The ability...

      To pass a constitutional amendment if a constitutional decision that is disagreed with is made, and the ability to amend a statute if an "erroneous" statutory interpretation decision is made?  Not an easy-to-implement check, but a check nonetheless.

      by profmatt on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:18:56 AM PDT

      •  Exactly

        There are already processes available to combat alleged judicial overreach.  The Republicans just want to replace the judges.

        by Adam B on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:59:22 AM PDT

  •  This would be a GREAT diary.

    Put up the text of the Schoolhouse Rock video. It's a simple, easy to understand explanation of how things work, and it rhymes! Perhaps even DeLay could understand it. I'll recommend that diary. Hell, I'd recommend that it be frontpaged so that all the pundits that sneak over here can see it too.

    I mean, this could be a real rallying cry. "You mean, Mr. DeLay, that you don't understand concepts so simple that they can be explained in a children's video? Perhaps you need some remedial work. Now, how does that Schoolhouse Rock song go? Sing it with me."    

    by Heartpine on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 08:58:29 AM PDT

    •  Just one problem

      There is no such Schoolhouse Rock song!  I just looked at the lyrics but none explicitly mentions the three branches of goverment.  Which is really strange, because I could swear there is such a beast.  

      waaaaaa!

      by Fabian on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:24:59 AM PDT

      •  Oh well.

        Maybe we could write our own. :)

        by Heartpine on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:16:15 AM PDT

        •  GO FOR IT!

          by Fabian on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:37:32 AM PDT

•  I share the opinions of

  Andrew Cohen on this one.  I'd love to see the GOP take on the judiciary and fall flat on its face.

  by ohwilleke on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:51:54 PM PDT

•  Say what?!

  "completely independent judiciary" Say what?  Wait a minute here, the judiciary is one of three co-equal branches of the government, deefined by the constitution.

  Further, the power of the judiciary was spelled out quite well in Marbury vs Madison.

  The Republican leaders are largely lawyers. Is the need for mollifying the fanatical religious right so urgent that otherwise sensible men would try and bandy around catchy if inaccurate hyperbole?

  Kos, I trust you have seen the posting at Atrios about the frenzy in the realm of our American "Taliban" entitled Gilead, 9th posting down  It seems to me that the pubbies are going stark raving bonkers.

  Whether it's the frenzy over Kline's twisted views, or this judicary issue, I think John conyers has it right, more or less.  The Repubs are about to do a Peter Pan off from a very high ledge!

  by boilerman10 on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:54:19 PM PDT

  •  Marbury v Madison

    "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
       --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

    by bluestateLIBertarian on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:00:42 AM PDT

    •  An interpretation

      The idea that the judiciary is to be an equal branch is as old as the Constitution. The idea that the Supreme Court, along with other federal courts, can determine constitutionality of laws is something that virtually all Americans have agreed upon since 1803. That's 202 years of precedent. I think you give aid and comfort to the enemy to support throwing that out the door.

      Further, even with this system the Courts aren't the final arbiter - because Congress and the State Legislatures can always re-write the Constitution.

      by eugene on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:17:35 AM PDT

    •  Jefferson lost

      And we're not going back.  We're certainly not going to go back to before 1803, when there was no judicial review.  I can't imagine anyone longing for that.  Do you really want to live in a country where Congress can pass any damn law it wants with no mechanism for the courts to strike it down?  Because if so, get ready for the United States of Evangelica.

      There is an independant judiciary.  There should be an independent judiciary.  There will be an independant judiciary.  If Republicans don't like independant judges, they should run for office in some other country.  Like...I don't know...Iran?

      by IGrantius on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:31:26 AM PDT

    •  This absolutely drives me up the wall

      I have never in my life heard a Democrat say we shouldn't have an independent judiciary.  Not when Planned Parenthood v. Casey came down.  Not after Bush v. Gore.  I mean, never.  I heard a lot of grousing about the decisions (which was entirely merited), and I heard a lot of talk of political fights, but I never heard anyone say, let's impeach those judges!  Or, let's strip them of their power!  Just the opposite.  I saw Al Gore, in what has to be his finest moment, stand in front of TV cameras and say that in America, we abide the decisions of our courts.

      Our poltical system depends on a certain bare minimum respect for the rules.  One of them is that laws have to pass Constitutional muster, as defined by the courts.  Don't like it?  You always have the option to change the Constitution if you can.  But no Congress can simply declare that it won't abide by the Constitution.  That it suddenly  doesn't like judges.  

      I mean, for godsakes.  The Constitution is America.  America is its law.  What else is it?  To say you suddenly don't wish to abide by it is to say you do not want to live in this nation, but in another.  And for a Congressman to say that, and to actively work for it, is about as unAmerican an activity as I can imagine.  Someone go dig up McCarthy.  We need to ferret out some traitors.  

      by IGrantius on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:55:51 AM PDT

      •  America is the Bible... Not.

        >>The Constitution  is  America.  America  is  its law.  What else is it?<<

        The Bible.  Or rather thier self-annoited preacher's interpretation of it.  I thought that was obvious by now.

        by chrismorgan on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:12:56 AM PDT

        •  Divine Providence

          America is their new jerUSAlem.

          by Othniel on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:20:38 AM PDT

    •  Federalist Paper #51

      In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.

      It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal.

      by Fro on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:59:21 AM PDT

    •  Read that quote carefully.

      All Jefferson was saying is that the federal judiciary cannot order the other branches of government to take certain positive actions.  That is very different from saying that the federal judiciary cannot pass judgment on the constitutionality of those other branches' actions.    In fact, the last sentence of the Jefferson quote, "[The] judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department," closely read, implies that they do have that power.

      by lysias on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:46:26 AM PDT

  •  The prior writer said that

    "The Republican leaders are largely lawyers. Is the need for mollifying the fanatical religious right so urgent that otherwise sensible men would try and bandy around catchy if inaccurate hyperbole"

      But that they were lawyers.  They are exterminators and doctors and insurance agents and so called businessmen... All professions that want to eliminate the rights of others to seek redress in the courts.   Remember this...if we kill all the lawyers, there will be no one to stop these morons.   As to the morons who are attorneys like the junior Senator from Texas (a former district court and Supreme Court judge), more shame on them.  What kind of person is this Senator?  Judge Lefkowitz family was murdered because of rules already past by Congress and the Federal judiciary that deny the public its day in court in favor of the monied classes (doctors, businesses, etc).  When will all of these politicians figure out that if you do not give people a forum to air their differences, we will go back to settling differences in the street?  These politicians attitudes are going to bring us all closer to anarchy and domestic terrorism than any bin laden driven plot.

    by TheLupo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:43:07 AM PDT

    •  My husband says

      this is what we should expect when "attorney" is used as a perjorative in campaign literature.  A lot of folks think voting for a lawyer is a sin nowadays.  

      Think exterminators have to pass Constitutional Law?

      by texasmom on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:27:09 PM PDT

•  That's not how the Constitution sees it!

  Per uscourts.gov:

  From Article III:

  
  The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

  From today's courts...

  
  The Founding Fathers of the nation considered an independent federal judiciary essential to ensure fairness and equal justice for all citizens of the United States. The Constitution they drafted promotes judicial independence in two major ways. First, federal judges are appointed for life, and they can be removed from office only through impeachment and conviction by Congress of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Second, the Constitution provides that the compensation of federal judges "shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office," which means that neither the President nor Congress can reduce the salary of a federal judge. These two protections help an independent judiciary to decide cases free from popular passion and political influence.

  And then there's the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges

  
  A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

  A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

  A judge should perform the duties of the office impartially and diligently.

  A judge may engage in extra-judicial activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

  A judge should regulate extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial duties.

  A judge should regularly file reports of compensation received for law-related and extra-judicial activities.

  A judge should refrain from political activity.
  

  On being beholden to the majority party in Congress

  Nope. Nothing in either Congress nor in longstanding custom that says anything of the sort.

  In fact, a judge is supposed to be above such petty concerns.

  But being petty is what it's all about these days.

  by cskendrick on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:57:38 PM PDT

  •  However, since

    "...federal judges are appointed for life, and they can be removed from office...through impeachment and conviction by Congress of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

         isn't it in fact accurate to say that
    they aren't "completely independent"? It seems to me that if they were, then they couldn't be legally removed by
    any means, even if they committed crimes,
    i.e. they would be independent even from the law.

         [I know, I know, we know what he likely  meant - "It's perfectly legal to get rid of judges who don't agree with us," but I'm being nitpicky and just critiquing what he said. (Like when Scalia said that the American people don't vote for President: technically true - we vote for slates of electors - but infuriating because he really meant, "Shut up and get over it.")]

        In other words they're "pulling a Scalia":
    saying something semantically accurate but meaning
    quite another thing by it, thus making any
    attack against it seem ridiculous (other examples would be the "multilateral
    coalition" of the Iraq War and "bipartisan support" where some DINO crosses the aisle.)

        Further is there any viable response to this tactic, or are we just s.o.l.?

                                     SR
    

    by SergeiRostov on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:57:23 PM PDT

•  V for Vendetta

  "These people" are most definitely not crazy.

  Or crazy like a fox, maybe.

  With a few "bumps" on the road (eg: the poll results on the Schiavo case), they are proceeding according to plan, without deviation.

  We are all very much aware of their goals: the establishment of a virtual one-party neo-fascist state with a token, emasculated opposition.

  They were modern media in Spain, Argentine, Chile, etc. and with a few rare exceptions of reporters later "disappeared", they all learned very quickly to toe the line. Check.

  Ditto with judges.  Work in progress.

  Ditto with the security/police forces. Purged the CIA. Almost done with the FBI.

  You want to see the future: read Alan Moore's V FOR VENDETTA.

  England prevails.

  by Lupin on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 11:59:03 PM PDT

•  I think you misunderstood

  what Mr. Lungren meant by "our system". I believe he was speaking of the system inaugurated by Il Duce a few decades past, not the "obsolete" system put in place by a few "liberals" of the 18th century. After all, Mussolini's boys wore black too. Mr. Lungren's new judiciary will be similarly attired

  by cavanaghjam on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:00:17 AM PDT

•  No big surprise. Check out the video ....

  This does not surprise me in the least. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. and his kind are living in a special hell they have created for themsleves. We live in Milwaukee, WI. right next door is Waukesha County which is Sensenbrenner land. It is the rectum of all that is neo-con.

  The district attoney for the county believe's and has put it in writing that the only time a coporation "might" mind you commit a crime is when someone dies. Even then they might be innocent. GAAAAAH!

  It's no big suprise at all. If your really interested Kos in seeing the people who are Sensebrenners supporters. There is a video which will be online until midnight Sunday called "The Inquisitor's" which was produced during the 1992 to 1993 abortion protest in Milwaukee. Milwaukee people defended the clinic. The anti's were inported from Waukesha County everyday to plac the clinics under seige.

  You can if you want download the zip file, unpack it and put up in the sidebar so eveyone on DailyKos who has a high speed connection can watch it. It's free and does not require any copyright permission for you to do this. We know because We made it. Now it's time for sites like yours to show the world the real face of the neo-con's.

  by hmsjo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:00:55 AM PDT

  •  Not neo-cons

    These are a different breed. Frankly, neo-cons aren't this destructive at home. The Bush administration which is the center of gravity for the neo-cons has distanced themselves from this. This isn't philosopher kings and Nobel lies.

    This is far cruder, more blunt, more destructive. This goes way beyond simply proclaiming one's self the chosen elite who are fit to receive truth. Neo-cons don't like Democracy, but they respect it's institutions for lake of anything better.

    These people aren't an exclusive club of rulers, they're a mob, a mujahideen intent on wiping out anything that stands between them and their goals. In short, they make neo-cons look like damn sissies. My personal term for them has been ultra-cons, but these days barbarian hordes seems just as apt.

    by Goldfish on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:25:08 AM PDT

  •  Sensenbrenner

    is one big reason I do not miss my hometown all that much.  I'm so glad I'm out of his district.

    What a shock to learn his staff is even loopier than he.  Sensenbrenner is a walking advertisement for proportional representation--I can't imagine being a liberal stuck in his district these days.  Shudder.

    by Chicago Jason on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:29:27 AM PDT

•  Missing the point

  It is not that "these republicans don't understand the most basic concepts on which our country's government is based."

  They understand them just fine.

  It is that these republicans do not give a FUCK what the Constitution says, what public opinion says, or what basic human decency dictates.

  This isn't about some re-interpretation of judicial activism (what a bullshit, poll-tested phrase that is), it's about a power grab.  PLAIN. AND. FUCKING. SIMPLE.

  by ziggy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:04:25 AM PDT

  •  Ziggy

    you have hit the nail on the head!

    by TheLupo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:46:51 AM PDT

  •  Since business benefits from the rule of law,

    these extremists are going to be slapped down, by the very people that wield the real power inside the Republican Party.

    by lysias on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:54:11 AM PDT

    •  Fingers crossed

      Sure hope you're right.

      by Chicago Jason on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 10:31:48 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    They think their judgement is better than anyone else's.  They want to make themselves judge, jury and executioner.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:16:51 AM PDT

    •  hmm..

      i agree with the second part, not so sure about the first.

      I think it is more likely they don't CARE if their judgment is right, wrong, or better than anyone else's... just so long as they benefit from it in the short term.

      while i admit that some in the administration probably do believe the bullshit they are spinning is in fact the "best way to go" for the country, more likely is that they don't give a tumbling fuck if they are right or wrong... as long as they get to line their pockets, oppress women/gays/minorities, etc.

      by ziggy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:58:27 PM PDT

•  Sorry hit the post it button.

  The URL for this video download is http://www.toxicreality.com. Check it out Kos and do everyone still sane in this country a favor and put it up on the DailyKos. You will not be disappointed. The video is intense.

  by hmsjo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:05:24 AM PDT

  •  I just d/l your vid

    grrrrrrr.

    I'm so sick and tired of these lunatics.

    Do you know any of these 'morans' names?

    I'd like to know who the young cheerleader in the white shirt is waving his hands in the air.

    I'm need to go for a walk to calm down.

    Thanks for the link I think.

    grrrrrr

    by AnonymousArmy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:59:14 PM PDT

•  This is simply incomprehensible

  I work in democracy and governance programming abroad, much of which involves comparative law.  Discussions invariably include very detailed examinations of the development of legal systems, constitutional foundations, etc.  

  I daresay that the folks that I deal with - the overwhelming majority of whom having never put foot in the US and who speak zero English - have a far better understanding of the American constitution than do DeLay and his colleagues.

  I shudder to think of the queries that I will face the next time I walk into a seminar...

  Maybe it is time to start thinking about holding these seminars on the Hill, rather than in the far-flung corners of the globe.

  by Wayward Wind on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:10:10 AM PDT

  •  Just tell your students

    It's an attempted legislative coup d'etat. They've happened in other democracies, though it's been awhile since there was a bloodless coup (attempted or successful) in a first world nation. But the law of averages said it was going to happen here eventually. If we survive this, it will be a true testament to the stability of our system, the kind which we have not seen in a very long time.

    by Goldfish on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:30:42 AM PDT

•  Who is really running this attack...

  This is much more complicated and coordinated than it appears on the face of things.

  Attacking the judiciary is the current top agenda for the Dominionists per Bob Moser in The Crusadersin Rolling Stone.

  It's a terrific, but scary article that details the Dominionists agenda. Hint: they are well armed, have tons of cash, a legion of believer lawyers, and a direct line to the White House and Congress. No make that many lines to Congress.

  I have no idea how to even begin to blunt their assault. But we have to do something because they are serious 0-- and seriously scary.
  

  by Mags on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:22:16 AM PDT

  •  Crusader's article

    This is the scariest thing I've ever seen.

    Fighting back... how about a list of Dominionists who have commercial interests along with the name of their business, and related businesses?

    This type of list was successful generating action and publicity when Sinclair networks announced the airing of the anti-Kerry film right before the election. I'd be delighted (frothing at the mouth with eagerness, actually) to email all the advertisers, mutual funds holding that stock, etc. of those on the list. I can't wait to tell them why I won't buy their product, since the proceeds support a group with the self-declared intent to subvert the constitution.

    4fx

    by 4fx on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 09:30:24 AM PDT

•  Michael Moore needs to do another film

  Really.  There needs to be a high-profile response, one that will attract a lot of publicity.  Moore could do it.  Call it "Independence Pray"  -  about church and state, including Shaivo and the judges.
   

  by CathiefromCanada on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:24:32 AM PDT

•  The neo-con's don't believe because...

  1. for them the rule of law in too inconvenient and gets in the way of the new world economy.
     
  2. the unstated agenda is to destroy the Constitution as it now exists.
     
  3. in order to do this they will attempt to create a constitutional crisis of unbelievable magnitude.
     
  4. they will then declare martial law on the moral claim that as god's appointed they need to maintain order amid the chaos they created.
     
  5. they will then rewrite the rules to make America a Theocratic fascist state rule by wealth without accountability or any social responsibility.
     
  6. the American public will by fear, imitation or just plain ignorance accept this stupidity without protest.
     
  7. this new America will not last long since the rest of the world will rise up in revolt and declare America an outlaw state.
     
  8. the ensuing world war to destroy and conquer America will be the end of the golden age of humanity. since after that resources will be even harder to find, manufacture and ship to markets.

  the danger is very real and is going to happen within the next year and half.
  

  by hmsjo on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:26:26 AM PDT

•  John Adams on Judges

  Judges, therefore, should be always men of learning and experience in the laws, of exemplary morals, great patience, calmness, coolness, and attention. Their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests; they should not be dependent upon any man, or body of men.
  John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

  

  by BOHICA on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:28:34 AM PDT

•  Randall Terry - Scarbourgh Factor

  My sense is that they're trying to pander to the 30% of the Radical Fundies who wanted intervention into Schiavo.  Remember polls showed that 53% of Evangelicals/Born Agains said it was wrong to get involved.

  Terry said "there will be HELL to pay."  That the pols had used and betrayed the fundie base.  Delay did the stupid thing of saying on Scarbourgh's show that he would hold Judge Greer in contempt if he didn't obey the Subpoenas.  And then when Delay back down, Scarbourgh started to scream that Delay had failed Terry and "her supporters."

  I think they're afraid that the fundies will stay home next year.  And they're now scrambling to placate them.

  by Al Rodgers on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:35:22 AM PDT

  •  And How! (n/t)

    by Goldfish on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:32:47 AM PDT

•  "Get out your notebook - Kennedy's life is..

  To paraphrase Deep Throat: "Get out your notebook, Justice Kennedy's life is in danger."

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/9/01434/54613

  "Unfortunately, at the present time federal judges across the country are feeling particularly vulnerable, not only for themselves, but also for their families," said a letter from the Judicial Conference of the United States, the court's policy-making board led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

  Rehnquist is asking for $12 million for security

  http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/11333686.htm

  by Al Rodgers on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:42:07 AM PDT

  •  O'Connor spoke about Death Threats