Thursday, May 12, 2005

The Chappaquidick Hero strikes again

I must say, at least this time he didn't stumble over his words as much.

Listen to Teddy!
Sound bite from RushLimbaugh.com Hat Tip: firefighter4bush

Most of the time when he opens his mouth, it sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher speaking to me. You know, "Blahhh, blah-blah.. blah".

Yesterday, Kennedy made what MSM reporters are calling a "scathing" speech on the Senate floor. Instead of boring you to tears with his entire speech, I'll break it down for you. Basically, Teddy was whining and accusing the GOP Senate leadership of bulldozing over the intentions of the nation's founders by attempting to eliminate the Senate's only way of blocking a vote.

[sarcasm]
Yes, he is so right! I'm sure that our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves because the GOP leadership is trying to prevent the Dems from filibustering judicial nominees. I'm so glad that Teddy is so in touch with what our Founding Fathers would have wanted.
[/sarcasm]

The only person Teddy is in touch with is himself. Ewww.. Strike that. I don't want that image stuck in my mind.

Anyway.. back to Teddy's "scathing" performance yesterday. In addition to the speech, Kennedy, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, laid out an 11-page statement documenting the unsuccessful efforts of past presidents who tried to diminish the Senate's power on judicial appointments.

Way to go, Teddy.. that should stop that ole mean GOP. Show them how everyone in the past was unsuccessful. *shiver* I'm sure it gave them all cold chills.


"Throughout our history, the Senate has structured its processes to reflect its unique powers," Kennedy said. "For such irreversible steps as conferring lifetime judicial authority, it has given its minority the ability to protect our republic from the combined tyranny of a willful executive branch and an equally willful and like-minded small majority of senators."
Combined tyranny? Oooh... guess I wasn't supposed to be laughing at that point. Guess I shouldn't laugh at the "small majority" part either. Small majority? Uhmm.. last time I checked, when you are talking about a majority... it's not usually considered small. It's the majority of the group, Teddy.

In my opinion, if there is any tyranny going on.. it's the Democratic minority (See, no need to say "small" minority, Teddy.. that's kind of understood) that is preventing an up or down vote on Judicial nominees. But, Teddy and I don't really see eye-to-eye on anything. So I can see how our opinions could differ here. The main difference being that my opinion is the "right" one.

Kennedy's speech comes in the midst of Republicans' attempting to eliminate the Senate's rule of needing 60 votes to end a debate in order for a vote to go forward on the floor. In the Senate, there are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one Independent. That Independent is Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont, a former Republican who votes with Democrats. You might as well consider him a Dem, but since he wants to cling to that Indy label, I digress.

In case some of you have been out of the loop for awhile, what this all boils down to is that by refusing to end debate, the Democrats are obstructing the ability to vote on seven nominations for appellate court judges. Some of these nominees have been waiting 4 years for an up or down vote!! These Dems can't stand the fact that they are the minority and will do anything to keep these nominees from being confirmed. Republicans could have used this tactic in the past, but they have not and they won't. (No matter what liberal websites or blogs are telling you out there.)


"The president's views on this are well known," Alan Abney, a spokesman for the White House, said yesterday. "He just thinks these judicial nominees should get an up or down vote."
GOP Senate Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has said the same. He is leading the charge in the Senate to end the right to a filibuster, which is seen as a top priority for most party conservatives.


"To me, it's common sense, and it has to do with principle, and that is that each of these nominees deserve an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," Frist told reporters. "Confirm them or reject them, vote yes or no, but allow them the courtesy of a vote."

Exactly... do something for Pete's sake. What am I saying... we should just talk about them for another four years, right Teddy?

Frist could end a filibuster simply by getting a favorable ruling from the chair, which would be occupied either by another Republican senator or by Vice President Dick Cheney. Democrats would challenge the ruling, at which point it could be affirmed by a simple majority of the Senate. Simple and sweet, right?


"I'm also committed to overcoming the minority's filibuster and restoring this 220 years or more of Senate tradition and history," Frist said, according to a recording made by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "The minority broke the tradition, they violated the founders' intent and we will bring the president's nominees up for a vote and we will confirm them."
We're waiting, Senator Frist... Maybe not patiently, but we are waiting.

Removing the use of filibusters probably would set the stage for the biggest judicial fight of Bush's presidency... filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Though none of the nine justices has announced any intention to leave, Chief Justice William Rehnquist's battle with thyroid cancer has prompted speculation that he could decide to retire when the court's current term ends in June.

Kennedy said that the appointments to the federal appeals courts are critical because most of the Supreme Court justices come from the federal court.


"Now the president wants to pack key appellate courts, in a trial run for doing the same to the Supreme Court, with activist ideological judges he knows could not possibly command a bipartisan consensus in the Senate," Kennedy said.
Kennedy said it is the Senate's obligation to block an "overreaching abuse of power by the White House and the Republican majority."


"History will judge us harshly in the Senate if we don't stand tall against the brazen abuses of power demonstrated by these nominees," Kennedy said of the president's nominations.
Brazen abuses of power??? These nominees?? Teddy, I don't think you are in any position to judge anyone. You aren't fit to sit in the presence of these people. We can only hope that history will judge YOU harshly, Mr. Kennedy. I've heard enough... go jump in the lake, or maybe you would prefer a pond.